Sambhu Ram Yadav V/S Hanuman Das Khatry

In this case, a complaint was filed by the complainant against a lawyer of the Bar Council of Rajasthan.
His complaint was that while appearing in a suit as a counsel, he wrote a letter saying that the concerned
judge, before whom his suit was pending accepts bribes, and asked for 10,000 r.s as a bribe and
influenced the judge to obtain an order favorable to him. The Disciplinary Committee stated that such
actions make an advocate “totally unfit to be a lawyer.” The Supreme Court, considering the finding of
the Rajasthan Bar Council says that the legal profession is not a trade or business. Advocates have the
particular duty to sustain the integrity of the profession and to discourage corruption to ensure that the
justice is secured.

Noratanmal Chaurasia V/s M.R. Murli

In this case The Supreme court says that misconduct has not been defined in the Advocates Act, 1966
but misconduct envisions breach of discipline. An advocate assaulted and kicked the complainant and
asked him to refrain from proceeding with the case. The Supreme Court held that a lawyer is obliged to
observe the norms of behavior anticipated for him and his behavior was unfit for an advocate.

Suo Motto Enquiry V/s Nand Lal Balwani

In this case, the defendant advocate threw the shoes and shouted slogans in the Supreme Court of India.
Both the disrespect and proceedings for professional misconduct were charged against him. The
Supreme Court found him guilty of contempt of court and gave him an imprisonment for 4 months and
fine of 2000 Rupees. Later Disciplinary committee as well as Bar Council of India found him guilty of
professional misconduct and ordered to remove his name from Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa.

Bar Council Of Maharashtra V/S M. V. Dabholkar

In this case, it is observed that advocates positioning themselves at the entrance to the Magistrate’s
courts and rushing towards potential plaintiffs, often leading to an unpleasant struggle to snatch briefs
and undercutting of fees. The disciplinary committee expressed that "there is a prima facie case of
professional misconduct". Also observed that “professional ethics cannot be contained in a Bar Council
rule nor in traditional cant in the books but in new canons of conscience which will command the
member of the calling of justice to obey rules or morality and utility.” Thus Misconduct of lawyers
should be understood in a context-specific as well as dynamic sense, which seizures the role of the
lawyers in the society.

Supreme Court Bar Association V/S Union Of India

One of the key functions of the Bar Council in regard to standards of professional conduct of lawyers is to
receive complaints against lawyers. If Bar Council believes that any advocate has been guilty of
professional misconduct then it might refer the case for clearance to the disciplinary committee. In case
if the Bar Council even after getting 'reference' from the court, fails to take any action against the
concerned lawyer, then the court might consider raising its powers U/S 38 of the Act by transferring the
record of the proceedings of the Bar Council and passing suitable orders. The appellate powers U/S 38
would be available to this Court only and not to the High Courts