The Kerala High Court has recently expressed strong disapproval towards certain attorneys, labeling the practice of delaying a client’s case due to unpaid fees as “harmful behavior.” The court imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on two lawyers, noting that their actions had caused the rightful beneficiaries to wait nearly ten months for the distribution of decretal sums.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas highlighted that the primary duty of a lawyer is to advocate for their clients, rather than to control the litigation process. He asserted that the legal profession must not allow such exploitative behaviors to undermine its esteemed reputation.

The court rejected a motion filed by the two attorneys against newly appointed counsel, who were accused of improperly submitting a vakalath. The petitioners had previously submitted complaints to the Chief Justice of Kerala, the bar council, and the district court.

The court’s order, issued on April 8, expressed concern over the actions of the two attorneys, stating, “It is quite troubling to see members of the legal profession file a writ petition that successfully obstructed the distribution of the decretal amount to the rightful claimants for almost ten months.”

The court observed that the case presented “alarming instances” for the legal community, where an attorney, who had previously represented a client, attempted to impede execution proceedings due to unpaid legal fees.

Referring to the legal profession as “noble,” the court noted that the integrity of this nobility relies on the conduct of its practitioners. It warned that if attorneys act in ways that harm their clients’ interests, the very essence of the profession is jeopardized.

The high court pointed out that the attorneys involved had been practicing since 2004 in a land acquisition matter, initially aiding and later officially representing the claimants.

Following the state’s partial payment of the awarded amount, disputes over legal fees arose. The claimants reported that, despite having already paid over Rs 25 lakh, the first petitioner demanded an additional Rs 1 crore, refusing to continue unless this sum was paid.

As a result, the claimants sought new legal representation, who filed a new vakalath with the executing court, which was subsequently accepted.

The court clarified that attorneys serve as officers of the court and must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects their professional status and civil conduct.

In this regard, the court emphasized that the relationship between an attorney and a client is based on fiduciary trust and faith, which permeates their entire interaction.

It further stated that no attorney has the right to exploit their clients with respect to fees. If such exploitation occurs, clients have the right to file a complaint with the Bar Council of India for professional misconduct.

The court also noted that if an attorney refuses to relinquish their vakalath, the client should have the right to hire another attorney with the court’s approval.

Richa Sahay serves as a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she aims to clarify the complexities of the Indian judicial system. With a postgraduate degree in law, she utilizes her advanced legal knowledge to connect technical court decisions with public comprehension, ensuring that readers are well-informed about the dynamic legal environment.

Her areas of expertise include:

• Advanced Legal Education: Richa’s academic background equips her to interpret complex laws and constitutional details, providing context-driven insights into how legal developments affect everyday citizens.
• Specialized Reporting: She focuses on the intersection of law and public policy, covering:
• Judicial Updates: Delivering prompt reports on rulings from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
• Legal Simplification: Making complex legal language accessible and engaging while ensuring factual accuracy.
• Legislative Changes: Keeping track of new bills, amendments, and regulatory changes that influence Indian society.