Lawyers' wisdom to choose clients but they should avoid representing blood relatives: Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court recently observed that while lawyers are free to choose their clients, their initial years of practice would usually teach them that they should not ideally appear for blood relatives. [In Re Subhash Kumar Advocate].Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV were dealing with a matter wherein a lawyer had appeared for his father in a matrimonial dispute against his mother. Surprised by this aspect of the matter, the Court observed,."It cannot be for Courts to advise lawyers to choose their clients. It has always been left to the wisdom of the learned members of the bar. The basic learning that any member of the bar imbibes at the initial years of practice tell him to not appear for his blood relatives. However this wisdom and nuance has not touched Subham Kumar (the lawyer) by a mile.".The judges added that ideally, the law should not have formal restrictions on who lawyers can appear."It indeed would be sad if statutory law were to provide for restrains on whose brief to take and whose not. Yet, the father - son duo before us would appear to take no less. That's the tragic part of this case," the Court said. .Pertinently, the Court was dealing with a contempt case concerning the lawyer and his father (his client). The lawyer and his father were alleged to have disrupted proceedings before a family court. After the family court judge sent a written complaint over the incident to the High Court, contempt proceedings were initiated against the lawyer and his father. The High Court observed that court proceedings are formal proceedings which must be conducted in a dignified manner and without disruptions. Any grievance has to be addressed only by filing an appropriate application, appeal or a mention, the Court added.However, these commonly enforced practices may take a back seat in an emotionally charged atmosphere, such as when a lawyer is appearing for his relative, the Court observed.“What more catastrophic or precipitative ingredient could have existed than a son (lawyer) appearing for his father (litigant) that too in a matrimonial case with his (lawyer's) mother!” the High Court added while referring to the case at hand..The contempt case was initiated on a the reference made by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Aligarh in 2022. One reference was against a litigant, Subhash Kumar and the other was against his son and his lawyer, Shubham Kumar. Both were accused of behaving in an unruly matter in the family court, despite warnings. The lawyer is also alleged to have shouted that "he is a practitioner of the Allahabad High Court and that he knowns how to deal with petty courts," while threatening to lodge a complaint against the Presiding Officer..The High Court took a dim view of the allegations and also raised doubts over the sincerity of the apology tendered by the lawyer and his father."On a query made, if the contemnors were seeking forgiveness. Both, first stated 'Yes'. However, when questioned for what, the answer was ridiculous to say the least as they both stated 'जो हमने करा नहीं (for what we did not do)'", the Court observed. .Nevertheless, the Court decided to close the contempt proceedings to avoid wasting time meant for genuine litigants. ."We do not have time to take our gaze away from the cause of justice and to devote the same to punish the contemnors as per the rules of law. Our time would be better utilized and is needed to address the cry for justice by genuine litigants. It does not merit to be wasted on the jesters and/or deviant lawyer and litigant that these contemnors are. They are far too less deserving of that," the Court said..The bench observed that it is not for the Court to force a litigant or his lawyer to tender an apology. The Court, however, added that it has not absolved either the lawyer or his father for their conduct..The Court also appreciated the family court judge for doing all she could to ensure that the decorum of the court was maintained before parting with the matter. .[Read Order]