The Kerala High Court recently imposed ₹50,000 as costs on two advocates for stalling execution proceedings in a land acquisition over a dispute regarding unpaid legal fees due from their former clients [Mary Help John David J & anr v JV Anoop & ors].

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas strongly criticised the conduct of the advocates and observed that no advocate can hold up legal proceedings to pressurise a client into paying fees.

The Court said that such actions strike at the very dignity of the legal profession and cannot be permitted.

"There cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be a situation where the litigant is pushed to a corner or blackmailed into paying the fee demanded by the Advocate. Even worse is the situation when the Advocate, after termination of his engagement, attempts to stall the very proceeding in which he was appearing on behalf of the litigant," the Court said in its April 8 ruling.

It further stated that the nobility associated to the legal profession depended on the conduct of its members. The Court cautioned advocates that if their actions caused harm to their own clients or delayed justice, it would directly affected the dignity of the profession.

"Even if it is assumed, without upholding it, that petitioners are correct about the unpaid fee, still, an Advocate has no right to halt the legal proceedings until his claim for fee is settled," the Court added.

Lawyers must approach a civil court to settle disputes over unpaid legal fees from clients, the Court further ruled. It held that a writ petition before the High Court is not the appropriate remedy in such matters.

The matter concerned two advocates and their former clients who were the decree holders in a land acquisition reference.

The advocates (petitioners) approached the High Court through a writ petition, claiming that they were denied their rightful professional fees for their appearance on behalf of these clients for several years.

They alleged that the new lawyer engaged by the clients had improperly taken over the case without a No Objection Certificate. Therefore, the advocates sought to put on hold the execution proceedings in relation to the land acquisition until their fee dispute was resolved.

The filing of the writ petition before the High Court, in turn, led to the execution proceedings in land acquisition case being stalled for several months.

Meanwhile, the clients contended that even after paying substantial amounts to the petitioners, they continued to make excessive and unlawful demands. The clients argued that they were forced to engage new counsel after losing trust in the petitioner-advocates.

The newly engaged advocates also denied any wrongdoing and maintained that they had been validly appointed.

The High Court refused to examine the fee dispute, holding that such disputes between an advocate and a client must be decided by a civil court first and not through a writ petition.

It further clarified that clients are free to change their lawyers, and that courts can allow such a change even if the earlier lawyer does not agree.

The Court sharply criticised the petitioners' move to file a writ petition over such an issue to stall their former client's case.

"A pernicious conduct of a member of the legal profession, attempting to stall a decree holder from enjoying the fruits of a decree, until his claim for legal fees is settled, has been, unabashedly brought up for determination before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances pleaded in the writ petition, reveal disconcerting instances for the whole legal fraternity, as an Advocate who had earlier appeared for a decree holder, is attempting to halt the progress of the execution petition, alleging non payment of fees."

The Court also pointed out that the writ proceedings initiated by the advocates had delayed the release of money to the rightful claimants for nearly 10 months, which was unacceptable.

Thus, the Court dismissed the petition and imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the advocates and asked them to pay the amount to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within six weeks, failing which recovery steps would be taken.

Advocates R Prasanth Kumar appeared for the petitioner advocates.

Advocates Shiny Das, MU Vijayalakshmi and Appu Ajith represented the respondent claimants.

[Read Judgment]