The word ‘Professional Misconduct’ implies unethical actions. It implies, in the legal sense, an act intentionally committed by the people involved in the profession with the wrong intention. For his selfish ends, it implies any action or actions of an advocate in breach of professional ethics. It leads to ‘professional misconduct’ if an act results in a conflict with his profession and renders him ineligible to be in the profession. In other words, an act that disqualifies an advocate from continuing in the field of law.
In the Advocates Act, 1966, misconduct was not specified, but misconduct envisages infringement of discipline, although it would not be possible to set out exhaustively what would constitute misconduct and indiscipline, which, however, is broad enough to include wrongful omission or commission, whether done or omitted to be done intentionally or unintentionally.

It has been concluded In Re Tulsidas Amanmal Karim that any behaviour that in any way renders a person unfit for the exercise of his profession or is likely to influence or embarrass the administration of justice by the High Court or any other subordinate court may be regarded as misconduct.
In the case of a judge, if a lawyer’s behaviour is such that it makes him incapable of becoming a member of the honourable legal profession and unable to be entrusted with the responsible duties that a lawyer is called upon to perform, he would be guilty of errors.
Thus, two tests were laid down following this case:—
(a) The conduct of the advocate is such that, in order to remain a member of the honourable profession, he must be treated as unworthy.
(b) The lawyer’s conduct is such that it must be deemed unfit to be entrusted with the responsible duties which the lawyer is called upon to perform. These two tests have been interpreted as disjunctive and thus the fulfillment of any one of the
said criteria will be appropriate to regard the behaviour as misconduct.

1. Jagadish Singh &other v.T.C.Sharma

CITATION: BCI TR Case No.47/1990

Jagadish singh and others were employees of the Central Board of Education,New Delhi.They were arbitrarily dismissed from service by the Board. They approached T.C. Sharma an Advocate to file a case against the arbitrary dismissal. They paid Rs.1400 as fees for the case. Sharma gave a fake case number starting that he has field the case before the central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. On verification it was found that no such case has been field. Later they engaged another Advocate Mr. Bhati to file the case and got a a favorable order of reinstatement.

Judgment:

Therefore, they asked the return of Rs.1400 from T.C. Sharma. He refused to paythe same. So, the complainant filed a petition against him before the Delhi Bar Council alleging professional misconduct. Since Sharma failed to appear during the enquiry, the state Bar Council could not able to dispose off the case within one year. Hence, the case was transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council of India examined the petitioners, but the respondent was absent. Finally the Bar council of India passed an orderholding the respondent guilty of professional misconduct and awarded

the following punishments.1. Suspended him from practice for a period of 5 years. 2. Directed him to return the Rs.1400/-with 12%interest per annum. 3. Directed to give Rs.500 as cost to the complainant.

2. Bablal v.Subash Jain

Citation: BCI TR Case No.115/1986

The complainant and the Respondent are Advocates. The complainant filed a petition before the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council stating that the respondent to guilty of professional misconduct under s.35.

Issues:

The allegation of the complainant is that the respondent a practicing lawyer, is working as an Editor , Printer and Publisher of a weekly called “Aaj Ki Janta’’ He is the owner of the press which prints the weekly. It is also alleged that the respondent did not disclose these facts while applying for enrolment to the State Bar Council.

The respondent denied all the allegations. He contended that before enrolment, the job of printing and publishing was transferred to his wife and thereafter he was working only as an editor of the said weekly. Since the enquiry was not completed within one year, the case was transferred to the Bar Council of India. In the enquiry it was found that he enrolled in 1973 and continued as the printer, publisher and editor of the weekly till 1983. Only in 1983 printing and publishing was transferred in the name of his wife. But, by a general power of attorney from his wife the respondent was looking after the entire work of the weekly. Based on this findings the Bar Council of India held that the respondent is guilty of professional misconduct punishable under S.35 of the Advocates Act and passed the

Judgement:

1. He was suspended from practice for a period of one year. 2. Suppression of the fact that he is the owner of the weekly in the enrolment application cannot be treated as professional misconduct punishable under S.35

3.Baswarooponi v.Babulalsoni

Citation: BCI DC Appeal No.25/1992

Babulalsoni is the father of Balswaroopsoni. He filed a complaint against his son alleging professional misconduct before the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council.

The Issues are as follows: 1. A criminal case under S.307 I.P.C. is pending against him. 2. while appearing as a defence counsel for one munna in a criminal case No.125/89 he has introduced his own brother as Dwarha Pradesh and arranged him to stand as surety for munna. 3. He has withdrawn a sum of Rs.1500 deposited in the court in the name of Babulalsoni in a civil case without his consent. Before the State Bar Council, Babulalsoni personally appeared and produced certain documentary evidence in support of his case but the present appellant did not appear though many chances are given to him. Finally the Bar Council held that Balswaroopsoni is guilty of professional misconduct and passed an order removing his name from the Advocates Roll.

