Rayat

Colleg
e of
Law,
SUBJECT -PROFESSIONAL
ropar ETHICS

camp
TOPIC – R.D. Saxena v Balram
us Prasad

Submitted By- Damanpreet Singh Submitted To – Dr. Mumtaz Zabeen

LLB Semester-5th Semester

Roll no - 221397
 Declaration

I Damanpreet Singh of LLB semester 5th of Rayat College of Law declare

project work of professional ethics on the topic “R.D. Saxena v Balram
Prasad” to Dr. Mumtaz Zabeen.

I further declare that the work reported in this project has not been
submitted, either in part or in full, for the award of any degree or
diploma in this campus or any other campus

Damanpreet Singh

SIGNATURE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the subject
teacher of “PROFESSIONAL ETHICS” Dr. Mumtaz Zabeen for
giving me the opportunity to make project on the topic " R.D.
SAXENA V BALRAM PRASAD AND guiding me with some
useful tips for the completion of project.
I would also like to thank you for teaching us about the concept
of the project which has helped me to complete this project more
efficiently. Thank you for being so kind and patient every time. I
would also like to thank library of Rayat College of Law, for
providing with books which had helped me in completing my
project with great ease and frequency.
The case of R.D. Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma revolves around the legal question of
whether an advocate can claim a lien over the litigation files of a client for unpaid fees. It
addresses the fundamental aspects of the advocate-client relationship, especially in cases where
financial disputes arise. The Supreme Court of India explored whether case files and legal
documents entrusted to an advocate can be equated with “goods” under Section 171 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, and whether advocates can withhold such files on account of
pending dues.
The judgement delivered by Justice K.T. Thomas established a precedent in determining that
advocates cannot claim a lien over litigation documents and emphasised the fiduciary nature of
the advocate-client relationship. This case is significant because it clarified the limits of an
advocate’s rights concerning unpaid fees and the professional conduct expected from legal
professionals.
Contents hide
1. Background of RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma
2. Facts of RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma
3. Issues Raised
4. Arguments by the Appellant (R.D. Saxena)
5. Arguments by the Respondent (Bank)
6. Court’s Observations and Reasoning in RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma
7. RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma Judgement
8. Conclusion

BACKGROUND OF RD SAXENA V BALRAM PRASAD SHARMA

R.D. Saxena, the appellant, was an advocate who also served as the legal advisor to the Madhya
Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”). His professional
engagement with the bank was terminated, and a dispute arose when he refused to return certain
case files to the bank, claiming a lien over them for unpaid legal fees. The bank, needing the case
files for ongoing legal proceedings, filed a complaint against Saxena with the Madhya Pradesh
State Bar Council. The case eventually reached the Bar Council of India and later
the Supreme Court of India through an appeal.
The key question before the Supreme Court was whether an advocate could claim a lien on
litigation papers for unpaid fees, a matter which had not been explicitly addressed in previous
cases in Indian jurisprudence.

The main issue posed in this appeal has sequential importance for members of the legal
profession. The issue is this: Has the advocate a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted
to him by his client? In this case the Bar Council of India, without deciding the above crucial
issue, has chosen to impose punishment on a delinquent advocate debarring him from practicing
for a period of 18 months and a fine of Rs.1000/-. The advocate concerned was further directed
to return all the case bundles which he got from his client respondent without any delay. This
appeal is filed by the said advocate under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

