Legal Practitioners Liability for Deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : An Analytical Review

The tendency of lawyers’ work to address congeries of problems associated with particular types of clients, organized the profession into types of lawyers.¹ In all contexts, the work of lawyers should be and in most cases, regulated. This regulation is necessitated by the fact that clients need to be able to rely on their lawyers for advice and representation, and tribunals, courts and other authorities need to be able to rely on lawyers’ integrity.² However lawyering is nothing but accountability.³ Just joining the bar as a legal practitioner is not the beginning or end of the professional journey.⁴ While providing legal services like other professionals, lawyers invite liability for negligence or deficiency in services in various laws.⁵

In Indian Medical Association v.V.P.Shanta,⁶ Supreme Court affirmed the growing activity in the field of consumerism and consumer protection. The Court, in this momentous decision, resolved a long standing confusion, by declaring that medical practitioners were subject to the rules and mechanisms of the CPA, 1986. This decision has not only evoked strong protests from the medical community but also has brought many legal issues to light. People today ask the question, ‘If doctors can be made liable under the CPA, why not lawyers?’⁷

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted to unite the consumers on a common platform to deal with issues of general concern and satisfactorily provide for speedy and inexpensive redress of consumers grievances. The most important point discussed here is the application of CPA, 1986 to legal service. Though there is a lot of controversy, till date it is not settled.

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a lawyer is a person learned in the law, as an attorney, counsel or solicitor, a person who is practicing law.⁸ According to Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, ‘Legal Practitioner’ refers to an advocate, vakil or attorney of any High Court, a pleader, mukhtar or revenue-agent.⁹ The Legal Practitioners (Fees) Act, 1926, section 2 (a) defines a ‘Legal Practitioner’ as ‘an advocate and includes a mukhtear or a revenue agent’. The Advocates Act, 1961 states an advocate as “an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of this Act.” ‘Legal Practitioner’ means an advocate, vakil of any High Court, a pleader, mukhtar or revenue – agent.¹⁰

The Legal Practitioners (Regulation and Maintenance of Standards in Profession, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Bill, 2010, defines “Legal Professionals” as‘the Advocates’ as defined in the Advocates Act, 1961 and includes the qualified lawyers engaged in legal practice confined to their chamber, engaged in drafting and conveyancing; practitioner of income tax and sale tax and those appearing before the relevant authorities, giving advice to the clients for a fee, gain or reward in the areas of customs, immigrations, trademark and patent services and all other professional services where legal issues are involved;¹¹

A Lawyer, unlike other professionals, is placed in a very peculiar position while rendering legal services. While an architect or a doctor is purely ‘client servicing’ it is not possible to term the ‘job profile’ of a lawyer as client servicing, though it is some client or the other which a lawyer represents in a given case. A lawyer is not only called upon to represent the interests of his client, but he is also an officer of the court. This places an onerous obligation on him; on the one hand he has to represent his client to the best of his abilities, and on the other, he has to maintain a far greater degree of detachment than other professionals.¹²

According to the Krishnaswamy Iyer, “The profession of law is a great profession, the most brilliant and attractive of the peaceful professions, with responsibilities, both inside and outside it, which no person carrying on any other profession has to shoulder. It is a great controlling and unifying institution which places upon each his duties, gives to each his rights and enforces from each, his obligations…”¹³

The question as to the scope of the lawyer’s duty to the client and the extent of duty of the lawyers to be honest in the representation of the client is not new. In equity, the relationship between a lawyer and client gives rise to various fiduciary obligations, which are enforceable at the suit of the client. The lawyer must avoid situations involving a conflict of interest between the lawyer’s personal interest and his duty to the client, and refrain from using the fiduciary relationship as a conduit for personal gain.¹⁴

Lord Brougham’s statement of the advocate’s duty to client is relevant in this context when he said:

“An Advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other. To save that client at all expedient means – to protect that client at all hazards and costs to all others, and among others to himself – is the highest and most unquestioned of his duties, and he must not regard the alarm, the suffering, the torment, the destruction, which he bring upon any other.”¹⁵

In Tiffin Hldg Ltd. v.Millican,¹⁶ Riley J. stated the obligations of a lawyer as follows:

a) To be skillful and careful.
b) To advise his client on all matters relevant to his retainer, so far as may be reasonably necessary.
c) To protect the interest of his client.
d) To carry out the instructions of his client by all proper means.
e) To consult with his client on all questions of doubt which do not fall within the express or implied discretion left to him.
f) To keep his client informed to such an extent as may be reasonably necessary, according to the same criteria.

