Musings As OutLaw-VI NarasimhanVijayaraghavan Justice J Chelameshwar, Supreme Court bemoaned at the commercialisation in the legal profession
NarasimhanVijayaraghavan
Justice J Chelameshwar, Supreme Court bemoaned at the commercialisation in the legal profession, which was rampant before the top court. He was particularly concerned that “there were advocates whose rates were in the vicinity of Rs.1 crore a day”. He could not be wrong. He was not. Those in the know of things, practitioners, are fully alive and aware. In fact, there is ‘open soliciting of briefs and competing claims advancing interests, by claiming closeness to Judges”. That was a mail from a puisne Judge, no less. He must know too. He cites one instance, he experienced as an advocate “I was trying to engage a Senior Advocate who my client insisted come on board, as his appearance before the particular Bench always tilted the scales. On approaching, (at 02.00 am when he said he was sipping apple juice and did not care to share) he said, he had already been paid a huge advance ‘not to appear’ in the case. He said that 3 other Seniors have also been tied up with huge advances by the other side, so that they were unavailable for appearance. Wow, I thought that would be some practice in law, where you are paid for not appearing. How wonderful it would be!”
“The corridors of courts always buzz with ‘commercial quotes’ from Senior Advocates and a client can place order in the marketplace for their appearance in the Justice market as Justice V R Krishna Iyer called it” concluded my friend.
That is why it is often said that litigation is not for the poor and underprivileged, but the rich, influential and affluent. For those of us, who had experienced attending the apex court “on Mondays and possibly on Fridays, when ‘Admission Cases’ are taken up exclusively, have never failed to notice that one set of 10/15 Senior Advocates would be rushing from one Court to another, after a few minutes in each one. Their juniors would be in attendance to summon them in time or seek a ‘pass over’, if it is an obliging Bench. Since these gentlemen lawyers ‘cannot be present in the same court, at the same time, the clients are persuaded to agree to engage more than one Senior Advocate, just in case there is need for a ‘substitute’. You have to necessarily pay both Seniors, or sometimes even 3 or 4, if it is a high stake matter. It is costly affair, and if a client seeks a fair hearing of being ‘heard’. It seems unavoidable, under the present scheme of things”, affirms an Advocate on Record.
And there are Advocates who are experts in Billing clients. “For opening 23 mails, downloading them, and getting it read and responded to by 2 associates, for 18 telecons’ time lasting 48 minutes, 25 text messages, 3 conferences at our office and 2 with the Senior Advocates, and one reading session of ourselves with the Senior Advocate, and appearance fee of ourselves on 3 hearings, and 2 ineffective and 1 effective hearing for the Senior Advocate and separate clerkage.” That is from a Bill of an Advocate on Record. All told- Rs. 83,00,000/-. Lasting 1 week. Result of the case: “No case made out. Dismissed”. Time: 12 seconds.
This lead up may not be new to the initiated. But I have a different musing to share. Singularly unique. The client was from Mumbai. He was ‘an investor looking for opportunities to make a killing in as little time as possible’ according to him. He had lent huge sums of money to a prominent industrialist in Chennai, with many a hand in many a pie. The borrowings were in the context of or of his companies, which had come up fast, but was not settling down well. The debtor was unable to keep the promised timeline, on payment of interest and refund of principal.
The financier from Mumbai landed up in our office. And we were constrained to move a petition seeking to wind up the company. Just before the petition got listed for hearing, the financier called us and requested us to wait a while, before he could move for the kill. It so happened that the self same industrialist approached our office for legal advice on a family issue. As he was leaving, my Senior ever so reluctantly asked him about the debts he had run up with the Mumbai financier.
Industrialist: “Yes, I had run up the debts. But on becoming aware of his intent to move a winding up petition, we immediately paid him the entire dues, by handing over post dated cheques in a few instalments. If my memory serves me correct, the entire debt may have been satisfied by now.” Senior, “Could you please update on the instalment schedule?”
On becoming aware that the last of the cheques’ was to be cleared that very day, Senior instructed me to file a suit for recovery before City Civil Court, Madras, praying for an order of injunction to the bank, from paying the cheque proceeds to the financier. Senior was furious that the financier was taking us for a ride m, without disclosing his private compromise with the industrialist.
Senior said, “Please understand this in your practice. You should never be greedy or avaricious. You should charge very reasonable fee, commensurate not only to the cause but also with special regard to the financial wherewithal of the client. Charge what you may deserve, with these parameters and serve the client well. But, if the client plays smart like on this occasion, it is not generosity or magnanimity to ignore his cheating, nothing less. It is not beneath your dignity to chase the fee. You may afford to suffer the loss. Disdain for money that belongs to you by right, is not being graceful. It is an insult to your intelligence as an honest and sincere practitioner. It is disrespectful of the nobility in the profession. My advice would be to ensure that the client become aware that he cannot take you for a ride.”
We moved the City Civil Court, Madras, and Senior argued as party in person. The judge was his ex junior and so Senior sought permission to appear before him, just in case the junior had any reservations. Then he said, “The defendant has cheated me of my fee which he promised to pay. This is the letter of his commitment. He settled the claim directly with the defendant and kept us in the dark. By sheer chance, I came to know of it and the last of the instalments due to be realised is today. I would not like to be seen as a fool by the Mumbai financier. At the same time, I want to make it clear that my suit, for the first time in my 40 year career, is as a matter of principle. The entire fee portion may kindly be paid, even directly by the defendant, to an orphan institution, I have always supported. Not one paise, I need to be paid. Even the Income Tax benefit may be enjoyed by the financier.” Interim injunction was granted and a panel advocate of Punjab & Sind Bank, was summoned and served to take note.
News travelled fast and the financier came calling the very day. He profusely apologised for his misconduct. He was improperly advised that since the settlement came about, without notice being ordered by High Court, no fee may need to be paid. “Sir, I am extremely sorry for my shameful conduct. When my wife came to know of this, she insisted that I rush to Madras and pay not only pay the fee but twice the agreed sum as Prayashchitham. Please accept the fee and do not refuse it. I understand you wanted to donate the fee to an orphan institution. I have already arranged to donate the entire instalment due and payable by the last cheque, to the said institution. Now, I think you should be graceful enough to accept double the fee, I was duty bound to pay. Please.”
He fell at the feet of my Senior who told him, “I fought for a principle. You are a financier. You know the value of money, more than I do. I am happy you have a wife who is grounded in proper values. Please convey my regards to her. I will accept the fee you agreed to pay originally. But I would request you to pass on the penal fee you are agreeable to the orphan institution itself. Just so that you understand, you cannot cheat or seek to take a professional for a ride and not pay a price.”
(Author is practising advocate in the Madras High Court)
![Vinothpandian: 2016 (3) CTC 241 : mukanchand bothra S vs vairamuthu ramaswamy ( DB ) : contempt petition filed at behest of private indivdual without consent of advocate general is not maintainable ( section 2(c) of contempt of courts act 1971 ) [8/3, 11:10] Vinothpandian: 2017 (6) CTC](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
