The sons,daughters,relatives,spouses etc are not supposed to practise in same Courts.But they do,there is no one in the system to pull up Judges or their relatives.
I recall my classmate's father was called to the Bench after many years of being a senior advocate. He turned it down, knowing that it would be frowned upon if his children continued practising in the same court.
"There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for.” :)
How else will unknown lawyers be known to judges? We send briefs the way of these illustrious progeny, in the hope that they tell their elevated parent that X is giving us a lot of work. That (hopefully) translates into some goodwill that will spillover to another case.
It's the same with senior counsel, who hope that referrals for second counsel will translate into goodwill.
Is there any other reason for why counsel who are 0-5 years of experience are on panels, or are briefed routinely by law firms.
This is apart from a nil vakalatnama practice. Or gratuitous vakalatnamas to make sure a case doesn't come up before such illustrious parent.
They may not argue in the courtroom of the related judge, but yeah, they do argue in the same court as of a related judge. Arguing infront of Justice Nanavati implies arguing in the same court but not necessarily before the bench of Justice Nanavati.
im sure the American and Canadian masses are eagerly waiting for a legal stalwart like you to grace their courts anon! Green card in a week, 25 acre mansion in a year for the geniuses that read Avtar Singh's Law of Contract.
what are you waiting for? us gareebs don't deserve your intellect which presumably will only show in the courts of foreign jurisdictions.
Mr. Sudhir Nanavati and Mr. Devang Nanavati argue in front of Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati of Gujarat High Court, who's wife of Devang Nanavati and Daughter-in law of Sudhir Nanavati. So definitely advocates arguing in front of related judges aren't unheard of.
you can practice anywhere in India and UK and mint money! What you will have to simply do is make an all India & UK tour with your father once and physically meet with all chief justice for blessings to start practice. It is very simple.
They do, and the disproportionate advantage they derive from this is INSANE.
There's a particular judge (at one of these courts) whose kid (a practising lawyer with around ten years) is on all the crucial panels. I tried getting on those panels (on multiple occasions) and was shown the door every time - for want of a reference of a minister/ judge/ etc. My CV simply didn't matter.
Incidentally, this privilege also spills over to the spouse. Saw one (spouse with around 9 nine years of work ex) recently acquiring a 50 lakh rupee German Sedan with his own earnings last year. Credentials (besides being a lucky spouse)- panel lawyer and junior at a very senior law officers chamber! Big LOL to what's happening.
Word of advise - Quit India. Don't wait over a decade to realise it's a banana republic. The things you see that make this argument far outweigh those that don't!
(Leila Seth) wrote: “I heard people talking about ‘Uncle Practice’ and ‘Lal Jhanda’. I wondered what all this was about. I learnt that, since a son was not permitted practice in his father’s court, if you did not want the matter to be heard by that court, you briefed the son and thus stopped the matter from going before the father; you had put out a warning ’Red Flag’. This misuse of a rule that had been incorporated to prevent partisan decisions was apparently quite prevalent, and some young lawyers even managed to make a living out of it. It was also rumoured that certain judges favoured the sons of their brother judges, and so the ‘Uncle Practice’ thrived.”
If such rule exists, half of lawyers will become unemployed.
Everyone but the parties interested.
"There's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for.” :)
How else will unknown lawyers be known to judges? We send briefs the way of these illustrious progeny, in the hope that they tell their elevated parent that X is giving us a lot of work. That (hopefully) translates into some goodwill that will spillover to another case.
It's the same with senior counsel, who hope that referrals for second counsel will translate into goodwill.
Is there any other reason for why counsel who are 0-5 years of experience are on panels, or are briefed routinely by law firms.
This is apart from a nil vakalatnama practice. Or gratuitous vakalatnamas to make sure a case doesn't come up before such illustrious parent.
That's definitely a violation of BCI rules. Do share some orders/judgements with their attendances.
what are you waiting for? us gareebs don't deserve your intellect which presumably will only show in the courts of foreign jurisdictions.
So definitely advocates arguing in front of related judges aren't unheard of.
"Gore case dete hai? " Sawal hi nahi uthta"
They do, and the disproportionate advantage they derive from this is INSANE.
There's a particular judge (at one of these courts) whose kid (a practising lawyer with around ten years) is on all the crucial panels. I tried getting on those panels (on multiple occasions) and was shown the door every time - for want of a reference of a minister/ judge/ etc. My CV simply didn't matter.
Incidentally, this privilege also spills over to the spouse. Saw one (spouse with around 9 nine years of work ex) recently acquiring a 50 lakh rupee German Sedan with his own earnings last year. Credentials (besides being a lucky spouse)- panel lawyer and junior at a very senior law officers chamber! Big LOL to what's happening.
Word of advise - Quit India. Don't wait over a decade to realise it's a banana republic. The things you see that make this argument far outweigh those that don't!
(Leila Seth) wrote: “I heard people talking about ‘Uncle Practice’ and ‘Lal Jhanda’. I wondered what all this was about. I learnt that, since a son was not permitted practice in his father’s court, if you did not want the matter to be heard by that court, you briefed the son and thus stopped the matter from going before the father; you had put out a warning ’Red Flag’. This misuse of a rule that had been incorporated to prevent partisan decisions was apparently quite prevalent, and some young lawyers even managed to make a living out of it. It was also rumoured that certain judges favoured the sons of their brother judges, and so the ‘Uncle Practice’ thrived.”