Therefore it is very open to say that the essence of professional responsibility is that the lawyer must act at all times uberimaefidei, with utmost good faith to the client (court, other lawyer and to the member of the public). The Bar Council of India made rules under Section 49 (1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961 relating to the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette for Lawyer in India. It states that: “An Advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and normal for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-professional capacity may still be improper for an advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing obligation, an advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests of his client and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules hereinafter mentioned contain cannons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides; yet specific mention thereof shall not be construed as a denial of the existence of others equally imperative though not specifically mentioned.”¹⁷

The Consumer Protection Act section 2 (d)(ii) defines ‘consumer of services’, as “any person who hires or avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised…”¹⁸ Therefore to prove that a client of an advocate is a consumer, he has to satisfy the following criteria:

a)    Services are hired or availed of: Means if any person goes to advocate and hires or avail of his services, he is called a consumer. In other ways if it is established that a particular act constitutes hiring of services, the transaction falls within the net of the CPA and vice-versa.¹⁹
b)    Consideration must be paid or payable: Consideration is regarded necessary for hiring or availing of services. However, its payment need not necessarily be immediate. It can be in installments. For the services provided without charging anything in return; the person availing the services is not a consumer under the Act.²⁰ For e.g.: A client hires an advocate to file a suit for recovery of money from his employer. He promises to pay fee to the advocate after settlement of the suit. That client is a consumer under the Act.

The C.K.Johnnyv.Jaisundaram,²¹ is an instance for the above reasons, where it has been held that “a client is a consumer as he has availed the service of the advocate for appropriate consideration.”The draft for Legal Practitioners (Regulation and Maintenance of Standards in Profession, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Act, 2010., also defines “Consumer of Legal Profession” includes the clients of legal professionals and anyone who might have recourse to legal services because of a legal issue and those who are using or may be contemplating using services provided by the legal professionals in relation to the legal services arising out of a legal issue.²²

Does the lawyer’s relationship with his client envisage a service under sec. 2 (1)(0) of the CPA? If yes, then the client is a consumer under sec.2 (1)(d)(ii) of CPA. The term ’service’ is defined under sec 2 (1)(0). “Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. As held in Lucknow Development Authority v.M.K.Gupta,²³ this definition has three parts – the main part, the inclusory part and exclusory part. The inclusory parts are merely illustrative whereas the main part is expansive to cover any form of service.

In V.P.Nairv. Cosmopolitan Hospitals (P) Ltd.,²⁴ it was held that “the definition of service appearing in the main part is most comprehensive in nature.” This comprehensiveness has to be compared with K.Rangaswamyv. Jaya Vittal,²⁵ perhaps the first reported case on the issue. The complainant in this case had engaged the services of an advocate at Bangalore for conducting a civil writ petition before the Karnataka High Court by paying consolidated fee of Rs.2500. The complainant allegedly paid Rs.2000 to the advocate through two cheques when the said writ petition came up for hearing. It was passed over to the next day on account of the absence of the respondent’s counsel. The said case was not decided on the next date, too. In the meanwhile, the respondent demanded Rs.3000 more but the complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount. The respondent failed to appear on behalf of the complainant on the day of the next hearing and the case of the complainant was accordingly dismissed.

