The Supreme Court on Monday (Dec 16) expressed strong disapproval over the conduct of a senior lawyer who failed to give information to his client about the filing of a case, despite taking fees from the client. The Court was informed that Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra was the lawyer involved in the case, and that he had failed to inform the litigant about whether his case had been filed before the Delhi High Court or not.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticized the conduct of a senior lawyer who allegedly failed to inform his client about the status of their case filing, despite receiving payment. The incident has raised concerns about the ethical obligations of lawyers toward their clients.
The Court was apprised that Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra was at the center of the issue. It was revealed that he did not communicate with the litigant about whether the case had been filed before the Delhi High Court.
Expressing its disapproval, a Bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Manmohan remarked,
“Very sorry state of affairs. After a lawyer is designated as Senior Advocate, litigants is not told whether plea has been filed even after money has been taken.”
The matter has been scheduled for December 19, where it will be taken up alongside other similar cases. On the same day, the apex court is set to deliberate on the formulation of guidelines for Advocates-On-Record (AoRs) to curb the indiscriminate signing of pleadings, particularly those containing false statements.
The issue surfaced from a convict’s plea seeking remission in a kidnapping case. Senior Advocate S Muralidhar has been appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this matter.
During earlier hearings, the Supreme Court uncovered a broader issue surrounding false pleadings filed through AoRs. Specifically, the convict’s appeal suppressed critical facts. The plea, filed through AoR Jaydip Pati, failed to disclose that the Supreme Court had previously reinstated the convict’s sentence of 30 years imprisonment without remission.
On September 30, the Court expressed its shock at this significant lapse and noted an emerging pattern of such suppression in remission cases. Taking serious note of the situation, the Court emphasized that false statements in legal filings cannot be ignored.
AoR Pati subsequently claimed that he had signed the appeal under pressure from Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra. According to Pati, he had been unaware that the documents involved the suppression of vital facts.
The Court took a stern view of this revelation and summoned Senior Advocate Malhotra to provide an explanation regarding the allegations leveled against him.
While hearing this case, the Bench further observed that Malhotra
“appeared to have made false statements in at least 15 different cases.”
This case highlights a growing concern over accountability and professional responsibility within the legal fraternity, particularly among senior advocates and AoRs. The Supreme Court’s initiative to address these issues is seen as a significant step toward ensuring ethical practices in the legal system.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Supreme Court Criticizes Senior Advocate
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
