Law should not be treated as a money-making profession; don't go by what Americans say: Kerala High Court

Legal profession is a service to the society and lawyers should not treat it as a money-making avenue, the Kerala High Court said on Thursday. .Justice Devan Ramachandran said that charging by the hour for legal services is a misconception and is definitely not the practice in Kerala and lawyers should not go by what they find on internet about how Americans view the legal profession. "You come here after reading on the internet what the Americans and all are doing. We don't work by the hour. For us, the profession is still a service," he said.He emphasised that law cannot be viewed as an ATM. "Law is not a money-making profession. If anybody who enters this profession believes that this is a machine that behaves like an ATM - you put in the hours and you get the money - they are sadly and grossly mistaken. Law being a profession where you charge by the hour is a misconception. It may be true in other parts of the world but not in Kerala. And I don't want it to happen in Kerala, and preferably in the rest of the country. None of us have worked like this, nor do I work like that even now," the judge orally observed. He also pointed out that judges and government pleaders work long hours."How many hours do you think we are putting in? We don't blow our trumpet for that. How many hours do you think the government pleaders are putting in? Many of them don't sleep in the night because in my court they will have 200-250 matters to look up each day. We don't work by the hour," he remarked..He emphasised that the legal profession is still a service and that money will come with time to those who persevere."Money is something that will come to you when you do better. You need time and perseverance," the judge observed..The Court made these observations while hearing a petition moved by a lawyer practicing in Kottayam who was appointed as an advocate commissioner by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kottayam to take possession of scheduled premises. She received a batta of ₹8,500, following which she visited the premises on three separate occasions, accompanied by officers of the concerned bank. On the third visit, the officials allegedly requested the petitioner to take partial possession. However, when the case was called, the bank told the magistrate that the petitioner had only taken partial possession of the secured asset without their consensus. The petitioner was allegedly taken aback by what transpired before the magistrate and, therefore, informed the bank that she would not be able to complete taking possession. She surrendered her commission warrant and the magistrate directed her to remit the balance batta. However, since she had visited the premises thrice, the petitioner said that there was no balance amount. The bank filed an objection to this, and ultimately the magistrate passed an order directing the petitioner to return ₹2,500 out of the total ₹8,500 that she had received. The magistrate also ordered the removal of the petitioner's name from the commission panel of the court. This prompted the petitioner to move the High Court contending that this order of the Magistrate was unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal."The impugned order demonstrates a clear disregard for the legal principles governing the appointment and duties of advocate commissioners, setting a dangerious precedent for the administration of justice. The impugned order is unreasonable and in violation of principles of natural justice, as it penalises the petitioner without proper adjudication and consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case", the petition stated. Therefore, she sought orders from the High Court quashing the order of the magistrate. .The matter will be taken up next on March 5. .The petitioner was represented by advocates Apoorva Ramkumar, V Ramkumar Nambiar, V John Sebastian Ralph, Ralph Reti John, Vishnu Chandran and Giridhar Krishna Kumar.