•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

Court Witness: Professional ethics are bollocks; We need leaders at the bar

Nothing but grey skies do I see
Nothing but grey skies do I see

Have you heard about the senior advocate who “borrowed” paintings from a five-star suite and then got his client to pay for them? Or that junior lawyer who told his client that the matter was being heard on a day-to-day basis and forged the court’s orders to hide the fact that it had been dismissed as withdrawn on the first hearing?

No? You should ask any lawyer near and dear to you. They’ll tell you a dozen stories worse.

Nick Robinson’s piece in The Hindu over the weekend was spot on about legal ethics and the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) failure to regulate. Clients are short-changed, judges browbeaten, and the judicial systems clogged by unscrupulous lawyers.

The BCI’s list of dos and don’ts for lawyers is pretty long and there’s a fascinating jurisprudence of cases concerning professional ethics too.

But the simple truth, as Blackadder would have said, is that it’s bollocks.

Charming snake

As I’ve written before, the life of a junior advocate is fraught with many dangers and pitfalls. Along with the insecurities of trying to start out in private practice, thus the ever present snake of temptation constantly hissing in your ear, willing you, “Go on, you know no one’s going to find out anyway.”

If you don’t give in, the voice tells you, “Someone else will and you’ll still be the one who’s two months late on the rent.”

The temptation comes in many subtle and less than subtle forms.

The paying client asks you if you’ve done matters like this before and you know she’ll go elsewhere if you say no.

The senior advocate who promises a fee for every client you send to him whether they need it or not?

An adjournment that you know has no purpose except to bleed your opponent dry?

In the abstract, legal ethics is very straightforward – all black and white: do your duty to your client, the court and your opponent. Yet, what it doesn’t tell you is that reality is messy, just jumbled greys that seem to be more or less grey depending on who’s seeing it.

Does your duty to the court trump your duty to your client? Should you press a hopelessly bad case because your client’s interest depends on it, even if you know the court will never grant it? Or do you want to be in the judge’s bad books as an obstinate advocate just to please your client?

Does agreeing to an adjournment as a common courtesy to your colleague mean necessarily annoying a client? And should you give helpful but unsolicited advice to a client or shut up and do as he asks?

Carve outs

Even when they’re not greyer than English skies in summer, the rules don’t come with an “unless you really need the money” exception clause.

But then you wonder, did those who make the rules have to live in little ratholes at exorbitant prices, borrow money from friends, family and relatives just to keep body and soul together, or worse, suffer the shame of watching their peers earn five- and six-figures every month?

So, you tell yourself, I’ll do it just once. That’s it. Then another such temptation comes along and you say you’ll do this thing also only once, that’s it. Soon it becomes a practice and from there solidifies into a habit. It helps that the risks are low – almost no one ever gets caught and you know that most judges’ bark is worse than their bite.

This is not to say that there are no honest lawyers who’ve struggled their way up.

Temptation to do the wrong thing can be overcome but often not through sheer strength of will alone. It helps if you don’t have to pay the rent, for example, or rather someone pays it for you. I cannot stress the importance of having family support (even of the non-legal kind) when you start off.

It also helps if you start your career in the right chambers – the kind of chambers where your senior is uniformly known for his or her good ethical conduct.

It honestly doesn’t matter if they have a “big” practice, so long as they have a good practice (yes, the two are different), in which case you will have made the right start to a legal career.

From the top

Ultimately the obligation to do the right thing always rests on all of us.

But even so, in a time when the practice of law is undergoing an unprecedented change in India, it would help to know where the foundation of a good practice lies.

For that a course in legal ethics or even explicit haranguing from the pulpit will not suffice.

What we really need is the practice of good practice.

We need leaders at the bar who can say with confidence what is right and wrong not because they hold briefs for this many clients for this many years, but because their moral compass is unimpeachably sound.

We need leaders at the bar who possess the moral courage of an MC Setalvad or CK Daphtary who could tell a Supreme Court judge when they were doing wrong and would be obeyed because they knew it was the right thing to do.

We need leaders at the Bar who measure their careers in the right things they did and not the number of cases they won at the end of it.

Court Witness is an advocate of the Supreme Court of India and tweets @courtwitness1.

Photo by Kevin Dooley

Court Witness’ previous Supreme Court postcards

Click to show 11 comments
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.