An advocate’s profession is not a commercial activity, and they should not try to pressure the court for a favorable order to recover their fee from the client. The courts are not meant to be concerned with an advocate’s fee recovery from their client. The court condemned the unparliamentary comments made by the counsel for the petitioner, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court condemned the conduct of a lawyer who argued that if his client’s case was dismissed, he would stand to lose his legal fee.
In a ruling issued on August 2, Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia emphasized that the legal profession is not a business or commercial endeavor. He noted that advocates should not exert pressure on the court to obtain favorable judgments merely to secure payment from their clients.
The court stated
An advocate’s profession is not a commercial activity, and they should not try to pressure the court for a favorable order to recover their fee from the client. The courts are not meant to be concerned with an advocate’s fee recovery from their client. The court condemned the unparliamentary comments made by the counsel for the petitioner.
The case involved an architectural firm’s plea against its non-inclusion in the list of firms selected for the renovation of colleges in Madhya Pradesh. The Court noted that the petition lacked the required pleadings and that the successful architectural firms were necessary parties for the adjudication of the claim.
When the Court indicated its inclination to dismiss the case, the lawyer sought an adjournment, which the Court rejected, calling it a “glaring example of bench hunting.” The Court further noted that the lawyer made “unparliamentary comments” about the impact of the dismissal on his legal fee, which the Court found unacceptable.
The court noted that when it raised a query about the scope of judicial review in contractual matters, the counsel for the petitioner claimed it was not a contractual matter but rather a case of selection of an architectural firm. However, the court disagreed and stated that even if it is a selection issue, the court cannot test the suitability of the selected firm unless it is shown that the firm does not meet the eligibility criteria.
The court observed that the petition lacked the required pleadings and gave the petitioner an option for an adjournment, but the counsel refused and instead requested the court to restrain the authorities from issuing allotment orders to the successful firms. The court then asked the counsel to conclude the arguments.
The court noted that the counsel for the petitioner only argued that the petitioner was the most suitable firm, without pointing out any ineligibility of the selected firms. The court stated that the successful firms were necessary parties for adjudicating the petitioner’s claim.
The court found
counsel’s arrogant attitude unacceptable, particularly when the state counsel’s objection on the non-joinder of necessary parties was a valid legal argument. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the case did not involve a contractual matter.
READ ALSO: Lawyer v. Lawyer: New Delhi Lok Sabha Seat Showdown
The High Court ultimately dismissed the petition on merits, emphasizing that the Court is not concerned with the recovery of an advocate’s fee from their client. The Court’s strong condemnation of the lawyer’s conduct serves as a reminder that the legal profession is a service, not a commercial enterprise, and that lawyers should focus on the merits of their client’s case rather than their own financial interests.
Case Title: Kushi & Associates Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
View Order
