Advocate Act.
shivraj
(Querist) 20 January 2009
This query is : Resolved
Can employee Advocate practice in the court? If his duty as an part time job?Then what is the procedure about his enrollment any provision regarding the advocate act plz. reply?
Jainodin shaikh
(Expert) 20 January 2009
Dear Shivraj!
According to The Bar Council of India Rules, Section VII (49) no advocate can be a full time salaried employee of any body or institution.
But according to Rule VII (52) State Bar Council can permitte a part time employment.
Adv.Shine Thomas
(Expert) 21 January 2009
An advocate wants to take up part time work,he may do so with the consent of the state bar council,which must be satisfied that such work will not conflict with his professional work.
A. A. JOSE
(Expert) 21 January 2009
I agree with the above views. However, you may refer (2001) 2 SCC 365 - Satish Kumar v/s.Bar council of Himachal Pradesh also.
Manish Singh
(Expert) 21 January 2009
if you are not enrolled with any bar council, you cant call yourself as an advocate. you are a law graduate or lawyer.
no advocate, other than the exceptions contemplated under the act, can be a salaried employee without informing the respective bar and in the said period his enrolment gets suspended. you can seek seek permission for part time.
K.C.Suresh
(Expert) 22 January 2009
Permission of State bar council and enrolement as an Advocate is necessary
G. ARAVINTHAN
(Expert) 22 January 2009
For your reference..
Satish Kumar Sharma
V.
Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh
Satish Kumar Sharma, Appellant v. Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh, Respondent.
Advocates Act, 1961 S.24; S.28
Bar Council Of India Rules, 1975 R.49
2001-AIR(SC)-0-509 2001-SCC-2-365
CORAM : A. S. Anand, C.J.I., R. C. Lahoti and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Date of Decision: 03-Jan-01
Civil Appeal No. 5395 of 1997, D/- 3 -1 -2001.( (From : 1997 (3) Sim LC 455 (Him Pra)))
ADVOCATE(S): Vinod A. Babde, Sr. Advocate, K. K. Lahiri, B. K. Mishra, Ms. Safali Shukla, Ejaz Maqbool with him, for Appellant; Atul Sharma and M. A. Chinnaswamy, for Respondent.
Head Notes :
1. On a proper and careful analysis, having regard to the plain language and clear terms of Rule 49 extracted above, it is clear that :-
2. It is an admitted position that no rules were framed by the respondent entitling a Law Officer appointed as a full time salaried employee coming within the meaning of para 3 of Rule 49 to enroll as an Advocate. Such an enrolment has to come from the rules made under Section 28(2) (d) read with Section 24(1) (e) of the Act. Hence it necessarily follows that if there is no rule in this regard, there is no entitlement. In the absence of express or positive rule, the appellant could not fit in the exception and the bar contained in the first paragraph of Rule 49, was clearly attracted as rightly held by the High Court. Added to this, in the light of terms of appointment/promotion orders issued by the Board to the appellant, it is clear that the first appointment of the appellant was as Assistant (Legal). Subsequent promotions as Under Secretary (Legal)-cum-Law Officer, Deputy Secretary (Legal)-cum-Law Officer and Additional Secretary (Law) show that the appellant was not designated as Law Officer. Similarly, there is no indication in any of the appointment/promotion orders issued to the appellant that he was to act or plead in the Courts of law on behalf of the Board except in the order dated 5-7-1984. At any rate from these orders it cannot be said that he was/is required to act or plead in Courts on behalf of the employer mainly or exclusively so as to come within the meaning of 'Law Officer' for the purpose of Rule 49. It appears the modified orders dated 11-6-1984 and 5-7-1984 were issued by the Board in order to get enrolment of the appellant as an Advocate on the roll of the respondent. None of the appointment/promotion orders issued to the appellant indicate that his duties were exclusively to act or plead in Courts on behalf of the Board as 'Law Officer'. These orders clearly show that the appellant was required to work in the Legal Cell of the Secretariat of the Board; was given different pay scales; rules of seniority were applicable; promotions were given to him on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee; was amenable to disciplinary proceedings, etc. Further looking to the nature of duties of Legal Cell as stated in the regulation of business of the Board extracted above, the appellant being a full time salaried employee had/has to attend to so many duties which appear to be substantial and predominant. In short and substance we find that the appellant was/is a full time salaried employee and his work was not mainly or exclusively to act or plead in Court. Further there may be various challenges in Courts of law assailing or relating to the decisions/actions taken by the appellant himself such as challenge to issue of statutory regulation, notification or order; construction of statutory regulation, statutory orders and notifications, the institution/withdrawal of any prosecution or other legal/quasi legal proceedings etc. In a given situation the appellant may be amenable to disciplinary jurisdiction of his employer and/or to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council. There could be conflict of duties and interests. In such an event, the appellant would be in an embarrassing pos
RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE
(Expert) 17 February 2009
I do agree with all my Ld. Friends. And thanx Mr. Ganeshan for valueable judgement.
Abhishek
(Expert) 17 February 2009
i will go with Mr. Shaikh...
Kamlesh soni
(Expert) 02 March 2009
An advocate wants to take up part time work,he may do so with the consent of the state bar council,which must be satisfied that such work will not conflict with his professional work.
ritu bhadana
(Expert) 02 April 2009
i agree with all my friends and valuable judgment by mr. ganeshan