Aggrieved at this attitude of the advocate, the complainant filed a complaint against the advocate for his professional misconduct. The question in this case before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was whether by virtue of section 35²⁶ of Advocates Act, 1961, advocates are amenable to Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission answered the question in the affirmative and held that the service offered by the respondent to the complainant was one under the ‘contract of personal service’ and therefore could not be considered as ‘service’ within the meaning of CPA. According to the Commission, the complainant was not a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (d) of CPA and the dispute between him and the respondent could not be termed as a “consumer dispute”.²⁷

However, in Premier Automobiles v.Jayesh Fabrics,²⁸ the State Commission has held liable an advocate, Viplav Sharma, for collusion, fabrication and destruction of documents. The State Commission also sent a copy of adverse findings to the Bar Council, Delhi, for taking action against the said advocate. However, on appeal, the National Commission, while setting aside the order of the State Commission, had reached the conclusion that without any such material or evidence on record and without providing any reasonable opportunity to the advocate, without following rules of natural justice, the said conclusion and the direction to the Bar Council of India were without jurisdiction.

The above issue once again arose in Srimathiv. Union of India,²⁹ a case decided by the Madras High Court. In this case; the Court held that the consumer forums have got the necessary jurisdiction to deal with the claims against the advocates. The decision in this case has given rise to another controversy and that concerns the applicability of CPA to the legal profession in India. The Madras High Court in this case was dealing with a bunch of writ petitions which had been filed by the practicing advocates against whom claims had been filed by certain persons in the respective case before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. The common question raised in these writ petitions was regarding the validity of Sec.3³⁰ of CPA and a plea was made in all the writ petitions for a declaration that Section 3 of the Act was unconstitutional and was opposed to the objects of the said Act.

According to the petitioners, if section 3 was struck down as unconstitutional, it would not be possible for any person to drag the advocates before the consumer forums as the claim will be outside the scope of the said Act. It was further submitted that in a proceeding before the consumer forums, no court fee is payable and that it may be possible for any person to file a frivolous action against the advocate in that forum and even if that person fails ultimately, he would lose nothing. However, on the other hand, if the advocate concerned wanted to file a claim for damages, it could not be filed without the payment of the court fee by him in the civil court. According to the petitions, such provisions could cause “undue hardship and place the advocate in a hazardous situation thereby making his profession worthless.”³¹

The Madras High Court, after referring to the statement of the objects and reasons of CPA rejected the petitioner’s contentions. The Court observed,

“We are unable to find anything in the statement of objects and reasons which runs counter to the provisions of section 3 of the Act. What section 3 of the Act says is that “the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law.” In other words, the Act does not have the effect of overriding other enactments with reference to matters dealt with in the Act. The section only provides that it will be open to any person to claim the benefits of this Act and also avail himself of the provisions of other enactments if there is no inconsistency of conflict and if he is not barred otherwise, by any other principles of law, like estoppels or election.”³²

With regard to the contention that once section3 was declared unconstitutional, no person could institute any proceeding before the consumer forums. The High Court held that even if the section was declared to be unconstitutional, “other sections of the Act will continue to be intact and if the services of the advocate fall within the definition of service under section 2(1)(o) of the Act, then it will certainly be open to a client to proceed against the advocate before the Consumer Redressal Forum.”³³ The court further observed that the object of the petitioners to exclude the advocates from the purview of the Consumer Redressal Forum could not be achieved by the grant of the prayer made in the writ petitions, namely, to declare section 3 of the Act as unconstitutional.³⁴

Another argument put forwarded by the petitioners was that they were governed by the provisions of the Indian Advocates Act, 1961 and that they shall not be made to answer the claims under Consumer Protection Act. It may be appropriate to mention here that an exactly similar plea was taken by the medical professionals before the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v.V.P.Shantha.³⁵ However, while rejecting their plea, the Apex Court had categorically observed, “The fact that medical practitioners belong to the medical profession and are subject to the disciplinary control of the Medical Council of India and/or State Medical Councils constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, would not exclude the services rendered by them from the ambit of the Act.”³⁶