As the question involved in this appeal has topical importance for the legal profession we heard
learned counsel at length. To appreciate the contentions we would present the factual backdrop
as under:
Appellant, now a septuagenarian, has been practicing as an advocate mostly in the courts at
Bhopal, after enrolling himself as a legal practitioner with the State Bar Council of Madha
Pradesh. According to him, he was appointed as legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co-
operative Bank Ltd. (Bank, for short) in 1990 and the Bank continued to retain him in that
capacity during the succeeding years. He was also engaged by the said Bank to conduct cases in
which the Bank was a party. However, the said retainership did not last long. On 17.7.1993 the
Bank terminated the retainership of the appellant and requested him to return all the case files
relating to the Bank. Instead of returning the files the appellant forwarded a consolidated bill to
the Bank showing an amount of Rs.97,100/- as the balance payable by the Bank towards the
legal remuneration to which he is entitled. He informed the Bank that the files would be returned
only after setting his dues.
Correspondence went on between the appellant and the Bank regarding the amount, if any,
payable to the appellant as the balance due to him. Respondent Bank disclaimed any liability
outstanding from them to the appellant. The dispute remained unresolved and the case bundles
never passed from appellants hands. As the cases were pending the Bank was anxious to have the
files for continuing the proceedings before the courts/tribunals concerned. At the same time the
Bank was not disposed to capitulate to the terms dictated by the appellant which they regarded as
grossly unreasonable. A complaint was hence filed by the Managing Director of the Bank, before
the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3.2.1994. It was alleged in the complaint that
appellant is guilty of professional misconduct by not returning the files to his client.
In the reply which the appellant submitted before the Bar Council he admitted that the files were
not returned but claimed that he has a right to retain such files by exercising his right of lien and
offered to return the files as soon as payment is made to him.
The complaint was then forwarded to the Disciplinary Committee of the District Bar Council.
The State Bar Council failed to dispose of the complaint even after the expiry of one year. So
under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act the proceedings stood transferred to the Bar Council of
India. After holding inquiry the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India reached the
conclusion that appellant is guilty of professional misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee has
stated the following in the impugned order:
On the basis of the complaint as well as the documents available on record we are of the opinion
that the Respondent is guilty of professional misconduct and thereby he is liable for punishment.
The complainant is a public institution. It was the duty of the Respondent to return the briefs to
the Bank and also to appear before the committee to revert his allegations made in application
dated 8.11.95. No such attempt was made by him.
In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant contended that the failure of the Bar Council of
India to consider the singular defence set up by the appellant i.e. he has a lien over the files for
his unpaid fees due to him, has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The Bank contended that there
was no fee payable to the appellant and the amount shown by him was on account of inflating the
fees. Alternatively, the respondent contended that an advocate cannot retain the files after the
client terminated his engagement and that there is no lien on such files.
We would first examine whether an advocate has lien on the files entrusted to him by the client.
Learned counsel for the appellant endeavoured to base his contention on Section 171 of the
Indian Contract Act which reads thus:
Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy- brokers may, in the absence
of a contract to the contrary, retain, as a security for a general balance of account, any goods
bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods
bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect.
Files containing copies of the records (perhaps some original documents also) cannot be equated
with the goods referred to in the section. The advocate keeping the files cannot amount to goods
bailed. The word bailment is defined in Section 148 of the Contract Act as the delivery of goods
by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall be returned or
otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them, when the
purpose is accomplished. In the case of litigation papers in the hands of the advocate there is
neither delivery of goods nor any contract that they shall be returned or otherwise disposed of.
That apart, the word goods mentioned in Section 171 is to be understood in the sense in which
that word is defined in the Sale of Goods Act. It must be remembered that Chapter-VII of the
Contract Act, comprising sections 76 to 123, had been wholly replaced by the Sales of Goods
Act, 1930. The word goods is defined in Section 2(7) of the Sales of Goods Act as every kind of
movable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares,
growing crops, grass, and things attached, to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be
severed before sale or under the contract of sale.
Thus understood goods to fall within the purview of Section 171 of the Contract Act should have
marketability and the person to whom it is bailed should be in a position to dispose it of in
consideration of money. In other words the goods referred to in Section 171 of the Contract Act
are saleable goods. There is no scope for converting the case files into money, nor can they be
sold to any third party. Hence, the reliance placed on Section 171 of the Contract Act has no
merit.
In England the solicitor had a right to retain any deed, paper or chattel which has come into his
possession during the course of his employment. It was the position in common law and it later
recognized as the solicitors right under Solicitors Act, 1860. In Halsburys Laws of England, it is
stated thus (vide paragraph 226 in volume 44): 226. Solicitors rights. At common law a solicitor
has two rights which are termed liens. The first is a right to retain property already in his
possession until he is paid costs due to him in his professional capacity, and the second is a right
to ask the court to direct that personal property recovered under a judgment obtained by his
exertions stand as security for his costs of such recovery. In addition, a solicitor has by statute a
right to apply to the court for a charging order on property recovered or preserved through his
instrumentality in respect of his taxed costs of the suit, matter or proceeding prosecuted or
defended by him.
Before India attained independence different High Courts in India had adopted different views
regarding the question whether an advocate has a lien over the litigation files kept with him. In P.
Krishnamachariar vs. The Official Assignee of Madras, (AIR 1932 Madras 256) a Division
Bench held that an advocate could not have such a lien unless there was an express agreement to
the contrary. The Division Bench has distinguished an earlier decision of the Bombay High
Court in Tyabji Dayabhai & Co. vs. Jetha Devji & Co. (AIR 1927 Bombay 542) wherein the
English law relating to the solicitors lien was followed. Subsequently, a Full Bench of the
Madras High Court in 1943 followed the decision of the Division Bench. A Full Bench of the
Patna High Court in In re B.N. Advocate in the matter of Misc. Judl. Case No.18/33 (AIR 1933
Pat 571) held the view that an advocate could not claim a right to retain the certified copy of the
judgment obtained by him on the premise that an appeal was to be filed against it. Of course the
Bench said that if the client had specifically instructed him to do so it is open to him to keep it.
After independence the position would have continued until the enactment of the Advocates
Act 1961 which has repealed a host of enactments including Indian Bar Council Act. When the
new Bar Council of India came into existence it framed Rules called the Bar Council of India
Rules as empowered by the Advocates Act. Such Rules contain provision specifically prohibiting
an advocate from adjusting the fees payable to him by a client against his own personal liability
to the client. As a rule an Advocate shall not do anything whereby he abuses or takes advantage
of the confidence reposed in him by his client,(vide Rule
24). In this context a reference can be made to Rules 28 and 29 which are extracted below:
28. After the termination of the proceeding, the Advocate shall be at liberty to appropriate
towards the settled fee due to him, any sum remaining unexpended out of the amount paid or sent
to him for expenses, or any amount that has come into his hands in that proceeding.
29. Where the fee has been left unsettled, the Advocate shall be entitled to deduct, out of any
moneys of the client remaining in his hands, at the termination of the proceeding for which he
had been engaged, the fee payable under the rules of the Court, in force for the time being, or by
then settled and the balance, if any, shall be refunded to the client.

