SC Disbars Attorney for Professional Misconduct, Affirms Expansive Jurisdiction in Disciplinary Actions
Lawyers Cannot Promise Outcomes to Clients: SC
Justice S. Thurairaja PC
The Supreme Court recently disbarred an Attorney-at-Law following a ruling on serious professional misconduct. In this Rule the Supreme Court also emphasized that promising a client a definitive outcome of case not only misleads the client but also undermines the integrity of the legal profession.
In this Rule, the Supreme Court also reinforced its expansive jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings involving attorneys, stressing that a criminal conviction is not required to initiate disciplinary actions, reflecting the principles set forth by Justice Amerasinghe in the case of Dhammika Chandratileke v. Susantha Mahes Moonesinghe.
The decision stems from a complaint lodged by Rev. Wellawe Sri Chandananda Thero, who accused the Attorney for failing to perform his legal duties effectively in two district court cases.
The case involved allegations of gross negligence and mismanagement of legal fees. The Court found that the Attorney had not appeared in court on numerous occasions, leading to unnecessary delays. Additionally, he was found to have misrepresented the status of the cases to his client and filed inadequate legal pleadings. These actions demonstrated a lack of due diligence and professional competence.
The Court’s ruling emphasized that the conduct was unbecoming of an attorney and breached the trust placed in him by his client. As a result, the Attorney has been struck off the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law, effectively barring him from practicing law. He is also ordered to return Rs. 3,000,000/- to the client and to hand over all relevant case documents.
“…..It is imperative that we look at our profession’s ethical rules and codes of conduct as reflective of and concerned with the public interest and due administration of justice rather than protectionism and professional self-interests or conformity. In the words of Ross Cranston, “…in matters of professional discipline the touchstones are the standing of the profession in the eyes of the public and public protection from the unscrupulous or incompetent…..” – Justice Thurairaja
“….While an attorney may speculate and provide advice as to legal realities and potential consequences when such is sought, it is a given that there must never be a promise, undertaking, assurance, guarantee, or the like as to what the outcome of a case may be, for puffery and soothsaying is beneath the noble profession. Considerations and potential outcomes of a judicial decision are so complex and various that no man short of a true clairvoyant may be capable of predicting the outcome of proceedings with complete accuracy. When a lawyer so promises a client a desired outcome with certainty, such conduct is tantamount to improper solicitation of services, a misdeed absolutely prohibited for attorneys-at-law….”- Justice Thurairaja
SC Affirms Expansive Jurisdiction in Disciplinary Actions Against Lawyers
“….To this end, I see it pertinent to cite the observations of Amerasinghe J in Dhammika Chandratileke v. Susantha Mahes Moonesinghe, “Conviction for an offence is neither necessary, nor invariably sufficient, to make a person amenable to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is not an irrelevant matter, for conviction for an offence is a prima facie, albeit only a prima facie, reason for this Court to act in disciplinary proceedings. The Court has a wide jurisdiction in deciding what is unprofessional conduct that makes a person amenable to disciplinary proceedings…”
“…..His Lordship further observed, “An attorney whose misconduct is criminal in character, whether it was done in pursuit of his profession or not, (this Court has wider powers than those affirmed by section 4 of the Penal Code), may be struck off the roll, suspended from practice, reprimanded, admonished or advised, even though he had not been brought by the appropriate legal process before a court of competent criminal jurisdiction and convicted; and even though there is nothing to show that a prosecution is pending or contemplated….” – Justice Thurairaja
CASE NO: SC Rule No. 05/2022
BEFORE: S. THURAIRAJA PC J, KUMUDINI WICKREMASINGHE J & ACHALA WENGAPPULI, J
