1992 PLP 1556 (CLC)

(c) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976‑‑‑ --‑‑Ch. XII‑‑‑Canons of rules of professional ethics. The legal profession is an important branch of administration of justice. An Advocate is not supposed to indulge merely in money‑making trade in charging fee from his clients. He should avoid charges which over‑estimate his advice and services as well as those which undervalue him. The client's ability to pay cannot justify charge in excess of the value of the service, though his poverty may justify a lesser charge or even none at all. This is one of the canons of rules of professional ethics. Complainant in person. Respondent in person. IRSHAD HASAN KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑The Disciplinary Committee of the Punjab Bar Council referred the case of the respondent, an Advocate of the Lahore High Court, under section 41(4) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, to this Tribunal for decision.

2. Mr. Muhammad Amin, a resident of Farooq Ganj, Lahore, made a complaint on 20‑9‑1989 to the Punjab Bar Council that he engaged the respondent/'Advocate in a criminal case. He alleged that respondent took away sum of Rs.86,300 from him through misrepresentation and fraud on different occasions in connection with that case but neither rendered any service nor returned the same.

3. During the course of disciplinary proceedings before the Punjab Bar Council, the respondent‑Advocate made an offer that if the complainant makes a special oath on Holy Quran that he has illegally snatched the disputed amount, he would be willing to pay. The respondent‑Advocate also admitted before the Bar Council that he received a sum of Rs.70,000 from the complainant and expressed his willingness to pay the same through instalments.

4. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council through a unanimous decision dated 30‑5‑1991 was of the view that prima facie the respondent was guilty of gross professional misconduct. Consequently, his case has been referred to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.

5. During pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the parties have entered into afresh compromise whereby a sum of Rs.15,000 has already been paid by the respondent‑Advocate to the complainant on 13‑4‑1992, the? balance of Rs.10,000 has been agreed to be paid in twenty instalments of Rs.500 per month by the 25th of each succeeding month. The respondent ?Advocate as well as the complainant are satisfied with the said arrangement. In the circumstances, the complainant vide application dated 14‑4‑1992 prayed that he may be allowed to withdraw his complaint.

6. Serious charges have been levelled against the respondent‑Advocate, which he has not denied either before the Disciplinary Committee or before this Tribunal. This is, therefore, not a fit case for granting such permission to withdraw the complaint. The permission for withdrawal of complaint would be against the public policy. However, the respondent‑Advocate has expressed repentance for his conduct and begged mercy. He has also given a solemn undertaking that in future he will be very careful in the discharge of his 8 professional duties. This may be a relevant factor in determining the quantum of punishment but not for dropping the proceedings for professional misconduct against him. The legal profession is an important branch of administration of justice. An Advocate is not supposed to indulge merely in money making trade in charging fee from his clients. He should avoid charges which over‑estimate his advice and services as well as those which undervalue him. The client's ability to pay cannot justify charge in excess of the value of the service, though his poverty may justify a lesser charge or even none at all. This is one of the cannons of rules of professional ethics. Here the complainant is a poor retired Line Foreman from WAPDA. The respondent‑Advocate should not have acted in the manner in which he squeezed the money from him.

7. In view of the above, we hold the respondent‑Advocate guilty of professional misconduct, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we order his suspension from practice for a period of one week commencing from today which will be an adequate punishment.

8. It is, however, clarified that if the respondent‑Advocate fails to abide by his undertaking by not paying the remaining amount of Rs.10,000 to the complainant through instalments, as agreed upon between the parties, the complainant will be at liberty to repeat his application before this Tribunal for such relief as may be permissible under the law. With the above observations, the reference made by the Disciplinary Committee, Punjab Bar Council is disposed of with no order as to costs. M.BA./8/B.T.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference disposed of.