Understanding the Canons of Professional Conduct etiquette
Tribunal’s observation regarding extortion of exorbitant fees from the complainant has no basis at all-There is no schedule of fees to be realised from the client-Professional misconduct not defined in the Order- Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the amount of fees an Advocate should realise from a client-Every breach of the canons of professional conduct and etiquette cannot attract the mischief of professional misconduct.
Fees of a lawyer vary from lawyer to lawyer depending upon many factors. Even if the appellant had given wrong advice it would not ipso facto amount to any professional misconduct as the complainant has failed to make out a case that with an evil design or malafide motive for some gain the lawyer entangled him in an unnecessary litigation.
In the absence of any specific provision of law regarding realisation or fixation of fees for legal service, realisation or fixing fees is nothing but a contract between the lawyer and the client.
There is no legal bar in PO No. 46 of 1972 to effect a compromise between the parties before the Tribunal since the misconduct complained of is not a non-compoundable criminal offence.
The parties, therefore, may effect a compromise in a case of this nature before the Tribunal provided it is made bona fide with the consent of the parties and the Tribunal and it is not against any law or public policy.
Md Raushan Ali vs Bangladesh Bar Council 42 DLR 201.
Fees paid to a lawyer for professional services is not a loan-The complainant was not entitled to receive back from the appellant any single farthing-The amount of Taka 10,000 received from the appellant is not as a refund of money paid but as a compromise sum.
Tribunal’s manner of acceptance of the case on a matter in which amicable settlement was reached between the parties out of their free will and without prejudice to any one disapproved.
Md Raushan Ali vs Bangladesh Bar Council 42 DLR 201.
Article 32(1)-
Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette
“(I) An Advocate shall not acquire an interest adverse to a client in the property or interest involved in the case.”
Held: A client does not always have a proprietary interest in the suit property. He may have possessory interest.
Further Held: On a discussion of the evidence on record that the appellant’s various defences have fallen into pieces. Reprimand is the mildest punishment that can be meted out to an Advocate found guilty of professional or other misconduct. Suspension from practice is a sentence of a higher degree but it really belongs to the intermediate class of punishment. Removal from practice is the ultimate punishment that can be meted out to a delinquent Advocate.
No reason is visible why the intermediate punishment should now be relegated to the softest one. From the moment he received the legal notice from the bank up to the present moment his (the appellant’s) attitude is one of defiance, contest and challenge. He has no regrets, no remorse, no repentance either. He has chalked out a path of destructive self-justification. He must pay for his defiance. No extenuating circumstances whatsoever to reduce the sentence is noticed. Appeal is therefore dismissed.
HR Talukder vs District Manager, Public Bank 40 DLR 170.
Article 34-
If a lawyer is found to be careless in rendering legal advice in the course of his professional duty, he would be liable in negligence. Lawyers of this country are under the obligation to act reasonably and carefully in discharging their professional duties except so far it relates to actual advocacy in a Court of law otherwise he will be liable to his client either in negligence for breach of contract or in tort.
Islamia Automatic Rice Mills Ltd vs Bangladesh Shilpa Rin Sangstha and others 55 DLR 463.
Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1974
Rule 57-
Suspension of an Advocate- The Tribunal of the Bar Council was not required to give the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before exercising the power to suspend an Advocate. The suspended Advocate is however always at liberty to pray for varying or rescinding the order of suspension by showing cause to their satisfaction. As the rule itself has made the provision for suspension, no illegality was committed by the impugned order.
Majiruddin Ahmed vs Bar Council 45 DLR 35.
Rule 66(1)-
A person who is not a member of Bar Association according to Rule 66(1) does not acquire any right to practice as an Advocate, and as such, his right to vote in the Bar Council election does not arise.
Muslim Ali (Md) vs Dhaka Bar Association and others 51 DLR 446.