By Dr Swati Jindal Garg

“Ethics and equity and the principles of justice do not change with the calendar.”

—DH Lawrence

The legal profession, often described as noble, is under renewed scrutiny. In a scathing observation, the Supreme Court has condemned the growing trend of newly designated senior advocates abandoning ongoing cases without prior notice or alternative arrangements. The bench, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti, made it clear: seniority is a responsibility—not a license to disengage.

ETHICS ON TRIAL

Balancing zealous client representation with ethical duty has always tested even the most seasoned advocates. But recent courtroom developments have brought to light a disturbing breach: senior advocates, upon elevation, walking away from active matters mid-stream.

This issue surfaced prominently in the case of Biswanath Kundu vs State through CBI, where the advocate representing the petitioner failed to appear. The bench was informed that the advocate had recently been designated a senior advocate.

What followed was a stern rebuke. “This is a troubling new trend, and frankly, I consider it highly unethical behaviour by the Bar,” said Justice Amanullah. “Does elevation to senior advocate mean abandoning ongoing cases?” He continued: “They’ve accepted this responsibility. This is completely unprofessional conduct. I’ve observed this happening in this Court—and nowhere else.”

RESPONSIBILITY, NOT RETREAT

Justice Amanullah further reflected on the earlier, more stringent standards of legal practice: “I recall when I was… special permission had to be sought, and government approval was required. These practices in the Supreme Court are deeply improper.”

The Court emphasized that advocates—regardless of designation—are bound by ethical obligations. Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules requires that lawyers:

Not withdraw from a case without sufficient cause,
Provide reasonable notice to the client, and
Refund unearned fees if any.

The concern isn’t merely procedural—it strikes at the heart of client trust and judicial efficiency. Sudden withdrawals lead to adjournments, waste valuable court time, and cause delays that shake faith in the justice system.

ELEVATION DOES NOT ERASE DUTY

The Advocates Act, 1961, bars senior advocates from directly dealing with clients and mandates them to be briefed only through an Advocate-on-Record or junior counsel. Yet, there is no bar on continuing guidance in matters already accepted prior to their designation. “If somebody becomes a Senior Advocate, should they abandon the case? They should now assist as seniors. They have taken responsibility,” the Court said emphatically.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, commenting in a separate matter, agreed: “The title ‘Senior’ implies more responsibility, not an escape clause from existing duties.”

SYSTEMIC IMPACT OF ETHICAL BREACHES

The wider impact of such conduct is deeply damaging:

Erosion of trust in the legal system.
Increased pendency and wasted court time.
Cost escalation due to delays.
Loss of client faith and professional credibility.

While not every ethical violation leads to disciplinary proceedings, these patterns pose a systemic threat. The silent withdrawal of advocates—without client consent or court notification—is indefensible.

ETHICS AS THE CORNERSTONE OF ADVOCACY

Legal ethics are not a checklist. They are the very foundation of the profession. A lawyer’s true worth is tested not when the spotlight is on, but in moments of quiet decision-making—when no one is watching. Walking away from a case simply because one has earned a title is a betrayal of both client trust and the dignity of the robe.

—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi

Source

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting