From Instructing (An Advocate) To Return All The Briefs To Conflict Of Interest: Where Are We Headed?

Legal profession is largely considered to be one of the oldest professions in the world. In Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh v. Kothakapu Etreddy Venkata Reddi and Ors., the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that in order “ to maintain the highest traditions of the Bar and the profession, preclude advocates from appearing for the opposite party if that is likely to embarrass the advocate or raise a suspicion in the mind of the client with respect to the conduct of his erstwhile advocate or that it is not gentlemanly conduct or that it is improper to do so, or the circumstances are such from which an Inference of imparting confidential nature of information can be raised. ”, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that in order “ ” In Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan and Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India clearly held that “It is not in accordance with professional etiquette for an advocate while retained by one party to accept the brief of the other. A lawyer when entrusted with a brief is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust.” From the aforesaid cases and the relevant provisions of the BCI Rules, it is clear that the principle of conflict of interest arises when an advocate appears on behalf of two opposing parties in a same and / or related matter and hence it is absolutely clear that the case of conflict of interest does not arise when an advocate appears on behalf of one party in one matter and against the same party in an unrelated matter. The “guiding principle” of the regulator in question may raise the issue of conflict of interest depending on whether the empanelled advocate / law firm has accepted the briefs against the regulator in the same or a connected matter, however if the said empanelled advocate / law firm accepts a brief in an unrelated matter against the regulator, it should not tantamount to conflict of interest as the judicial precedents, as discussed above, are case specific and cannot be applied universally.