The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), on Monday, handed down an eight-week suspension to an advocate for soliciting work by painting/pasting his mobile number on public walls. .The advocate, Shakeel Khan, advertised himself as a “specialist in divorce and court matters” and pasted his mobile number on the public walls of the "entire South Delhi", the order passed by BCD noted. .The BCD also issued a show-cause notice to the advocate as to why his name should not be removed from its rolls permanently. .The order was passed after a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the BCD against the advocate. During the enquiry, it was also found that the advocate had published his mobile number on a website as well..The BCD also contacted the advocate on his mobile phone and then concluded that he had, prima facie, committed professional misconduct..It noted that the advocate’s conduct was in gross violation of Rule 36 which prohibits an advocate from soliciting work, communication, advertising, circulation etc..It was also stated that it violated Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007..The BCD said that an advocate is an officer of the court and the legal profession was not a trade or a business..[Read BCD order]
The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), on Monday, handed down an eight-week suspension to an advocate for soliciting work by painting/pasting his mobile number on public walls. .The advocate, Shakeel Khan, advertised himself as a “specialist in divorce and court matters” and pasted his mobile number on the public walls of the "entire South Delhi", the order passed by BCD noted. .The BCD also issued a show-cause notice to the advocate as to why his name should not be removed from its rolls permanently. .The order was passed after a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the BCD against the advocate. During the enquiry, it was also found that the advocate had published his mobile number on a website as well..The BCD also contacted the advocate on his mobile phone and then concluded that he had, prima facie, committed professional misconduct..It noted that the advocate’s conduct was in gross violation of Rule 36 which prohibits an advocate from soliciting work, communication, advertising, circulation etc..It was also stated that it violated Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act 2007..The BCD said that an advocate is an officer of the court and the legal profession was not a trade or a business..[Read BCD order]