The petitioners finally argued that a client, who engaged an advocate for professional services, was not a ‘consumer’ under the section 2 (1)(d) of CPA. This contention was also rejected by the High Court. The Court held that the language of the said section was very wide and that it used the expression ‘avails of any service for a consideration’. Thus according to the Court “that will not certainly exclude the services rendered by an advocate.”³⁷ The High Court referred to the definition of the term service as given in section 2 (1)(d) of CPA. A reference was also made to a land mark decision of the Supreme Court that is the case of Lucknow Development Authority v.M.K.Gupta.³⁸ In the said case for instance, the Supreme Court while referring to the word ‘service’ had made the following observations:

“The term has a variety of meanings. It may mean any benefit or any act resulting in promoting interest or happiness. It may be contractual, professional, public, domestic, legal, statutory etc. the concept of service is very wide.”³⁹

The Supreme Court in Kishore Lalv. Chairman, Employee’s State Insurance Corp.,41 observed that jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. The Act being beneficial legislation, it should receive a liberal construction.

In the case of D.K.Gandhiv. M. Mathias,42 the National Consumer Redressal Commission made it clear that all professionals, including lawyers, should come under the ambit of the CPA. The plaintiff had engaged the professional service of a lawyer. Subsequently, a dispute arose and the plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of the lawyer and filed a consumer complaint against him at the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum directed the lawyer to pay Rs.3000 as compensation for mental agony and harassment. The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission overruled the District Forums order by stating that a complaint against a lawyer was not maintainable before the consumer forum as the service rendered by lawyers did not come under section 2 (1)(o) of CPA. As per the National Commission, the reasoning given by the State Commission was erroneous. The National Commission stated that,

“The ambit and scope of section 2 (1)(o) of the CPA which defines ‘service’ is very wide and by this time well established. It covers all services except rendering of services free of charge or a contract of personal service. Undisputedly, lawyers are rendering service. They are charging fees. It is not a contract of personal service. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that they are not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Commission approached the question totally in an erroneous manner by holding that by executing power of attorney, the client authorizes the lawyer to do certain acts on his behalf and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do such act. It is to be stated that a lawyer may not be responsible for the favorable outcome of a case as the result/outcome does not depend upon only on lawyer’s work. But, if there is deficiency in rendering services promised, for which consideration in the form of fee is received by him, then the lawyers can be proceeded against under the CPA. Further, it is totally erroneous to hold that it is a unilateral contract executed by the client by giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter. Apparently, it is a bilateral contract between the client and the lawyer, and, that too, on receipt of fees; the lawyer would appear and represent the matter on behalf of his client. To hold that contract is unilateral is to ignore the fact that even after discussion the client may not engage the advocate or the advocate may refuse to accept the brief. Hence, such a contract can never be said to be unilateral.”

From the above discussion it can be safely said that the relationship between a lawyer and client carries within it a certain degree of mutual confidence and trust. Therefore, the services rendered by the lawyer can be regarded as services of personal nature. However since there in no relation between lawyer and client, it cannot be treated as a contract of personal service. It is a contract for service and the service rendered by the lawyer to his client is under such a contract and is not covered by the exclusionary part of the definition of ‘service’ contained in section 2 (1)(o) of the CPA.⁴³

However, when the same case i.e. Bar of Indian Lawyers v.D.K.Gandhi,⁴⁴, reached to the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the lawyers were basically officers of the court who had a duty to assist the court and not to act as a mouthpiece of the client. The lawyer renders his assistances to this client and nothing more, whereas the doctor-patient relationship is one to one. Lawyers cannot at all be compared with doctors.

It is also said, the NCRDC failed to appreciate the difference between a consumer and a clientas defined under the CPA. The Advocates Act, 1961 governs the lawyer-client relationship.

The Bar of Indian Lawyers submitted that a client executes the power of attorney, authorizing the lawyer to do certain acts on his behalf, and there is no term of contract as to the liability of the lawyer in case he fails to do any such act.

