LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Bad lawyers list

Page no : 2

(Guest)

If judges become DEAD HONEST[PIE HONEST], there wouldn't be any bad lawyers.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     27 October 2011

More over the client must choose whether he/she wants to give good fight to the opponent or waste time in blaming advocates.

Sh. P Suresh (For To By Green Kindness Perpetuity Selfsustainability Always)     27 October 2011

Let it not be forgottent that a lawyer can be bad to the client. But, s/he can as well be bad to the opposite party, to the court, to the community, to the cause of law itself. It is the bad to the cause of law, morality, ethics, justice that counts and not the party which gets affected out of this individual's misuse of professional knowledge, professional status, professional dress, professional acquaintances etc.

 

Well, the list in itself has listed number of email interactions where opinions of people have been recorded. Number of people have cited number of wrongs, bads of specific lawyers.

 

But, coming to the question of BAD LAWYER, without casting any aspersion on the lawyer profession, I want to assert that this is definitely a very very relevant aspect. Bad lawyer resorts to doing ANYTHING, yes virtually anything to win his/her case. While some does it in a sauve way, some others do that harm in a brazen manner. The individual/s violate very rules that they are supposed to uphold. S/he does not bother on the amount of damage that a lie, a rule violation, a misrepresentation, a perjury, a false evidence, a false affidavit, a lie, a ommission, a shortcut, .......... whatever be that cunning/deceitful act will cause to the opposite party, to the cause of justice itself. S/he commits authorised contempt of court, contempt of lawyer profession, contempt of law of the land, contempt of the very God who presides over the universe. THIS IS DEFINITELY BAD and the person is definitely bad.

 

Well, while the profession is a noble one, many individuals have turned to commercialising it. This turns them greedy, so greedy that it drives them to crime, small and big. They have stakes in the case.

 

I think instead of talking too much of BAD, it will be good idea to list the characteristic of a GOOD LAWYER and leave it for learned members to judge selves, peers, community, cases, law and order situation. Having listed this, I am not suggesting that if these conditions are met, the case is won. (Again without castigating the entire community, it needs to be expressly recorded that there JUDGES, the other important party in a case, IS/ARE CORRUPT, INEPT, HOTHEAD, BIASED, POLITICAL ....... as well. )The characteristics of a good lawyer:

 

1. Stick to the pledge that s/he will abide by 'The Advocates Act, 1961' during his/her profession, whereever, whatever, whoever it be. It is worth note that code of ethics for a lawyer comprises of 4 categories of fundamental duties: 1). Duties to the court, 2). Duties to the client, 3) Duties to the opposite party and 4). Duties to the fellow advocates.

2. Stirctly stick to rules, procedures, fundamental, ethical aspects that govern the court.

3. Be conscious to the fact that many litigants (both the parties) are done enormous injustices by their tormentors and that litigants live horrible lives, go through lot of difficulty in bearing the expenses of litigation.

Role model verdicts are a must. These listings etc apart, bad lawyers HAVE TO BE PUNISHED irrespective of who, what as per law.   (Respected members are requested to please bear with this as this recording is not meant for sake of society, law and not for any personal gains).


(Guest)

@JSDN: Fake clients fight lawyers while genuine clients want to win cases.

Adv. Chandrasekhar (Advocate)     27 October 2011

I went through the list.  Most of the clients' grievance is that they could not get anticipatory bail/regular bail due to inefficiency of their advocates.  Most of them are male clients and their cases are/were under s. 498-A.  They have missed the very important point that A.B./regular bail are within the discretionary power of the magistrate.  No advocate can give the guarantee that he can obtain AB/bail as this is a discretionary power and there is a likelihood of exercising it whimsically by the magistrate.  so, branding the advocate as inefficient or corrupt or lack of knowledge for not getting AB/bail is unwarranted. 


(Guest)

Magistrates usually don't give bail in 498a even if you have a world renowned lawyer on your side.

Adv. Chandrasekhar (Advocate)     27 October 2011

A.B. can be given by ASJ or above, but regular bail can be given by magistrates and quite often they give.  U.P. is an exception and incidentally AB provision is not there and even regular bail is given by ASJ and above, there.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE )     28 October 2011

Wonderful FORUM ROMANUM, need such forthright persons.

1 Like

(Guest)

Kapil Sibal is the only bad lawyer I have come across in my life. I saw him being atrociously rude to his clients. There is another one with Harvard LLM[Though he claims to be Doctor of Laws from Harvard, LLM from Harvard, Oxford ,Delhi most fraudulently[Like Sibal he's LLM from Harvard]. Both these don't have any common sense and don't know a,b,c of law. So much so for Harvard. I have named Sibal because he is a public man ,the other also falsely states that he's a great friend of Barack Obama and that Mitchelle Obama was his mentor. Both have denied they know him. Except for these two most lawyers are very reasonable men. Harvard has denied that the unnamed one is Doctor of Laws rom Harvard.

