The Kerala High Court imposed a Rs.50,000 cost on lawyers who stalled a case due to their client’s unpaid fees. The Court warned that a litigant cannot, under any circumstances, be pushed to a corner or blackmailed into paying an Advocate’s fee.
Kerala High Court imposed Rs.50,000 in costs on two advocates for allegedly stalling execution proceedings in a land acquisition dispute.
The issue stemmed from a disagreement over unpaid professional fees claimed to be due from their former clients.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas strongly criticised the advocates’ conduct and said that no advocate should be able to delay court proceedings to pressure a client into paying fees.
The Court observed that such conduct undermines the dignity of the legal profession and cannot be tolerated.
In its April 8 ruling, the Court stated,
“There cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be a situation where the litigant is pushed to a corner or blackmailed into paying the fee demanded by the Advocate. Even worse is the situation when the Advocate, after termination of his engagement, attempts to stall the very proceeding in which he was appearing on behalf of the litigant,”
It further noted that the respect owed to the legal profession depends on the conduct of its members. The Court warned that if advocates’ actions harm their clients or delay justice, it would directly affect the profession’s dignity.
The Court added,
“Even if it is assumed, without upholding it, that petitioners are correct about the unpaid fee, still, an Advocate has no right to halt the legal proceedings until his claim for fee is settled,”
The Court ruled that disputes regarding unpaid legal fees must be pursued before a civil court and that a writ petition under Article 226 is not the appropriate remedy in such matters.
The case involved two advocates and their former clients, who were decree holders in a land acquisition reference. The advocates approached the High Court by filing a writ petition, claiming they had not been paid professional fees for appearing for their clients over several years.
They alleged that the clients had engaged a new lawyer improperly without obtaining a No Objection Certificate, and therefore sought to keep the execution proceedings on hold until their fee dispute was resolved.
However, the filing of the writ petition resulted in the execution proceedings being stalled for several months. Meanwhile, the clients argued that even after making substantial payments to the advocates, the advocates continued to make excessive and unlawful demands. The clients stated they were compelled to hire new counsel after losing confidence in the petitioners.
The newly appointed advocates denied any wrongdoing and maintained that their appointment was valid. The High Court refused to examine the fee dispute, holding that such matters between an advocate and a client should be decided by a civil court first, and not through a writ petition.
The Court also made it clear that clients are entitled to change their lawyers, and that courts can permit such a change even if the earlier advocate objects.
The High Court sharply criticised the advocates for using a writ petition to stall a decree-holder’s right to proceed with execution.
It held,
“A pernicious conduct of a member of the legal profession, attempting to stall a decree holder from enjoying the fruits of a decree, until his claim for legal fees is settled, has been, unabashedly brought up for determination before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances pleaded in the writ petition, reveal disconcerting instances for the whole legal fraternity, as an Advocate who had earlier appeared for a decree holder, is attempting to halt the progress of the execution petition, alleging non payment of fees.”
The Court further pointed out that the advocates’ writ proceedings delayed the release of money to the rightful claimants for nearly 10 months, which it found unacceptable. As a result, the petition was dismissed and Rs.50,000 was imposed as costs.
The Court directed the advocates to pay the amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within six weeks, failing which recovery steps would be initiated.
Advocates R Prasanth Kumar appeared for the petitioner advocates.
Advocates Shiny Das, MU Vijayalakshmi and Appu Ajith represented the respondent claimants.