Half the Lawyers are so poorly trained that they are not properly performing their job

Half the Lawyers are so poorly trained that they are not properly performing their job!

CHIEF Justice Burger while addressing the American College of Trial Lawyers, District of Columbia, lamented on the state of the profession as under:

"… in some jurisdictions up to half of the lawyers who appear in court are so poorly trained that they are not properly performing their job and that their manners and their professional performance and their professional ethics offend a great many people. They are engaging in on-the-job training at the expense of their clients' interests and the public."

This was noted by the Delhi High Court in a recent interesting case, taking solace in the fact that the problem is not confined to India alone.

The High Court observed, "The profession of law has always been known as a noble profession. It is not an empty rhetoric. Success in the profession is measured not by the fortune made but on the threshold of learning. Advocates are known as the officers of the Court. They are expected to possess not only intellectual purity but owe a responsibility to the Court to present the case dispassionately in an upright dignified ethical manner and to display fairness also to their colleagues and in all their dealings. The duty of a lawyer is to assist the Court in the administration of justice and an advocate must not indulge in any activity which may tend to lower the image of the profession in the Society."

The appellant was employed, since the year 1992, as a Steno-typist in the Session Division, Gurgaon, Haryana. He in the academic year 1992-93 joined the LL.B Degree Course as a regular student of D.S. College, Aligarh, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra and was in the year 1997 awarded the LL.B Degree. He however continued to serve as Steno-typist and was in the year 1999 accused of an offence under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted therefor on 15.02.2005. He was dismissed from service. The appellant on 13.05.2005, applied to the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana (BCPH) for enrolment as an Advocate. However, while his said application was still pending consideration, he on 30.06.2005 also applied to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) for enrolment as an Advocate in Delhi and was so enrolled with the BCD on 07.07.2005. Thereafter, the appellant on 11.07.2005 applied to the BCPH for withdrawal of his application for enrolment therein. The Disciplinary Committee of the BCI vide memorandum dated 19.07.2008, recommended removal of the name of the appellant from the rolls of the BCD for the reason of the appellant while applying for enrolment with the BCD having concealed the material fact of his having earlier applied for enrolment with the BCPH.

The High Court observed that the consistent conduct of the appellant of

i) seeking permission for doing LL.B course as a private student but joining the same as a regular student;

ii) to not disclosing to the Session Division, Gurgaon where the appellant was employed, thereafter also of having joined the LL.B course as a regular student;

iii) conviction for corruption;

iv) first applying to BCPH and thereafter to BCD for enrolment;

v) having secured LL.B degree by attending classes by proxy and which finding as aforesaid has attained finality;

vi) not informing BCD of rejection of his application for enrolment with BCPH by the BCI; and

vii) applying again for enrolment with BCPH after his enrolment with BCD had been revoked,

speaks volume of the nature and character of the appellant.

This is the story of a typist who obtained a LAW degree fraudulently, but he is not alone in the act. Recently, it has come to notice that a retired Chief Commissioner had done his Law Degree from Calcutta University while working in Delhi. The University certified that he had 75% attendance. So, he was cheating either the University or his Department or both. And this officer had held some very important posts in investigation and enforcement!