Professional Ethics

MODULE 4

Contempt of Court Overview

Definition

Contempt of Court refers to actions that disrespect or defy the authority, dignity, or orders of a court,
undermining the administration of justice.

Provisions

 Governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

 Article 129: Empowers the Supreme Court to punish for its contempt.

 Article 215: Empowers High Courts to punish for their contempt.

Types

1. Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience to court orders, judgments, or decrees (e.g., ignoring an
injunction).

2. Criminal Contempt: Acts that scandalize or lower the court’s authority, interfere with
judicial proceedings, or obstruct justice (e.g., defamatory statements about judges).

Why Needed

 Maintains the court’s authority and public confidence in the judiciary.

 Ensures compliance with court orders for smooth justice delivery.

 Deters interference with judicial processes.

Case Law

 Rahul Gandhi Contempt Case (2019): BJP leader Meenakshi Lekhi filed a contempt plea
against Rahul Gandhi for misattributing his “Chowkidar chor hai” slogan to the Supreme
Court in the Rafale case. Gandhi offered an unconditional apology, accepted by the Court,
which closed the case, stressing accurate representation of court rulings.

 Prashant Bhushan Contempt Case (2020): The Supreme Court took suo motu action
against Prashant Bhushan for two tweets: one alleging the last four Chief Justices contributed
to democracy’s destruction, and another criticizing the Chief Justice for riding a costly
motorcycle during a court “lockdown.” Bhushan was held guilty of criminal contempt for
scandalizing the judiciary, fined ₹1, with a default penalty of three months’ imprisonment and
a three-year practice ban. He paid the fine but upheld his tweets as bona fide criticism.

Punishment

 Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Imprisonment up to 6 months, fine up to

₹2,000, or both.

 Courts may accept a sincere apology to remit punishment.

MODULE 3

Law as a Noble Profession

Justification

The legal profession is noble due to its pivotal role in promoting justice, protecting rights, and serving
society. Key reasons include:

1. Upholding Justice: Lawyers ensure fairness by advocating for the innocent and
marginalized, as seen in public interest litigations, maintaining societal order.

2. Protecting Fundamental Rights: They safeguard constitutional rights, like equality and
liberty, as exemplified in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), preserving
individual dignity.

3. Ethical Duty and Integrity: Governed by the Bar Council of India Rules, lawyers uphold
honesty and confidentiality, earning public trust.

4. Service to Society: Through pro bono work and social reform advocacy, like in Prashant
Bhushan Contempt Case (2020), lawyers prioritize public welfare.

5. Facilitating Dispute Resolution: By resolving conflicts through advocacy or mediation,

lawyers foster peace and stability.

6. Suggestions to law makers: They suggest improvement of reforms in existing laws.

Need for Professional Ethics in the Legal Profession

Need for Professional Ethics in the Legal Profession

Professional ethics are essential rules that guide lawyers to act with honesty, fairness, and
responsibility. In India, these are outlined in the Bar Council of India Rules and Advocates Act,
1961. They ensure the legal profession remains respected and effective. The need for professional
ethics is explained below:

1. Promoting Justice: Ethics ensure lawyers work honestly to support fair outcomes, preventing
misuse of the law.
2. Building Public Trust: Ethical behavior, like keeping clients’ secrets, makes people trust
lawyers and the justice system.
3. Ensuring Fair Work: Ethics require lawyers to represent clients properly without cheating or
lying, leading to fair trials.
4. Maintaining Respect: Honest and respectful conduct keeps the legal profession honorable
and admired.
5. Guiding Tough Choices: Ethics help lawyers make right decisions in difficult situations, like
balancing client needs with public good.
6. Preventing Misconduct: Ethics stop lawyers from abusing their power, such as delaying
cases or acting unfairly.
7. Preventing Abuse of Power: Ethics curb misuse, like frivolous litigation, ensuring judicial
efficiency.