Thus, even after providing a right for an advocate to deduct the fees out of any money of the
client remaining in his hand at the termination of the proceeding for which the advocate was
engaged, it is important to notice that no lien is provided on the litigation files kept with him. In
the conditions prevailing in India with lots of illiterate people among the litigant public it may
not be advisable also to permit the counsel to retain the case bundle for the fees claimed by him.
Any such lien if permitted would become susceptible to great abuses and exploitation.

There is yet another reason which dissuades us from giving approval to any such lien. We are
sure that nobody would dispute the proposition that the cause in a court/tribunal is far more
important for all concerned than the right of the legal practitioner for his remuneration in respect
of the services rendered for espousing the cause on behalf of the litigant. If a need arises for the
litigant to change his counsel pendente lite, that which is more important should have its even
course flowed unimpeded. Retention of records for the unpaid remuneration of the advocate
would impede such course and the cause pending judicial disposal would be badly impaired. If a
medical practitioner is allowed a legal right to withhold the papers relating to the treatment of his
patient which he thus far administered to him for securing the unpaid bill, that would lead to
dangerous consequences for the uncured patient who is wanting to change his doctor. Perhaps
the said illustration may be an over-statement as a necessary corollary for approving the lien
claimed by the legal practitioner. Yet the illustration is not too far-fetched. No professional can
be given the right to withhold the returnable records relating to the work done by him with his
clients matter on the strength of any claim for unpaid remuneration. The alternative is that the
professional concerned can resort to other legal remedies for such unpaid remuneration.

A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged
by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the
interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want
to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement
consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time
to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.

In civil cases, the appointment of an advocate by a party would be deemed to be in force until it
is determined with the leave of the court, (vide order 3, Rule 4(1) of the Code of Civil
Procedure). In criminal cases, every person accused of an offence has the right to consult and be
defended by a legal practitioner of his choice which is now made a fundamental right
under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The said right is absolute in itself and it does not depend
on other laws. In this context reference can be made to the decision of this Court in State of
Madhya Pradesh vs. Shobharam and ors. (AIR 1966 SC 1910). The words of his choice
in Article 22(1) indicate that the right of the accused to change an advocate whom he once
engaged in the same case, cannot be whittled down by that advocate by withholding the case
bundle on the premise that he has to get the fees for the services already rendered to the client.

If a party terminates the engagement of an advocate before the culmination of the proceedings
that party must have the entire file with him to engage another advocate. But if the advocate who
is changed midway adopts the stand that he would not return the file until the fees claimed by
him is paid, the situation perhaps may turn to dangerous proportion. There may be cases when a
party has no resource to pay the huge amount claimed by the advocate as his remuneration. A
party in a litigation may have a version that he has already paid the legitimate fee to the
advocate. At any rate if the litigation is pending the party has the right to get the papers from the
advocate whom he has changed so that the new counsel can be briefed by him effectively. In
either case it is impermissible for the erstwhile counsel to retain the case bundle on the premise
that fees is yet to be paid.

