Introduction

This article focuses on the case of V.C. Rangadurai vs. D. Gopalan, which discusses the conduct of legal practitioners. A lawyer has rights and responsibilities to his clients, judges, opponents, the public, coworkers, and so on. This lawsuit is about the lawyer's wrongdoing towards his client. In the legal profession, everything boils down to making choices or rulings in an unbiased manner. In this case, the appellant (V. C. Rangadurai) was found guilty of gross professional misconduct by the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and so disqualified from practicing as an advocate for six years. In an appeal, the Bar Council of India upheld the asset findings but lowered the ban sentence to a year. The lawyer then petitioned the Supreme Court. A client approaches the attorney with a case involving a promissory note with values of 15000 and 5000 rupees. The advocate stated that he would handle the case. The initial complaint was dismissed. A second complaint was submitted, but no case was filed. The advocate also provided incorrect dates and informed the court that he had received a decree in the matter. The advocate's complaint also contained various errors.

Judgment On: 04/10/1978

Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R.

Bench: Krishnaiyer, V.R. Desai, D.A. Sen, A.P. (J)

A Citation: 1979 AIR 281 1979 SCR (1) 1054 1979 SCC (1) 308

Facts

A 70-year-old deaf man called Devasenapathy, an advocate named V. C. Rangadurai, and an elderly woman named Smt. D. Kamalammal were the persons involved in this case. They had given Rangadurai two promissory notes and covered the advocate's charges (15000 and 5000 rupees). Nonetheless, the lawyer did not file the lawsuit in time. The limit was lifted.

After spending a significant amount of time walking around the advocate's office, the old man realised that the lawyer had ditched him by neglecting to submit the cases on time despite having been paid. He filed a complaint with the disciplinary committee of the Tamil Nadu State Bar Council, which punished the attorney by suspending him for six years after an investigation.

Judgement

In this case, V. C. Rangadurai (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was found guilty of professional misconduct, but his suspension from practise was reduced from six years to one. When a lawyer was given a brief to deal with, he was expected to follow professional ethical norms to protect his clients' interests. However, the Appellant had completely undermined the complainants' trust in him. However, wrongfully withholding a client's money from a lawyer constituted a breach of integrity and lack of probity, and such significant professional misconduct warranted appropriate punishment. The State Bar Council found that the Appellant deserved to be disbarred and suspended him from practise for six years, which was reduced to one year by the Disciplinary Committee. As a result, no limits may be imposed on the advocate's right to appear before any court or body, as outlined in Section 30 of the Act. As a consequence, the penalty given by the BCI's Disciplinary Committee required no additional involvement. The appeal was therefore refused.

When an advocate is barred from practising under section 35(4)(c) of paragraph (3), he is not permitted to do so in any court or before any authority or person in India for the term of the ban. If the issuance of such a direction implies the termination of the order of suspension upon the fulfilment of the requirements set forth above, "l am of the considered view that no limitations on the advocate's right to appear before any court or authority, which he enjoys under Section 30 of the Act, may be imposed."

Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the disciplinary committee's decision to suspend the advocate for six years.

Review

What are the requirements that the advocate must fulfil in terms of professional ethics? If a lawyer fails to meet these requirements, he or she is regarded to have broken professional ethics. These are the moral duties that all members of society, not only advocates, but also those in other professions, must fulfil because ethics and morality are fundamental to everyone.

The appellant was disqualified from practicing as an advocate for six years after the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in this case. In response to an appeal, the Bar Council of India maintained its prior rulings and reduced the suspension to one year. The court denied the appeal, stating that punishment serves two purposes: deterrence and correction. However, when seen through a reformatory lens, traditional punishments have limits and shortcomings. A therapeutic touch with a correctional twist, and a locus poenitentiae may have had a rehabilitative influence if judges were allowed to experiment while still adhering to the standards of the law.

Summary

The primary goal of legal ethics is to preserve the honour and dignity of the legal profession. It also seeks to promote a friendly climate in the courtroom, free of bias and disagreements among legal professionals, which might sour relations between the bar and bench and have a bad impact on the administration of justice. Advocacy requires cooperation and fair treatment of one another. This approach helps an advocate obtain more customers and become more accountable to society because it is assumed that they provide a public service.

Every person follows a set of guidelines. An advocate has duties or a code of conduct that he must follow with regard to himself, his clients, his opponents, his colleagues, the court, and others. The advocate must follow court decorum and respect both his adversary and his fellow attorneys. He must always behave in his clients' best interests and never take any action that may undermine their trust in him. All of these responsibilities, values, and obligations help a lawyer grow in his or her career and become a successful lawyer. The appeal was therefore refused.