On Wednesday ( On 6th March): “Unfortunately, the young lawyer did not understand that when she was appointed as a commissioner, it was an honour that was given to her, but she worked under the impression that she was entitled to charge as if it were a commercial quest by the amount of work she had completed and the number of hours she had invested,” the court’s order stated.
Kerala: On Wednesday (6th March): Kerala High Court emphasized a significant distinction regarding the role of advocate commissioners, asserting that such appointments should be regarded as an honor rather than mere employment for monetary gain.
READ ALSO: BJP & Gangopadhyay | Ex-Calcutta HC judge: “Never Gave Biased Judgements”
Justice Devan Ramachandran addressed a situation where a magistrate removed an advocate from the list of potential commissioners. This action followed the lawyer’s request for a higher allowance (batta) for her previous service as a commissioner.
The Court criticized the lawyer’s perspective, highlighting her misconception that the role of a commissioner was purely commercial. Instead, the Court emphasized that being appointed as an advocate commissioner was an acknowledgment of one’s legal expertise and should be perceived as an honor.
“Unfortunately, the young lawyer did not understand that when she was appointed as a commissioner, it was an honour that was given to her, but she worked under the impression that she was entitled to charge as if it were a commercial quest by the amount of work she had completed and the number of hours she had invested,” the court’s order stated.
Regrettably, the response of the magistrate was deemed uncharitable. While the magistrate’s decision was understandable, there was a missed opportunity to guide and mentor the young lawyer through the complexities of legal practice.
The High Court emphasizes that both entities i.e Bench and Bar play integral roles in maintaining the integrity of the legal system. Viewing them not as separate entities but as interdependent components is crucial for the effective functioning of the legal framework.
The Court reiterated that practicing law should not be treated as a purely commercial endeavor. It underscored the need for both the bench and the bar to fulfill their respective obligations in nurturing and guiding young legal professionals.
READ ALSO: BREAKING | Sandeshkhali Row | CBI Gets Custody of Shahjahan Sheikh
“The learned judge reacted to the circumstances in the manner as was apt but should have also been careful enough to understand that the mind of a young lawyer is like a turbulent sea on account of the vagaries and uncertainties that face every new entrant. It requires the commitment of both the bar and the bench for any person to continue in the profession. This is not charity, but an obligation on both sides because we want the best of both sides to continue in the profession and give succour to those who come to us seeking justice,” the High Court said.
Additionally, Justice Ramachandran clarified a previous statement, emphasizing that his concern regarding young lawyers adopting American practices pertained more to their exposure to American legal dramas than adopting legal methodologies.
“It is only when we view these two sections (the bar and the bench) as not the two tyres on a bicycle, but as a unicycle, can we really hope for a very effective and efficient functioning of the system… The Bench also has an equal duty not only to conduct itself with the eminence that is expected but also to counsel and mentor the members of the Bar, particularly the youngest of them,” the Court said in its judgment.