When a client hires a lawyer, it is a unilateral contract executed by the client, giving authority to the lawyer to appear and represent the matter on his behalf without any specific assurance or undertaking. Therefore, lawyers were not liable under the CPA for deficient or negligent service, it claimed. The Supreme Court, after a cursory and preliminary examination of the relevant laws, granted stay against the order of the National Commission.⁴⁵

The reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in Shantha Case holding doctors liable for deficiency of service under the provisions of CPA, is sound and rational and there is no reason why the same reasoning cannot be adopted in the case of advocates. It is true that advocate cannot guarantee the result, so as doctors and extending blanket of immunity to advocates will send wrong signal to the profession and society.⁴⁶

The lawyers render service and charge a fee for it, the basic requirement of service under CPA, 1986. A lawyer may not be responsible for the favourable outcome of a case, but he should be liable if there is a deficiency in rendering the promised services.⁴⁷ There is a need to examine the amplitude of the term ‘deficiency in services’ under this Act. The question whether all the acts or omission of the legal practitioners may constitute the deficiency in service as defined under the CPA, 1986, is to be answered.⁴⁸

The basic facet of the legal profession is the lack of simplistic definition of negligence. The test of “a prudent man’ as laid down in Donoughuev. Stevenson⁴⁹ is unknown to the legal profession, and mere negligence as understood above, unaccompanied by moral deficiency does not constitute professional misconduct.⁵⁰ A dictum of a special bench of Madras High Court has clearly held that neglect of duties would not amount to professional misconduct,⁵¹ since the element of moral deficiency is the main ingredient of professional misconduct.⁵²

The CPA, section 2 (1)(g)⁵³ clearly defines the term ‘deficiency in service’. Therefore the deficiency must be in relation to and always in term of a service which an advocate provides to the client. Thus if the grievance pertains to a matter which does not fall in the definition of service (section 2 (1)(o)), the concept of deficiency would not apply.⁵⁴ In other way advocate would not be liable to the client under CPA, 1986.

The question of deficiency in legal services came up in the case MC v. RA⁵⁵ before the SCDRC for Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. A complaint was filed against the appellant advocate for deficiency in service in not filing a revision before the National Commission despite payment of fee. The advocate explained that the respondent complainant had got a certified copy of the impugned order, but had failed to deliver it to the appellant, and in fact had caused the revision to be filed by another advocate. The State Commission found that there was no deficiency in service and that the District Forum’s order directing refund of fee was liable to be set aside.

The case of misappropriation or misuse of funds, purposeful delay to defeat the limitation period⁵⁶ and filing appeals without proper stamps inspite of repeated reminders⁵⁷ have been thought fit cases, because they are considered to be “immoral and shameful” and are supposed to “dishonor” the legal community at large.

In R.K.Kannappanv. K.P.K. Komalam,⁵⁸ the professional fee was deducted from land acquisition compensation. Contention that 10% towards fee was deducted from the amount awarded by the Sub-Court as agreed between parties, was not acceptable. Deficiency in service was proved. Complaint was rightly allowed by the forum.

In S. Mahendranv. ChirayinkilC. P. Badra Kumar,⁵⁹ where advocate failed to file a suit; it amounted a deficiency in service on the part of the advocate. The complainant was held entitled to costs fixed by the NCDRC and was directed to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant within one month.

In Mukesh and Co. v. S.M. Bansal,⁶⁰ cheating, misappropriation, breach of trust and forgery had been committed by opposite party (advocate), cheques were withdrawn from bank, sales tax was not deposited. They misrepresented and misguided the complainant that sales tax was regularly being deposited. Deficiency of service was proved. Opposite party was ordered to repay the amount with interest at the rate of 10%.

In S.A. Ahmed and Co. v.Poonam A. Shah,⁶¹ complainant engaged an advocate for filing of suit for specific performance and paid court fee of Rs. 62,125 along with professional fees and litigation expenses. The O.P.(advocate), filed a suit for injunction instead of filing a suit for specific performance, by paying court fees of Rs.25/-. The Commission ordered the OP to refund of amount paid by the complainant along with compensation for mental agony and cost awarded by the forum and observed, “The profession of advocate is considered as a noble profession and an advocate is expected to protect the interest of his client and fight for justice. But in the case on hand, an advocate has played fraud on his client, which made the client suffer mental agony and hardship.”