Even if there is no lien on the litigation papers of his client an advocate is not without remedies
to realise the fee which he is legitimately entitled to. But if he has a duty to return the files to his
client on being discharged the litigant too has a right to have the files returned to him, more so
when the remaining part of the lis has to be fought in the court. This right of the litigant is to be
read as the corresponding counterpart of the professional duty of the advocate.

Misconduct envisaged in Section 35 of the Advocates Act is not defined. The section uses the
expression misconduct, professional or otherwise. The word misconduct is a relative term. It has
to be considered with reference to the subject matter and the context wherein such term occurs. It
literally means wrong conduct or improper conduct.

Corpus Juris Secundum, contains the following passage at page 740 (vol.7):
 Professional misconduct may consist in betraying the confidence of a client, in attempting by any
means to practise a fraud or impose on or deceive the court or the adverse party or his counsel,
and in fact in any conduct which tends to bring reproach on the legal profession or to alienate the
favourable opinion which the public should entertain concerning it.
The expression professional misconduct was attempted to be defined by Darling, J., in In re A
Solicitor ex parte the Law Society [(1912) 1 KB 302] in the following terms:
It it is shown that an Advocate in the pursuit of his profession has done something with regard to
it which would be reasonably regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by his professional
brethren of good repute and competency, then it is open to say that he is guilty of professional
misconduct.
In this context it is to be mentioned that the aforesaid definition secured approval by the Privy
Council in George Frier Grahame vs. Attorney-General, Fiji,(1936 PC 224). We are also inclined
to take that wide canvass for understanding the import of the expression misconduct in the
context in which it is referred to in Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
We, therefore, that the refusal to return the files to the client when he demanded the same
amounted to misconduct under Section 35 of the Act. Hence, the appellant in the present case is
liable to punishment for such misconduct.
However, regarding the quantum of punishment we are disposed to take into account two broad
aspects: (1) this court has not pronounced, so far, on the question whether advocate has a lien on
the files for his fees. (2) the appellant would have bona fide believed, in the light of decisions of
certain High Courts, that he did have a lien. In such circumstances it is not necessary to inflict a
harsh punishment on the appellant. A reprimand would be sufficient in the interest of justice on
the special facts of this case.
We, therefore, alter the punishment to one of reprimanding the appellant. However, we make it
clear that if any advocate commits this type of professional misconduct in future he would be
liable to such quantum of punishment as the Bar Council will determine and the lesser
punishment imposed now need not be counted as a precedent.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Ttw//,,
Facts of RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma

Facts
 In this situation, the appellant was an advocate and also served as a legal advisor to the Madhya
Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
 The bank hired him to handle legal matters in which the bank was involved.
 However, the bank ended his position and asked him to give back the files related to the bank.
 Instead of returning the files, the lawyer refused and insisted that the bank first pay him his due
remunerations for his legal services.
 The bank needed the files for ongoing legal cases, but they disagreed with the lawyer's demands,
considering them unreasonable.
 As a result, the Managing Director of the Bank filed a complaint with the State Bar Council
(Madhya Pradesh) on 3rd February 1994.
 The complaint accused the lawyer of professional misconduct for not returning the files.
 During the proceedings, the lawyer admitted to not returning the files but argued that he had the
right to keep them using his right of lien.
 He offered to return the files once the bank paid him for his legal work.