Preparation of a Case and Fees of an Advocate

Preparation of a Case:

o Research: Advocates must study the facts, pleadings (e.g., plaints, written
statements), and applicable laws (e.g., IPC, CPC, CrPC, Evidence Act).

o Evidence: Analyze documentary and oral evidence; prepare for examination and
cross-examination of witnesses.

o Strategy: Identify the strongest legal and factual arguments; anticipate

counterarguments and weaknesses.

o Courtroom Skills: Mastery of presentation, clarity in arguments, and adherence to

procedural norms (e.g., filing deadlines, court etiquette).

o Client Interaction: Regularly update clients, explain legal options, and obtain
instructions.

Fees of an Advocate:

o Determination:

 Fees depend on the advocate’s experience, reputation, and the case’s

complexity (Rule 11).

 No fixed scale, but must be reasonable and commensurate with services

rendered.

Ethical Restrictions:

 No Contingency Fees: Advocates cannot link fees to the case’s outcome

(Rule 20), distinguishing the profession from a business.

 No Undercutting: Charging significantly less than peers to attract clients is

unethical and undermines professional standards.

 Transparency: Clients must be informed of fees upfront; disputes should be

resolved amicably or through Bar Councils.

Refusal to Accept Briefs in the Legal Profession

Refusal to accept briefs refers to a lawyer’s choice to decline a case or client representation. Governed
by professional ethics under the Bar Council of India Rules and Advocates Act, 1961, this decision
must align with fairness and justice. The need for ethical guidelines in refusal is critical for the
following reasons:

1. Freedom to Choose: Lawyers can refuse briefs unless court-appointed, giving them
autonomy to select cases that match their expertise or values, but this must be ethical.

2. Avoiding Conflicts: Ethics require refusal if a conflict of interest exists, like representing
opposing parties, to ensure impartial and loyal representation.

3. Ensuring Competence: Lawyers should decline cases beyond their skills to provide effective
representation, protecting clients’ rights and judicial fairness.

4. Moral Grounds: A lawyer may refuse a case that conflicts with personal ethics (e.g.,
defending unethical acts), but only if the refusal is non-discriminatory.
 5. Preventing Frivolous Cases: Ethics discourage taking up baseless cases meant to harass or
delay, preserving court time and resources.

Under-Cutting

 Definition: Deliberately charging lower fees than prevailing rates to gain a competitive edge
or attract clients.

 Ethical Issue:

o Undercutting devalues the profession, fosters unhealthy competition, and

compromises service quality.

o It violates the principle that fees should reflect an advocate’s standing and the case’s
demands.

 Prohibition: While not explicitly mentioned in BCI Rules, it is implied under the duty to
maintain professional dignity and fairness (Rule 36).

 Consequence: Persistent undercutting may be treated as misconduct, inviting disciplinary

action.

Bar Against Soliciting Work and Advertisement

The Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, specifically Rule 36, prohibit advocates from soliciting work
or advertising their services, ensuring the legal profession remains a noble pursuit focused on justice
rather than commercial gain. Rule 36 (BCI Rules): Advocates are barred from soliciting work or
advertising, whether directly (e.g., personal appeals, circulars) or indirectly (e.g., through agents,
media, or touts). Restrictions include:

o No use of intermediaries to procure clients.

o Signboards/nameplates must be modest, stating only the advocate’s name and

designation (e.g., “Advocate”).

o No mention of specializations, past roles (e.g., “Former Judge”), or affiliations unless

approved by the BCI.

Modern Context: A 2008 amendment to Rule 36 allows advocates to maintain websites with basic
details like name, contact, qualifications, and areas of practice, subject to BCI approval and a
disclaimer. However, social media promotions, paid advertisements, or influencer endorsements are
strictly prohibited to prevent commercialization.

DSK Legal Case (2025): The BCI issued a show-cause notice to DSK Legal for a promotional video
featuring Bollywood actor Rahul Bose, posted on Instagram to mark the firm’s 20th anniversary. The
video included staff statements and Bose’s endorsement, claiming clients’ “blind faith” in the firm.
The BCI cited a violation of Rule 36, as the video constituted indirect advertising through celebrity
endorsement. The notice demanded immediate removal of the video, proof of compliance, a written
explanation within 10 days, and an undertaking to avoid future violations. Non-compliance could lead
to disciplinary action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, including suspension or
cancellation of licenses. DSK Legal removed the video, highlighting the BCI’s strict stance against
modern marketing tactics.