“the litigant who suffers entirely on account of his advocates non-appearance in court had also the remedy to sue the advocate for damages… If advocate claims that his right to strike must be without any loss to him but the loss must only be for his innocent client, such a claim is repugnant to any principle of fair play and canons of ethics. So when he opts to strike work or boycott the court, he must as well be prepared to bear at least the pecuniary loss suffered by the litigant client who entrusted the brief to that advocate with all confidence that his case would be safe in the hands of that advocate.”

However, to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forae, the relationship of consumer and service provider must be established.⁶³ Lawyers receive remuneration for their service and any client who hires the services of a lawyer for consideration is a consumer. But a lawyer attracts liability under the CPA only for any deficiency in service rendered by him. Substantive law relating to negligence has not been changed. Therefore, all instances of breach of duty discussed above invite liability under the Act and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forae can be invoked for the same.⁶⁴

The Consumer Forums are empowered to give appropriate relief according to section 14⁶⁵ of CPA and also other relief like, a client can recover the fee paid to the lawyer for any deficiency in service. If it is yet to be paid, the lawyer forfeits his right to recover the fee. In C.S. Sarmav. P.V. Venkatswamy,⁶⁶ the complainant had paid fee for filing the suit but the lawyer did not file the suit. The lawyer was directed to pay fee with interest. Likewise, in Virender Kumar Gupta v. Anil Kumar Jain,⁶⁷ where in an execution proceeding, while representing the petitioner, the respondent (advocate) did not appear and the same was dismissed for default the petitioner was awarded Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused by deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

