November 28, 2018:

Madras High Court has recently hauled up an advocate for attempting to bend the legal process in order to extract champertous legal fees.

This, after he had gave up the case brief, even endorsing a No Objection statement to allow his clients to engage another lawyer in his place.

Justice PT Asha remarked the underhand tactics used by the lawyer as a classic case of the falling standards in the legal profession.

The Judge reminded, "Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise."

“This quote is fast receding to oblivion. Today we are faced with falling standards in the profession where an unscrupulous few have started commercializing this noble profession and professional ethics have taken a back seat."

The advocate, N Ponnusamy, had initially been engaged in a suit involving the non-payment of rental arrears.

However, eventually, his clients decided to terminate Ponnusamy’s services and appoint another lawyer, K Krishnamoorthy, in his stead.

As submitted by the clients, the new counsel was engaged after the Ponnusamy endorsed that he had no objection to the withdrawal and re-assignment of the case brief to another advocate.

Ponnusamy then proceeded to file a petition in his former clients’ case before an Additional District Judge in Coimbatore, alleging that he was owed legal fees to the tune of about ₹ 56 lakhs and that his clients could not engage another lawyer as they have not obtained the leave of the Court for the same.

Interestingly, Ponnusamy chose to arraign his clients as both petitioners & respondents in his case, and further also impleaded the lawyers of the other respondents (i.e. the tenants who failed to pay rent to his former clients) in addition the respondents in the original suit.

“It is not known as to how the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No:1, Coimbatore has numbered the said petition“, commented Justice Asha, in view of the peculiar manner in which Ponnusamy had drafted his petition.

Ponnusamy’s case was twofold. First that his services as a lawyer had not been terminated, as the Court had not expressly granted any leave for the same in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Second, that the clients should deposit about ₹56 lakh rupees owed to him before the Court could allow the termination of his services.

Aggrieved by this petition, the former clients filed a revision petition challenging Ponnusamy’s petition.

Justice Asha eventually concluded that the cause of action claimed by Ponnusamy does not exist. She observed that after Ponnusamy endorsed that he had no objection to the termination of his services, the new counsel had also filed a vakalat which was accepted by the Court.

Court’s acceptance of this vakalat and the signed no objection endorsement by Ponnusamy, implies that the leave of the Court under the CPC has been obtained for allowing a change in the representing counsel.

“Once such leave is granted, the earlier counsel has no further interest whatsoever in the pending lis. His remedy in case of any unpaid fees is only to file a separate proceeding.”

However, the High Court did not stop there, Justice Asha proceeded to scrutinize the legal fee being claimed by Ponnusamy, which she noted had been overestimated on the facts of the case.

Justice Asha above evrything observed that Ponnusamy’s admitted practice of charging a percentage of the value of the suit property as legal fees was illegal for being champertous/speculative and therefore against public policy.

Professional ethics demand that a lawyer not charge legal fees based on whether he wins or loses the case.

“The contract that the 1st respondent puts forward to claim his fees from the petitioners herein partakes the character of a Champertous Contract.

Section 23 of the Contract Act clearly stipulates that a consideration or object of an agreement is unlawful if it is opposed to public policy.

In the instant case from a reading of the affidavit filed in support of the petition it is clear that the first respondent herein has claimed a percentage of the value of the suit property as his fees which squarely assumes the character of Champertous Contract and therefore liable to be rejected. This fee has been fixed since the 1st respondent has assured the revision petitioners of success.”

All things considered, it was concluded that Ponnusamy’s case was a clear case of the abuse of law and only intended to harass his former clients. The clients had asserted before the High Court that Ponnusamy had been paid all his dues already, which is why he recorded his no objection to the termination of his services in the first place.

The Court, therefore, struck down the petition filed by Ponnusamy in the District Court, but not before it made some scathing remarks on the advocate’s conduct.

“The 1st respondent [Advocate Ponnusamy] has reduced the status of the noble profession to that of a commercial venture. Further, the 1st respondent has clearly abused the process of Court by filing a petition on frivolous grounds. If senior members of the Bar who are the beacon light for the future generations of lawyers were to abuse the process of Court it would set a bad example. The Courts cannot sit back and watch this abuse.”

In view of these observations, Justice Asha also found it appropriate to impose costs of ₹.25,000 on Ponnusamy, which sum is expected to be paid to the District Legal Services Authority, Coimbatore within a period of 2 weeks from the date of the order.

 

Picture Source :