Misconductof bank’s lawyer
A lawyer who does not file recovery suits entrusted by a bank as a client is liable for disciplinary action, the Supreme Court has ruled in the case, N V Ramakrishna vs Syndicate Bank. In this case, the bank had handed over 75 cases for recovery. There was no response from him for a long time. So another lawyer was engaged to find out the fate of some of the cases. It was found that those cases were not filed in the court. Therefore, the bank moved the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and later the Bar Council of India. Its disciplinary committee found that the lawyer had committed professional misconduct. It suspended his practice for one year and imposed a fine to be given to the advocates’ welfare fund. On appeal, the Supreme Court rejected his petition, but reduced the suspension period by half.
Can any body tell me the action to be taken for a material fact hid by advocate , against provisions of law took injunction , hid material fact from Courts and took Judgment in his client's favor!!!!!!
How to proceed with in this case?