Advocate – Relationship between the Advocate and the client depends upon the trust between the parties – When the client wants to engage another Counsel, the earlier Lawyer has got no option, except to recuse himself from the case – Advocates Act section 30.

The appellant was the counsel for the 2nd respondent in a matter before the Magistrate Court. The 2nd respondent for the reasons known to him substituted the appellant with some other counsel. The subsequent counsel had filed his vakalatanama in the matter. The appellant sent a letter to the 2nd Respondent stating that his action is against the rule of law. The said letter was followed by filing Writ Petition before the High Court. The appellant submitted that his fundamental right to practice as a Lawyer has been infringed. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought not to have noted the change of vakalath filed without following the required procedure.

The Hon’ble Court observed that during the proceedings, a vakalath had been filed on behalf of the second respondent by another Advocate. Admittedly, the consent of the appellant had not been obtained.

The relationship between the Advocate and the client is strictly professional. It depends upon the trust between the parties. The legal profession is not only a service but also a calling. Therefore, when the client wants to engage another counsel, the earlier Lawyer has got no option, except to recuse himself from the case. Acting as a Lawyer to a client is different from any other disputes inter se including the payment of fees etc.

The Court further observed that the any fundamental right of the appellant has not been infringed. It is not as if the appellant has been debarred from doing his profession. It is purely a personal dispute between the appellant on the one hand and the second respondent on the other hand. It is not the case of the appellant that the vakalatanama has not been signed by the second respondent. On the contrary, it is the case of the appellant that the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, ought to have conducted an enquiry as the change of vakalatanama has been filed without obtaining his consent. Assuming, that the permission of the court is required that aspect, at the best, can be termed as a procedural one. The duty of the Magistrate is to conduct the case before him and not to resolve the inter se between the Lawyer and the party. The Petition was accordingly dismissed.