LI Network
Published on: November 03, 2023 at 19:41 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently addressed the matter of lawyers choosing their clients, specifically highlighting that while lawyers are free to choose their clients, they are generally advised not to represent blood relatives. The case at hand involved a lawyer who appeared for his father in a matrimonial dispute against his mother.
Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV were handling a contempt case related to the lawyer and his father, who were alleged to have disrupted proceedings before a family court. The family court judge had sent a written complaint to the High Court, leading to contempt proceedings against the lawyer and his father.
The High Court emphasized that court proceedings must be conducted in a dignified and formal manner without disruptions. It pointed out that in emotionally charged situations, such as when a lawyer represents a relative, common practices may take a back seat.
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!”
While acknowledging the emotional aspect of the case, the Court noted that it could not advise lawyers on client selection, as this decision is typically left to the wisdom of the legal professionals.
The Court expressed that it would be unfortunate if statutory law imposed formal restrictions on which clients lawyers could represent.
The contempt proceedings arose from an incident in which the lawyer and his father allegedly behaved disruptively in the family court, despite warnings from the judge.
The lawyer also purportedly threatened to lodge a complaint against the Presiding Officer and claimed to be a practitioner of the Allahabad High Court who knew how to deal with “petty courts.”
In response to the allegations, both the lawyer and his father initially stated that they sought forgiveness but gave a confusing answer when asked for what they sought forgiveness. The Court expressed doubts about the sincerity of their apology.
Ultimately, the High Court decided to close the contempt proceedings to focus on genuine litigants and uphold the cause of justice.
The Court pointed out that it was not its role to force a litigant or their lawyer to apologize but clarified that it had not absolved the lawyer and his father of their conduct.
The Court commended the family court judge for her efforts in maintaining the decorum of the court during the proceedings.
This case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance lawyers must strike when representing family members, especially in emotionally charged matters such as matrimonial disputes.