•Research Scholar, P.G. Dept. of Studies of Law, Karnatak University, Dharwad and Lecturer, KLE Society’s Law College, Bangalore.
1Stewart Macauloy, “Lawyers and Consumer Protection Laws,” (Law and Society Review, Vol.14.No.1 (Autumn, 1979)). P.120
2By Michael Kagan, “Setting Standards of Ethics, Competence and Accountability for Legal Aid in the Context of UNHCR RSD,” Available @ kaganethicswpproposal.
3Dr. S. Mustafa Alam Nagui, “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Professional Obligation,” (1stedn., Faridabad: Allahabad Law Agency Law Publishers, 2005, P.150).
4I. Lalitkumar Singh, “A View on the Legal Profession,” (AIR, 2006), P.2
5B.S. Venugopal, “Civil Liability of the Lawyers for Deficiency in Services : A Critical Analysis,” (JILI, Vol.53:2, 2011), P.275
6(1995) 6 SCC 651
7Legal Ethics, COPRA and Lawyers, Available @ www.legalsutra.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/copra-and-lawyers/cached.
8Available @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/legal_practitioner
9Sec.3 of The Legal Practitioners Act, 1879, Act No. 18 of 1879
10Sec.2 (a) &(i) of The Advocates Act, 1961
11Sec.2 (d) of The Legal Practitioners (Regulation and Maintenance of Standards in Profession, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Bill, 2010
12Raju Ramachandram, “Professional Ethics : Changing Profession, Changing Ethics,” (New Delhi: Lexis Nexis, 2004), P.11
13K.V. Krishnaswamy Iyer, “Professional Conduct and Advocacy,” (2ndedn., London : Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press, 1945), P.1
14G.Geethisha, “Disciplining the Lawyers : Law and Professional Ethics,” (CWLR, Vol.27, Issue No. 1-2, 2003), P.191
15See Rotunda, “ Review of Freed Man : Lawyer’s Ethics in an Adversary System,” (89 Harv L Rev. 622 (1976))
1649 DLR(2d)216
17The section II, of this, specifically prescribed the duties of the advocates to the clients.
18Sec.2 (d) (ii) provides “consumer Services” means any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who ‘hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes; Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
19Commentary on Consumer Protection Act, Available @ncdrc.in/1_1_2.html
20Ibid
21(1995) CPJ 311
22Legal Practioners (Regulation and Maintenance of Standards in Profession, Protecting the Interests of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Bill, 2010
23(1994) 1 SCC 243
24(1991) CPJ 444
25(1991) CPJ 688
26Sec. 35 of Advocates Act, 1961 deals with Punishment of Advocates for Misconduct.
27Supra note 25, P.687
28111 (1995) CPJ 24 (NC)
29(1997) 5 CTJ 99
30Sec.3 of the Act lays down that this Act is “In addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”
31Supra note 29, P.100
32Ibid, P.101
33Ibid
34Ibid
35(1995) 3 CTJ 969 (SC)
36Ibid, P.989-90
37Supra note 29, P.102
38(1993) 1 CTJ 929 (SC)
39Ibid, P.935
40Supra note 29, P.102
41(2007) 4 SCC 579
42Order dated August 06, 2007 in RP No. 1392/2006 of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, (111 (2007) CPJ 337 NC, The Bench consisted of M.B.Shah (a former Judge of Supreme Court) and R. Rao)
43Anuj Bhuwania and P.K.Prabhat, “Should Lawyers be Brought under COPRA : A Rejoinder,” (The Student Advocate, Vol. 10, 1998,) P.101
44(MANU/SC/0950/2009), Available @http://www.nerve.in/news253500217160,dated.3-12-2011,10.15, P.2
45Ibid, P.1
46J.S.Halashetti, “Liability of Advocates for Professional Negligence : Should Advocates be Amenable to Consumer Protection Act 1986,&rdquo Compiled in Honor of the Common Man (Essays in Law), Printed at Gadag, Published Dharwad, 2013, Pp.273-274
47Jeet Singh Mann, “Liability of the Legal Practitioners for Professional Negligence : A Critical Analysis,” JILI, Vol. 51:3, 2009, Pp.393-394
48Ibid
49(1932) AC 562
50P.D.Khanderkar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 110
51AIR 1926 Nag).568
52Siddharth Tiwari, “Services of Lawyers under Consumer Protection Act: A Critical Analysis,” (Vol. III, CPJ (Aug.) 2011, P. (55) 3
53Sec 2 (1)(g) of CPA, “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
54Consumer Protection Act, Available @ www.legalserviceindia.com
55(2002) 3 CPR 351
56In Re Pleader, Tirupur, AIR 1945 Mad 55
57C.Padmanabha Ayyangar, Advocate, AIR 1938 Mad 1
58II (2005) CPJ 673 (TN). The decision of Supreme Court In re ‘M’ an Advocate (AIR. 1957 SC 149) is worth noticeable on this point. The court said: “the high standards of the profession demands that when the moneys of the client come into the possession of an advocate, otherwise than as earmarked fees, he has to treat himself as in the position of a trustee for the client in respect of the said moneys, it would be improper for him to retain i.e. to appropriate the same towards his fees without the consent, express or implied of his client or without an order of the court. It may be in certain circumstances he is entitled to exercise a lien, but he has to give reasonable intimation both of the fact of moneys having come into his hands and of the exercise of lien over them until his account is settled. If there has been no prior settlement of fees, he cannot constitute himself a judge in his own cause as to what would be reasonable to him. The position of trusteeship in respect of moneys of the client in his hands is all the greater where the moneys represent the unspent balance of what was given for a specific purpose, such as, for payment of printing charges. On any such unspent balance, it is well settled, that he has no lien, either under the common law or by the statute.”
591992 (2) CPR 667
60II (2005) CPJ 107 : 2005 (3) CLT 139(NC)
61II (2009) CPJ 367
62AIR 2001 SC 207
63Ramesh Chandra Verma v. Chairman, District Forum Dholpur, II 2004 CPJ 14 (Raj. SCDRC)
64Supra note5, P.304
65Sec.14 of CPA,1986, (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the District Forum is satisfied… that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely:(e)to remove the deficiencies in the services in question (ha)… to desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature; (hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a … consumers (i) to provide for adequate costs to parties. …
66I 1997 CPJ 425 (AP SCDRC)
672011 (3) CPJ 409 : 2012(1) CLT 180(NC)