HC censures lawyer over bid to extract fee from former client
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:29.11.2018
Censuring an advocate for attempting to extract fees from a former client despite relinquishing the brief, the Madras high court imposed Rs 25,000 as costs and said it could not sit back and watch this attempt to gain ‘champertous’ litigation fee.
Noting that the sentiment embodied in the quote “Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise” was fast eroding, Justice P T Asha said, “Today we are faced with falling standards in the profession where an unscrupulous few have started commercialising this noble profession and professional ethics have taken a back seat.”
Advocates were a vital part of the justice dispensation system. In addition to being professionals, they were also officers of the court. Their conduct, therefore, should not only be impeccable but above reproach.
They were expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try and protect the interests of their clients in relation to whom they occupied a position of trust, the judge added.
Advocate N Ponnusamy of Coimbatore had initially been engaged in a suit involving non-payment of rental arrears. Eventually, his clients decided to terminate his services and appoint another lawyer. According to the clients, the new counsel was engaged after Ponnusamy said he had no objection.
Ponnusamy then filed a petition before the Additional District Judge in Coimbatore alleging that he was owed legal fees of about Rs 56lakh and that the clients could not engage another lawyer as they had not obtained the leave of the court.
His former clients filed a revision petition challenging Ponnusamy’s plea.
When the plea came up for hearing, the judge wondered how the Additional District Judge had entertained the petition given the peculiar manner in which Ponnusamy had drafted it. The judge then concluded that the cause of action claimed by Ponnusamy did not exist.
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Chennai:29.11.2018
Censuring an advocate for attempting to extract fees from a former client despite relinquishing the brief, the Madras high court imposed Rs 25,000 as costs and said it could not sit back and watch this attempt to gain ‘champertous’ litigation fee.
Noting that the sentiment embodied in the quote “Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise” was fast eroding, Justice P T Asha said, “Today we are faced with falling standards in the profession where an unscrupulous few have started commercialising this noble profession and professional ethics have taken a back seat.”
Advocates were a vital part of the justice dispensation system. In addition to being professionals, they were also officers of the court. Their conduct, therefore, should not only be impeccable but above reproach.
They were expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try and protect the interests of their clients in relation to whom they occupied a position of trust, the judge added.
Advocate N Ponnusamy of Coimbatore had initially been engaged in a suit involving non-payment of rental arrears. Eventually, his clients decided to terminate his services and appoint another lawyer. According to the clients, the new counsel was engaged after Ponnusamy said he had no objection.
Ponnusamy then filed a petition before the Additional District Judge in Coimbatore alleging that he was owed legal fees of about Rs 56lakh and that the clients could not engage another lawyer as they had not obtained the leave of the court.
His former clients filed a revision petition challenging Ponnusamy’s plea.
When the plea came up for hearing, the judge wondered how the Additional District Judge had entertained the petition given the peculiar manner in which Ponnusamy had drafted it. The judge then concluded that the cause of action claimed by Ponnusamy did not exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment