In Mr. G. Senior Advocate AIR 1954 SC 557

In re .G.., a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India

Mr. G was called to the Bar in England. Later he enrolled as an advocate of the Bombay High Court and also practiced in the Supreme Court of India. He entered into an agreement with a client whereby the client undertook to pay him 50 per cent of any recoveries he might make in the legal proceedings in respect of which Mr. G had been engaged.

Mr. G.s client had entered into an agreement with the Baroda Theatres Ltd., for work on a motion picture that they intended to produce. While some part of the remuneration paid at once and the balance was to be paid on the completion of the picture. However, on the date of the dispute the Baroda Theatres admitted that Rs. 9,400 was due, but they did not pay up. The client consulted Mr. G about the best way to recover his money and the related expenses and fees. Mr. G advised him that two courses were open to him. First, was to file a civil suit, he said this would cost about Rs. 800 for Court fees and expenses and about Rs. 1,250 as fees. The other alternative suggested was winding up proceedings. The client was told that in these the Court fees would be lower but Mr. G.s fees would have to be higher as winding up proceedings are usually protracted. The client preferred the latter course but said that he could not pay more than Rs. 200 towards the expenses and that since he was poor he made a proposal in writing, wherein he stated that Mr. G could take 50% of the amount recovered in lieu of his fees. Mr. G did not dispute these facts but maintained that though he was unwilling to work on these terms, he was pressed to do so when he realised that unless he agreed the client would probably lose a just claim.

This was reported to the High Court the matter was referred to the Bombay Bar Council and was investigated by three of its members under Section 11(1) of the Bar Councils Act, 1926. They held that this amounted to professional misconduct. The High Court agreed and suspended Mr. G from practice as an advocate of the Bombay High Court for six months. The judgment was submitted to the Supreme Court for appropriate action. Acting on this report and under Order IV, rule 30, of the Supreme Court Rules of Practice a show cause notice was issued to Mr. G to as to why disciplinary action should not be taken instituted against him. Mr. G filed petition for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court relied on the earlier judgements[52] and held that even though the rigid English rules of champerty and maintenance do not apply in India, this kind of conduct amounted to professional misconduct and it upheld the suspension of Mr. G. The court considered the American position[54] where such practice is allowed and came to the conclusion that it was not ready to apply the same in this country where ignorance and illiteracy are the rule, are even more important than they are in England.

The court also held that while there is nothing per se morally wrong, unconscionable, or against public policy and public morals in such a transaction, it cannot be upheld when a legal practitioner is concerned, because that is a part of the price an advocate pays for the privilege of belonging to a kind of close and exclusive .club. and enjoying in it privileges and immunities denied to less fortunate persons who are outside its fold.

--

Haider Ajaz

(legalsutra)