Sh. P Suresh (For To By Green Kindness Perpetuity Selfsustainability Always)     28 October 2011

Lawyers have a status that others in society do not. They are law officers.  Their opinions, utterings in the court makes that critical difference that will tilt the case one way or the other. Their utterings, acts are almost final in the court. Most often cases have multiple aspects and it is the arguments that tilt the case. It is like this: A glass that is half full can be argued as a glass that is half empty. If accomplishment is under question, the half empty stance will do the required damage to the other party. If it is crime, the half empty party will have a connotation in specific context of the case. There are many other possibilities too.

 

A lawyer can tilt a wrong into a right or a right into wrong. S/he, thus not only affects the client, but casts an impact on the opponent and law per se. If this lawyer has misled a court and the case has had no other option, then the judge will also be MADE TO ERR. While a lawyer has all the potential of being a means to secure ends of justice, s/he could as well become a means and cause of fear, the dread. Thus, it is lawyer's duty to first evaluate the case and be sure that only right things are done. S/he should not resort to doing things that will win the point, cause s/he stands for.

 

One knocks at the doors of the portals of justice as a last resort. One endures lots of trouble to reach that portal. One spends his/her everything to knock it loud enough. Fears, inhibitions, lack of knowledge in law, oddities of the case, peculiarities of the criminal minded opponent/s etc have their own bearing on the litigant. Under such a circumstance should a lawyer cause more injustice? Violation of one rule that violates the fundamental right of the litigant will cause all the damage. There are instances where the litigant is deliberately kept in dark or in illusion and the case gets decided even without participation. There are cases where counter replies etc clearly fail to meet legal requirements, but law itself is bent/circumvented. There are cases where false evidences are fabricated. There are cases where illegalities are thrust. There are cases where lies are told as if it is authentic. There are cases where false affidavits are produced in manner that are beyond opponents' reach. There are so many, so many, so many INNOVATIONS that a lawyer is capable of.

 

Invariably, in all the cases, the lawyer in question misuses professional knowledge, clout, status, acquaintance etc to CHEAT in one or other way.  When is all set to get that beleagured justice at long last, this lawyer and his/her INNOVATION breaks it. Does one imagine the extent of loss that the affected party incurs due to that critical act? The lawyer in question could burn up the client, the opponent, the society itself. The lawyer is definitely BAD. That individual has definitely belied the trust that society has posed in him/her. Such an individual should definitely be dealt as per law.

kumar t v s (advocate)     28 October 2011

sri P Suresh,

I donot agree to your views. May be in some lower Courts where the other side advocate is unaware of certain provisions/position of law there is a small possibility of such a thing happening. (A lawyer can tilt a wrong into a right or a right into wrong).

 

Cases are won/lost basing on facts and law. an advocates duty is to present the facts and best evidence to the Court. If the Court has any difficulty in interpreting the facts or law, the advocate needs to help the Court by his arguments and if required by case laws.

 

(Invariably, in all the cases, the lawyer in question misuses professional knowledge, clout, status, acquaintance etc to CHEAT in one or other way)

I totally disagree with the above views.


(Guest)

A lawyer must be coorect not only in clerical filing of cases but must follow the correct path to justice and not merely lose a case based on "coorect knowledge of statutes only". A LAWYER LIES ON BEHALF OF THE CLIENT WHEREAS A DIPLOMAT LIES ON BEHALF HIS COUNTRY. A lawyer must be armed with common sense, short arguments, fluency of speech, humility,and a doctor like atitude towards clients. A good lawyer must be armed with sound jurisprudential knowldge and must have the ability in indulging in wordplay[Must know how to play with words]. A good lawyer MUST have ability to write and talk better English than the presiding officer of the Court. If the presiden officer of the court is dum then a good lawyer must know how to cow him down using every trick of verbose language use so that the judge succums to the lawyer.

Sh. P Suresh (For To By Green Kindness Perpetuity Selfsustainability Always)     29 October 2011

Originally posted by :kumar t v s
"
sri P Suresh,

I donot agree to your views.

I totally disagree with the above views.
"

Sir,

This is not any fiction. This is real life story. I stand testimony to what I have recorded. I myself am that unfortunate victim. I know the pain of this lawyer, those 3 judges, those bl**dy bandicoot opponents at as many as 5 different milestones of the case. The case is not in any lower court, it is in the topmost office of a national level tribunal.

 

Due regards to your sentiments to the cause of lawyers. I am not saying Lawyers are bad or anything else apart from what I have said.

 

BUT, DEFINITELY I, MY WOULD BE KITH AND KIN WILL KEEP SAYING TILL THE LAST BREATHE IN THIS MORTAL SOUL: "THIS BLOODY FELLOW, THOSE BLOODY CREATURES............... " I will definitely pray God at every single opportunity that crime, criminals HAVE to be punished whoever, whatever.

 

Thank You,

P. Suresh

A. A. JOSE (LAWYER; LEGAL ADVISER/CONSULTANT& TRAINER)     29 October 2011

Interesting discussions indeed.   It is said that God created everyone or everything in pairs and as such "good" and  "bad"  can be taken as a natural phenomena in everything in this universe.  Lawyers cannot be an exception to this.   One can be good Lawyer to someone, but he can be a bad Lawyers to someone else.


(Guest)

Who's the querist?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register