Against this order Balswaroopsoni filed an appeal the Bar Council of India. In the appeal he denied all the allegations against him but, failed to produce any documentary evidence in his support. Regarding the second allegation he took a defence that munna brought one person and introduced him as Dwarakha Prasad. Believing Munna’swords only he also introduced him to the court as Dwarakha Prasad. This defence was not accepted by the Bar Council of India because Balswaroopsoni knows that the person brought by Munna Dwarakha Prasad. Regarding the third allegation he took the defence that he is also one of the plaintiff in the said case and his father has given power to withdraw that amount of Rs .1500/.But no documentary evidence insupport of this difference was produced by him.

Judgment:

After hearing the parties the Bar Council of India reduced the punishment and suspended him from practice for a period of 5 years.

4.Indure Ltd.v.Deo Raj Guptha

Citation: BCI TR Case No.58/1993

The complainant company is one of the highest producer ofash handling system in the world, having large manufacturing and engineering factories. The respondent was the Advocate of the company and various cases related to the company was entrusted with him. In April 1986 NELCO precisions, a company located at Faridabad gave a false advertisement in the papers that Indure Ltd. is using the parts manufactured by NELCO precisions.

To stop this false advertisement Indure Ltd. instructed the respondent to serve a legal notice to NELCO. Notice was sent, but the notice has not given the desired result. Therefore, the respondent was instructed to file a case against NELCO. A plaint was prepared and it was approved by the petitioner company and necessary court fees was also paid to him. The respondent informed the complainant that he has filed the suit in the Delhi High Court and got a stay order. Infact no suit had been filed.

The complainant filed a complaint in the Bar Council of U.P.alleging professional misconduct against the respondent. They alleged that the respondent had made a similar type of misrepresentation earlier also when he was instructed to file a case against Anoel Industries Ltd.A criminal complaint was also filed against Gupta in this regard.

Issues:

The respondent filed a very briefcounter and failed to give any explanation about the serious allegation of professional misconduct. He simply prayed that for the same matter there is already a criminal case pending against him, so the Bar Council should not proceed with the complaint. When the petition was pending before the Bar Council, the criminal case was disposed off and he was convicted. Since the U.P Bar Council could not able to complete the enquiry within one year the petition was transferred to the Bar Council of India.

Judgment:

The Bar Council of India examined the complainant and the respondent and finally came to the conclusion that the allegations against the respondent the complainant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and directed the removal of his name from the roll of Advocates and prohibited him from practicing as an Advocate.

5.Commisoner of Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Dept. v. Balakrishnan

Citation: DC Appeal No.15/1995

Mr.Chandrakanth of Villupuram has filed a writ petition No.10589/90 in the Madras High Court praying for the release ofa Van TAH 4777 which was ceased by the Special Thasildar, Dindivanam on 5- 7-1990. The writ petition was dismissed on 11-7-1990.The respondent

Mr.V.Balakrishnan was the Advocate for Mr.Chandrakanth in the writ petition .After the dismissal of the Writ petition. After the dismissal of the writ petition the respondent sent the following telegram to the District Revenue Officer, South Arcot. “High Court of Madras in writ petition No.10589/1990 filed by Chandrakanth directed the District Revenue Officer to release the van TAH 4777 with 100 bags of paddy within one week. Do not sell the paddy.

Judgment:

1.The order of the State bar Council was set aside. 2.He was found guilty of professional misconduct under S.35 of the Act. 3.The act sending wrong telegram misquoting the content of the court order is not an act fit for an Advocate and he was reprimanded with strong words.

6.Banumurthy v.Bar Council of Andhar Praadhesh

Citation: DC Appeal No.3/1994

The appellant was a member of the Andhar Pradesh Judicial service. When he was working as Metropolitan Magistrate at Hydrabad there were certain allegations of corruption against him. A departmental enquiry was conducted and e was served with an order of compulsory retirement and retired on 30-7-1991.

Issues:

Compulsory retirement he applied for resumption of practice. The State Bar Council referred the matter to the Bar Council of India because he had been found guilty by the departmental enquiry. The Bar Council of India returned the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council found him guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of 2 years. Against this order the present appeal has been filed.

Judgment:

When the appeal was pending, he was allowed to resume his practice from 6-4-1994 by some court order. Bar Council of India continued the enquiry and finally held that since 2 years has already lapsed since his punishment for corruption charges, he shall resume his practice

7. Dr.D.V.P.Raja v.D.Jayabalan

Citation: BCI DC Appeal No.43/1996

The appellant lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu alleging that the respondents application in the form of complaints addressed to various authorities amounts to professional to misconduct. The State Bar Council passed a resolution that there is a prima facie case of professional misconduct and it was placed before the Disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council for its adjudication.

Issues:

Before the Disciplinary Committee the respondent raised a preliminary issue that the Disciplinary Committee has no jurisdiction in this matter because there is no connection between his standing as lawyer and his representation to various authorities. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council also accepted this argument and dismissed complaint without going in to the merits of the complaint. The DisciplinaryCommittee held that there was no nexus or proximity in his standing as a lawyer and his to various authorities.

