“Failure to Disclose Conflict of Interest is Professional Misconduct,” Rules Supreme Court in Landmark Decision on Advocates Act

Share:
Against bench 6a tender evidence juvenility universal FIR Constable conviction interest principle violating coparcenary teachers child election recovery judge service principle rosewood fir discharge disclosure cheque 37 jurisdiction time evidence additional evidence medical

In a landmark judgment that sets a precedent for legal ethics in India, the Supreme Court today upheld the decision of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to suspend an advocate’s license for failing to disclose a conflict of interest. The Court also reprimanded the advocate’s son, who was assisting him, with an undertaking for future conduct.

The Bench, comprising Justices ABHAY S. OKA and SANJAY KAROL, observed, “Failure to disclose conflict of interest is professional misconduct,” thereby sending a strong message to the legal community about the importance of ethical conduct.

The case, MR. LAXMAN BAPPAJI NAIK (DEAD THROUGH LRS) versus RANJEET @ RANU YADAV DOKH & ANR, revolved around a property dispute where the advocate, referred to as A-1 in the judgment, and his son, A-2, represented a complainant while A-1’s wife had a vested interest in the same property. Neither disclosed this conflict to the complainant.

The Court stated, “It is impossible to accept that A-2 had no knowledge about the personal interest of his mother in the subject property,” rejecting the advocates’ contention that the complainant was aware of the conflict and that A-2, being new to practice, was unaware of it.

The judgment also addressed an appeal by the original complainant, who argued for a harsher penalty on A-2, alleging acts of forgery. The Court found no basis for such allegations in the original complaint and stated, “The submission made by the complainant to impose a graver penalty on A-2 also deserves to be rejected.”

The Court upheld the penalties imposed by the Bar Councils, with a modification in the wording of the undertaking to be given by A-2. “The Undertaking should be that A-2 shall maintain the highest professional standards and shall abide by the Rules of Ethics framed by the Bar Council,” the judgment read.

As a part of the compliance and disposal, A-1 has been directed to surrender his Enrolment Certificate to the State Bar Council, and both A-1 and A-2 have been instructed to file compliance reports.

 Date of Decision: July 27, 2023

LAXMAN BAPPAJI NAIK (DEAD THROUGH LRS) vs RANJEET @ RANU YADAV DOKH & ANR.

Download Judgment

Share: