‘Pernicious conduct’: Kerala High Court slaps Rs 50,000 costs on advocates for stalling case over fees

“It is quite disturbing to note that two members of the noble profession of law had filed a writ petition of this nature and successfully stalled the disbursement of the decretal amount to the rightful claimants, for almost ten months,” the April 8 order read. 

The high court noted that the case revealed “disconcerting instances” for the legal fraternity, where an advocate who had earlier appeared for a litigant attempted to halt execution proceedings, citing non-payment of fees.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas pointed out that the nobility of the legal profession depends on those who practise it.

Calling the legal profession “noble”, the court observed that its nobility depends on those who practise it. “If members of the legal profession conduct themselves in a manner prejudicial to the interests of their clients, the facade of nobility will be torn. The profession can ill afford that,” it added. 

From representation to stalling 

The high court noted that the petitioners were practising advocates who had been associated with a land acquisition case since 2004, initially assisting and later formally representing the claimants.

After the state deposited part of the award amount, disputes arose regarding legal fees. The claimants alleged that despite having already paid more than Rs 25 lakh, the first petitioner demanded an additional Rs 1 crore and refused to proceed with the case unless paid.

Consequently, the claimants engaged new advocates, who filed fresh vakalath before the executing court, which was accepted.

Handled with a stern hand

• The high court clarified that an advocate has no right to halt the legal proceedings until his fee claim is settled. The advocate cannot demand that he be permanently engaged in a litigation by the litigant till its culmination.
• If, in case any fee is due to an advocate, and if the client refuses to pay, his remedy is to initiate appropriate legal remedies. 
• An advocate has no lien over the case bundles or the proceedings. Since an advocate cannot have any right to be permanently engaged by a client, he cannot, after his engagement is terminated, dictate, control or navigate the proceedings in the case. 
• The high court also pointed out that “even worse” is the situation when an advocate, after termination of engagement, attempts to stall the very proceeding in which he earlier appeared, adding that such conduct is an affront to the very nobility of the profession and has to be dealt with a stern hand.
• The High Court directed the petitioners to pay the costs of Rs 50,000 to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within six weeks. 

Expectations from advocate 

The high court clarified that an advocate is an officer of the court. He is expected, at all times, to comport himself in a manner befitting his status not only as an officer but also as a civil person.

In this context, the high court pointed out that the relationship between an advocate and a client is a fiduciary relationship with utmost trust and faith, enveloping the whole relationship. 

The court further added that no advocate is entitled to exploit the litigant, especially with regard to the fee. It was also pointed out that in case such exploitation is carried out, the litigant is entitled to initiate proceedings before the Bar Council of India for professional misconduct. 

It was pointed out that if an advocate refuses to relinquish his vakalath, the litigant must be given the freedom to engage another advocate with the permission of the court.