Recently, in a strong criticism of unfair fee practices in compensation claims, the Supreme Court has upheld a three-year suspension imposed on an advocate who demanded a contingent fee of ₹2.3 lakhs from a client awarded ₹5 lakhs under a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) order. The Court described the conduct as “gross misconduct,” observing that the very issuance of a fee notice tied to the claim’s outcome violated professional ethics.
The case originated from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, which had initially suspended the advocate’s licence for five years. On appeal, the Bar Council of India (BCI) reduced the suspension to three years. Dissatisfied with the reduced suspension, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court seeking further relief.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, however, declined to interfere, characterising the advocate’s demand as an unethical attempt to profit from his client's misfortune. Refusing to show indulgence, the Court questioned the rationale behind the fee demand while asking, “You’ve sent a notice of fees of ₹2,30,000 against a claim of ₹5,00,000? How can you? Can the legal fees be [greater] than the outcome? Can it be?” Referring to the record, the Court added, “It’s your own case before the Bar Council that on the outcome of the claim, you’ll be entitled to claim fees… Gross Misconduct!”
The Bench reinforced the Court’s disapproval, remarking, “We don’t know how many others you have cheated like this… complete misconduct.”
The petitioner’s counsel sought leniency on the ground that the penalty would irreparably damage his client’s professional future. It was also contended that the fee notice included other dues arising from separate matters and was a consolidated demand. However, the Bench found no merit in these submissions and refused to entertain the plea of procedural unfairness, including the argument that the petitioner had been denied a chance to cross-examine witnesses despite being present.
The Court, expressing concern over systemic exploitation of victims in motor accident claims, particularly by what it referred to as ‘girohs’ of advocates preying on vulnerable litigants, made it clear that such conduct must be curbed.
In a closing observation, the Bench remarked, “Lawyers need to get trained in discipline,” signalling the Court’s broader call for professional integrity within the bar.
Picture Source :
