These ethics are rules that govern a person’s or a group’s behaviour in a professional
setting. It establishes guidelines for how an individual should interact with other people
and institutions in a given setting.
The Advocates Act of 1961 governs the practise of law in India. In addition, Sections 3
and 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961, respectively, provide for the establishment of State Bar
Councils and the Bar Council of India.
Misconduct occurs when a person fails to follow professional norms or ethics. The
Advocates Act of 1961 makes no mention of professional misconduct. Even the Bar
Council is deafeningly silent about professional misconduct. Professional misconduct is
defined as unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially when perpetrated by a
professional.
In the legal sense, it refers to an act committed with the wrong intent by members of the
legal profession, such as betraying a client’s trust or attempting to commit fraud or
deceive the court, the adverse party, or his counsel.
In other words, professional misconduct is defined as any act that disqualifies an
Advocate from continuing in the legal profession.
What is professional misconduct?
The Supreme Court stated in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Ex.
Constable[1] that “misconduct in office” is defined as “unlawful behaviour or neglect by a
public officer that affects a party’s rights.” In addition, the court noted that professional
misconduct could include:
Moral Turpitude.
Wrongful or improper behaviour
Wilful and unlawful behaviour is a prohibited act
encroachment
The act complained of bears a forbidden quality or character due to
carelessness or negligence in the performance of duty.
The term “Professional Misconduct” is not defined anywhere in the Advocates Act, and
a standard definition is impossible to come up with. As a result, precedents in this area
are the only reliable source of information about what constitutes professional
misconduct.
Moral turpitude is an act or behaviour that offends the community’s sentiments or
accepted standards. No person shall be admitted as an advocate on a State roll if he has
been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, according to Section 24A of the
Advocates Act, 1961.
Furthermore, if a person who is already enrolled as an advocate commits such moral
turpitude, the Bar Council and its disciplinary committee can investigate the matter and
impose appropriate sanctions.
In the above-mentioned case, Justice K. Ramaswamy stated that any improper or
wrongful behaviour that is unlawful in nature and is done intentionally by a professional
person can be considered professional misconduct. Furthermore, professional misconduct
may result from the commission of any prohibited act or the violation of a clearly defined
rule of action or code of conduct.
Section 35
By prescribing standards of professional conduct and etiquette and exercising disciplinary
jurisdiction over the bar, the Bar Council serves as a regulatory body. The Council also
establishes standards for legal education and recognises universities whose law degrees
can be used to qualify for a position as an advocate.
The Bar Council of India and each State Bar Council have disciplinary committees to
exercise disciplinary jurisdiction. Every Bar Council must have a Disciplinary
Committee, according to Section 9 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Every disciplinary committee must have three members, two of whom must be elected by
the Council from among its members and the third must be co-opted by the Council from
among the advocates who possess the qualifications specified in the proviso to sub-
section (1). The committee’s Chairman will be chosen from among the three senior
members.
Section 35 of the Advocates Act of 1961 deals with the disciplinary powers of the
State Bar Councils and the punishment of advocates for misconduct.
Section 35[2] states that –
“Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to
believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other
misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee”.
Furthermore, the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council shall set a date for the
case to be heard and shall give notice to the advocate involved as well as the State’s
Advocate-General. After giving the advocate in question and the Advocate-General an
opportunity to be heard, the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council may decide on
the matter.
The Disciplinary Committee can issue the following orders: dismiss the complaint or
direct that the proceedings be filed if the complaint was filed at the request of the
State Bar Council.
Reprimand the lawyer.
Suspend the lawyer from practising for as long as it sees fit
Remove the advocate’s name from the State’s list of advocates.
When dealing with any case brought under this section, the Bar Council of India’s
disciplinary committee must follow the same procedure as set out in section 35. When it
comes to the Bar Council of India, notice must be given to both the concerned advocate
and the Attorney-General of India, which in the case of the State Bar Council is the State
Advocate-General.
Any person who is aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar
Council made under section 35 or by the Advocate-General of the State may appeal to the
Bar Council of India under section 37 within sixty days of the date of communication of
the order to him.
The Bar Council of India’s disciplinary committee will hear such an appeal. Furthermore,
any person who is still aggrieved by an order made by the Bar Council of India’s
disciplinary committee under section 36 or section 37, or the Attorney-General of India,
as the case may be, may file an appeal with the Supreme Court within sixty days of the
date on which the order is communicated to him, and the Supreme Court may pass such
order (including an order varying the punishments awarded by the disciplinary committee
of the Bar Council of India) thereon as it deems fit.
