CASE SUMMARY

B .SUNITHA
VS.
STATE OF TELANGANA,2017
PSDA –ACTIVITY

SUBJECT – LEGAL ETHICS AND COURT CRAFT

SUBMITTED BY;- SUBMITTED TO;-

ENA MAHAWAR(9B)
Enrollment No.-07417703820 DR. ASHU DHIMAN
GARVIT KUMAR(9B)
Enrollment No.-07617703820
GEETANJALI RANA(9B)
Enrollment No.-07917703820
ISHI SRIVASTAVA(9B)
Enrollment No.-08717703820

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES,

PITAMPURA NEW DELHI
Introduction

This case relates to an appeal filed in the Supreme Court of India against the High Court of Judicature order

at Hyderabad.

In a judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B Sunitha v. State of Telangana, the

Court advised the Government to check on the unethical practices followed by lawyers. The case brought

into light the financial abuse that the victims of injustice have to go through by some members of the legal

community.

The case of B Sunitha v. State of Telangana serves as a stark reminder of the ethical obligations incumbent

upon members of the legal profession. The dispute, centered around a dishonored cheque issued by a client

to her advocate as a fee, it’s far-reaching implications for the principles of fiduciary duty, professional

conduct, and the integrity of the legal system.At the heart of the case lies the question of whether an

advocate can hold his client liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a

dishonored cheque. While the statute is primarily concerned with commercial transactions, the case raised

the broader issue of the ethical relationship between client and advocate.

The Supreme Court's judgment in the case was a significant departure from previous legal precedent. By

advising the government to investigate unethical practices among lawyers, the Court acknowledged the

growing concern over financial exploitation of clients by some members of the legal community. This

judgment serves as a powerful indictment of the unethical conduct that can undermine the public's trust in

the legal profession.

The principle of fiduciary duty is central to the attorney-client relationship. Advocates are entrusted with

their clients' interests and are expected to act with utmost good faith and honesty. This includes avoiding

conflicts of interest, safeguarding client confidences, and exercising reasonable care and diligence in

representing clients. The B Sunitha case highlights the potential for breaches of fiduciary duty when

financial matters are involved

The case also raises questions about the ethical implications of accepting fees from clients. While advocates

are entitled to fair compensation for their services, it is essential that fees are reasonable and transparent.

Accepting excessive or disproportionate fees can be considered unethical and may constitute a breach of

fiduciary duty.

The B Sunitha case is a cautionary tale for both clients and advocates. Clients must be vigilant in selecting

competent and ethical legal counsel. Advocates, in turn, must adhere to the highest standards of professional

conduct and avoid engaging in practices that could harm their clients or undermine the public's trust in the

legal profession.

Rule 20 of Part VI, Chapter II, Section II of the Standard of Professional Conduct and Etiquette reads as
follows :

“An advocate shall not stipulate for a fee contingent on the results of litigation or agree to share the
proceeds thereof.”

It emphasized on 131st Law Commission Report, 1988 in regards to the role of the legal profession in
strengthening the system of administration of justice. Article 39A of the Constitution of India states about
the fact of access to justice by all people. The system of justice must be affordable enough for all the people.
Fees must not be the barrier in the same.

Why there is a need to regulate legal profession?

Hefty fees
Charging of exorbitant fees by the lawyers has become the order of the day. It is one of the biggest barriers
contributing to the huge pile of pending cases. So their regulation is important to make them realise that
their profession is a part of administration of justice and not mere money getting trade.
Maintain Public confidence
It is the lawyers who come to the rescue of people suffering from injustice from the hands of any entity.
Exploiting them in the most vulnerable time for money is a grave injustice to the people as well as toward’s
ones own profession. Legal profession plays most important role in strengthening the administration of
justice. The confidence of the public in the legal profession is integral to the confidence of the public in the
legal system
Right to equal justice
SC has rightly mentioned that commercialisation of the legal profession is a violation of the fundamental
right of the poor to get equal justice. Elitist character of the profession infringes the common man’s right
and debars them the access of legal rights.
Constitutional mandate

Article 39(A) of DPSP says that the state will try to make legal system fair and would provide free

legal aid to the people

Facts
 In July, 1998, B. Sunitha’s (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant’) husband died in a motor
accident. A claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the
‘MACT’) was filed wherein one of the Respondents in the present case was the advocate for the
Appellant. Compensation was also given in the said case.
 The Respondent charged a fee of INR 10 Lakhs (USD 15590 approx.). Later on, the Appellant
was forced to sign another cheque worth INR 3 Lakhs (USD 4677 approx.) on October 25,
2014, despite her informing that she has no funds in the account.
 On November 2, 2014, the Appellant received an e-mail from the Respondent wherein it was
claimed that the fees of the Respondent was 16% of the amount received by the Appellant.
 On December 11, 2014, a complaint was filed before the Hyderabad High Court under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stating inter alia that the cheque which was issued
in discharge of liability having been returned unpaid for want of funds, the appellant committed
the offence for which she was liable to be punished.
 The High Court summoned the Appellant to which she stated that there was no legally
enforceable debt and the fee was an unreasonable amount and against the law. It was
contended that the claim violated the Advocates Fee Rules and Ethics as fee could not be
demanded on percentage of amount awarded as compensation to the Appellant.

 Claim for fee based on percentage of the decretal amount was unethical according to
Ms.Sunitha. It was submitted that the appellant, as a client, being in fiduciary relationship,
burden to prove that the fee was reasonable and had been voluntarily agreed to be paid
was on the Advocate. The Advocate by using his professional position could not be allowed
to exploit a client by taking signatures on a cheque and no presumption of enforceable debt
arises, specially when no account maintained in regular course of business was furnished.
 The Respondent opposed this contention by stating that the professional fee was agreed upon
by the Appellant and now having availed his professional services, she could not contest the
claim for fee. It was further contended that Senior Advocates were engaged in the case by the
Respondent and paid huge amount for their services.
 It was further argued by the Appellant that the fee claimed was against Andhra Pradesh
Advocates’ Fee Rules, 2010 of Subordinate Courts, ethics and public policy and hit by Section
23 of the Contract Act.
 The High Court dismissed the quashing petition. It was stated by the High Court that Advocates’
Fee Rules are only for guidance and there was no bar to fee being claimed beyond what is
fixed under the Rules.
 In the High Court, the advocate argued that he had to engage services of other senior advocates and
paid huge amount for their services at various courts including the Supreme Court. The appellant
argued that the debt is not legally enforceable. The signature of the appellant was taken under undue
influence. The advocate is in fiduciary relationship with the client. But he took the advantage of the
inability of the client to pay the fees. The fee claimed by the respondent was against the A.P.
Adovcates’ Fee Rules, 2010 of Subordinate Courts. The claim of the respondent was against ethics
and public policy and hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act.
 “The case in hand is an example of the present day trend of the legal profession. Legal profession is
essentially service oriental. Ancestor of today's lawyers was no more than a spokesperson, who
rendered his services to the needy members of the society, by putting forth their case before the
authorities. Their services were rendered without regard to remuneration received or to be received.
With the growth of litigation, legal profession became a full time occupation. The trend of the legal
profession has changed ... profession has almost became a trade. There is no more service
orientation.