AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 944 ::2014 AIR SCW 590 ::2014 (2) All LJ 255 ::(2013) 1 CLR 274 (SC) ::2013 (1) CLR 274 ::(2013) 118 RevDec 674 ::(2013) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 194 ::2013 (1) RecCivR 598 ::(2012) 12 Scale 47 ::2013 (1) CurCC 51 ::AIR 2014 SC (Civil) 658 ::2013 (96) All LR 275 ::(2013) 1 Cal HN 124 ::(2013) 1 All WC 30 ::(2013) 1 ADJ 56 (SC) ::2013 (1) ESC 47 ::(2014) 1 Guj LH 641 ::2013 (1) Guj LH 189 ::(2013) 1 ICC 740 ::(2013) 116 Cut LT 27 ::2013 (1) Mad LW 668 ::(2013) 1 Mad LJ 260 ::(2013) 2 JCR 105 (SC) ::(2013) 2 Ker LJ 223 ::(2014) 2 KCCR 106 ::2013 (1) Ker LT 17 SN ::(2013) 1 Orissa LR 795 ::2013 (11) SCC 435 ::2013 (1) ADJ 56 NOC ::(2013) 121 AllIndCas 12 (SC) ::(2014) 3 AndhLD 94

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): R. M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave , JJ

Advocates Act (25 of 1961) , S.38— Professional misconduct - Punishment for - Respondent advocate filing vakalatnama without any authority and then filing fictitious compromises without any authority - Is guilty of grave and serious professional misconduct - Respondent-advocate also previously found to be involved in professional misconduct and was reprimanded - Punishment of suspension from practice for a period of three years would be just and proper. An advocate found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and then filing fictitious compromises without any authority deserved punishment commensurate with the degree of misconduct that meets the twin objectives - deterrence and correction. Fraudulent conduct of a lawyer cannot be viewed leniently lest the interest of the administration of justice and the highest traditions of the Bar may become casualty. By showing undue sympathy and leniency in a matter such as this where the advocate has been found guilty of grave and serious professional misconduct, the purity and dignity of the legal profession will be compromised. Any compromise with the purity, dignity and notability of the legal profession is surely bound to affect the faith and respect of the people in the rule of law. Moreover, the respondent-advocate had been previously found to be involved in a professional misconduct and he was rep....