<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (12) TMI 230 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200637</link>
    <description>An advocate cannot act simultaneously as a constituted attorney and as counsel in the same matter because the two roles are legally incompatible: a recognised agent stands in the litigant&#039;s shoes for procedural acts, while an advocate must remain independent and detached. The combination creates an inherent conflict of interest and undermines professional impartiality. For the same reason, a firm of advocates or solicitors cannot lawfully combine those roles through a partner holding a power of attorney for the same client in the same proceeding. Such conflicted vakalatnamas should not be accepted where the overlap exists, and the practice must be discontinued.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 18:03:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (12) TMI 230 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200637</link>
      <description>An advocate cannot act simultaneously as a constituted attorney and as counsel in the same matter because the two roles are legally incompatible: a recognised agent stands in the litigant&#039;s shoes for procedural acts, while an advocate must remain independent and detached. The combination creates an inherent conflict of interest and undermines professional impartiality. For the same reason, a firm of advocates or solicitors cannot lawfully combine those roles through a partner holding a power of attorney for the same client in the same proceeding. Such conflicted vakalatnamas should not be accepted where the overlap exists, and the practice must be discontinued.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200637</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>