Against this order an appeal was filed before Bar Council of India. In the Bar Council of India it was argued that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu having passed a resolution that there is a prima facie case against the respondent, the Disciplinary Committee could not have dismissed the complaint without hearing it on merits.

Judgment:

After hearing both the sides the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has passed a resolution that there is a prima facie case to be enquired in to by the Disciplinary Committee has no power to consider the question of its jurisdiction on the matter. The decision of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu is good and valid.

8. G. M. Hirmani v.Iswarappa

Citation: BCI DC Appeal No. 30/1995

The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent. Mr.Iswarapa (a practicing lawyer) in the Bar Council of Karnataka alleging professional misconduct on the following grounds

Issues:.

1.The petitioner filed a partition suit against Grija Devi and Premadevi (O.S.No.293/87). The respondent Mr.Iswarappa was the general power of attorney holder of Smt. Girija Devi and Premadevi and also acted as Advocate for them in the said case. He misused his position as an Advocate and dominated the will of Girija Devi and Premadevi and purchased one portion of the suit property on 30-3-93 from them.

2. On 4-6092 Mr.Iswarappa took the signature of kirmani in a ten rupee bank bond paper promising to compromise the partition sui and thereafter committed theft of the same bond paper.

3. During the pendency of the partion suit Mr.Iswarappa often visited the house of the complainant in a drunken stage, through the complainant had asked him not to visit his house during the pendency of the suit.

4. Iswarappa has falsely filed a criminal case against the complainant (C.C.No.12/93) Which was dismissed after enquiry. During the enquiry Iswarappa admitted that he was the general power of attorney of GirijaDevi and Premadevi and has purchased their property for valuable consideration and paid the full amount and denied all other allegations.

Judgment:

The Bar Council of India also dismissed the appeal on the

following grounds

1. The complainant had failed to prove that Mr.Iswarappa took signature of the complainant on a blank bond paper.

2. He has failed to prove that Iswarappa has purchased the property by misusing his power of attorney.

3. He failed to prove that Iswarappa acted as an Advocate for Girija Devi Premadevi in the partition suit. Iswarappa produced evidence that he never acted as council of pemadevi and Girijadevi in the partition suit and one Mr.AtchuthaGiri was the Advocate for them in that partition suit. Thus the complainant had failed to establish a case of professional misconduct against the respondent.

9. N.S.(Appellant) v. K.V.(Respondent)

Citation: BCI DC Appeal No.14/198

The appellant was a Govt. Pleader and the respondent was a Senior Advocate of 33 years experience in the Madras High Court. On 12-11-1986 when he was going to the Bar Association, the appellant informed him that he madea mention of a case before a Judge in which respondent was appearing for the opposite party. The respondent told the appellant that he had not been previously informed about it and that he has no notice that the appellant is going to make a mention in the case; so“I will see to it’’. Immediately the appellant without any justification abused the respondent in a very bad manner using vulgar words.

Issues:

K.V. filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Tamilnadu. N.S.denied all the allegations, but admitted that heated exchange of words took place between them.

Judgment:

After examining both the parties, the Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of 6 months. N.S. challenged this order before the Bar Council of India. The main question in the appeal is whether the abusive language used by the appellant against the respondent would amount to professional misconduct. The Bar Council of India held that it amounts to professional misconduct but it held that the suspension of N.S. frompractice for a period of 6 months is not necessary and reprimanded with strong words.

10.P.R(Complainant)v.V.I(Respondent)

Citation: BCI TR Case No.101/1998

The complainant was the District Munisif Magistrate at Anakapalle from 19-11-84 to 8-4-85. The respondent was a practicing Lawyer there. The respondent was the Advocate for a respondent in a maintenance case. On 29-10-1985 when the case was called the Advocate as well as his client was absent, so ex-party order was passed. Therefore, the present respondent filed a contempt petition against the complainant(P.R) in his court.

Issues:

1.The High Court has passed transfer order to P.R. on 20-10- 1985 but, instead of handing over the charge and obey the order he continued there up to 8-11-1985 on certain pretest(arranged by him).

2.The complainant was wasting valuable time of the court and also the revenue of the Govt.P.R. referred this contempt petition to the District Judge. District Judge referred it to High Court. The court advised P.R. to lodge a complaint against V.I. before the State Bar Council for professional misconduct. Hence P.R. filed a complaint against the respondent alleging professional misconduct because he has filed contempt petition on false grounds under his signature against the presiding officer by name and bringing down the reputation of he presiding officer. The respondent also acted on his own and not under the instruction of his client.

Judgment:

The Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh after enquiry held that by filing the said contempt petition against the presiding officer with serious allegation, the respondent has committed professional misconduct. In the mean time the respondent was also selected and appointed as District Munsif Magistrate and he ceased to be an Advocate. So, the Bar Council expressed its inability to pass any order of punishment against him for professional misconduct. So, they forward this order and other records to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for necessary action.