 Background:
In 1990, R.D. Saxena was appointed as a legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative
Bank Ltd. As part of his duties, he conducted several legal cases on behalf of the bank. His
engagement with the bank was terminated on July 17, 1993. The bank subsequently requested
Saxena to return all case files related to its ongoing and closed cases.
 Dispute over Fees:
Instead of returning the files, Saxena demanded the payment of ₹97,100 as his unpaid legal fees.
He claimed that until his dues were cleared, he would retain the case files, asserting a right of
lien over the documents. The bank refused to meet his financial demands, calling them
unreasonable.
 Filing of Complaint:
On February 3, 1994, the Managing Director of the bank filed a complaint with the Madhya
Pradesh State Bar Council, accusing Saxena of professional misconduct for not returning the
files. Saxena admitted to withholding the files but justified his actions by asserting that he had a
right of lien over the files due to unpaid fees.
 Disciplinary Proceedings:
The Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh transferred the case to the Disciplinary Committee of the
Bar Council of India under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act, 1961. After conducting an
inquiry, the Disciplinary Committee found Saxena guilty of professional misconduct. It imposed
a fine of ₹1,000 on Saxena and debarred him from practising as an advocate for 18 months.
Saxena was also directed to return all the case files without any delay.
 Appeal to Supreme Court:
Saxena appealed the decision of the Bar Council of India before the Supreme Court, raising
important legal questions regarding an advocate’s right to claim a lien over case files for unpaid
fees.
Issues Raised
The primary legal issue in RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma before the Supreme Court was:
 Can an advocate claim a lien on the litigation papers entrusted to him by a client for unpaid fees?
 Whether case files can be equated with “goods” under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872?
 Does the retention of case files amount to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the
Advocates Act, 1961?
 Does an advocate have the right to withhold case files under the provisions of Rules 28 and
29 framed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961?
Arguments by the Appellant (R.D. Saxena)
1. Right of Lien under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872:
Saxena argued that under Section 171, he had the right to retain the case files as a security for
 unpaid fees. Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that “bankers, factors,
wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers” may retain goods bailed to them for
unpaid fees. He contended that, as an attorney, he was entitled to hold on to the case files until
his dues were cleared.
2. Miscarriage of Justice by the Bar Council of India:
Saxena contended that the Bar Council of India failed to consider his defence based on his
claimed right of lien. He argued that the disciplinary action against him amounted to a
miscarriage of justice as his legitimate claims for unpaid fees were ignored.
3. Previous Precedents on Lien:
Saxena cited decisions from various High Courts where it was held that attorneys have a right of
lien over goods or documents entrusted to them by clients. He asserted that his actions were
based on a bona fide belief that he had the legal right to retain the files.
Arguments by the Respondent (Bank)
1. No Right of Lien on Litigation Papers:
The respondent argued that case files and litigation papers do not qualify as “goods”
under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Therefore, an advocate cannot claim a lien
over such documents. The respondent emphasised that an advocate’s duty is to return the case
files to the client upon termination of the professional relationship, irrespective of unpaid fees.
2. Professional Misconduct:
The bank contended that Saxena’s refusal to return the case files amounted to professional
misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The advocate-client relationship is
based on trust, and withholding essential documents related to legal proceedings is a breach of
that trust. The respondent maintained that Saxena’s conduct harmed the bank’s legal interests
and delayed ongoing legal proceedings.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning in RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma
The Supreme Court, led by Justice K.T. Thomas, made the following key observations:
1. No Right of Lien on Case Files:
The Court rejected Saxena’s claim of lien over the case files. It clarified that Section 171 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872 applies to “goods” that are bailed to a professional for a specific
purpose. However, case files and litigation papers cannot be classified as “goods” under this
provision, as they hold no intrinsic marketable value. Goods, as defined in the Sale of Goods
Act, 1930, refer to movable property that can be sold or transferred. Case files do not fit this
definition, as they are neither saleable nor can they be converted into money.
2. Bailment Does Not Apply:
The Court further ruled that the concept of bailment, as defined under Section 148 of the
Indian Contract Act, does not apply to case files. Bailment involves the delivery of goods for a
specific purpose with an obligation to return the goods after the purpose is fulfilled. However,
the relationship between an advocate and a client, particularly regarding case files, does not
constitute bailment, as the files are not goods delivered with a contractual obligation for return.
3. Professional Misconduct:
The Court emphasised that withholding case files for unpaid fees could severely harm a client’s
ability to pursue ongoing legal matters. An advocate has a duty to return case files upon
termination of professional engagement, and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct
under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court reiterated that an advocate’s
relationship with a client is fiduciary, and the advocate’s duty to the client takes precedence over
financial disputes.
4. Right to Change Advocates:
The Court highlighted that under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, an accused person has
the fundamental right to be represented by an advocate of their choice. This right implies that a
litigant must have the freedom to change advocates if they so desire. Allowing an advocate to
retain case files for unpaid fees would infringe on this fundamental right.
5. Rules 28 and 29 of the Advocates Act:
The Court referred to Rules 28 and 29 framed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates
Act, 1961. These rules allow an advocate to appropriate any unspent amount left in their hands
after the conclusion of a case or deduct unpaid fees from the client’s money. However, these
rules do not grant advocates the right to retain case files or litigation papers for unpaid fees. Any
dispute over fees must be resolved separately through legal remedies, without impeding the
client’s access to their case documents.
6. The Supreme Court stated that files and records held by an advocate do not qualify as
"goods" that can be withheld for unpaid fees.
7. The term "goods" is defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and do not include legal
records.
8. The concept of bailment, defined in Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
involves delivering goods with an agreement for their return, which do not apply to legal
files.
9. The court emphasized that withholding records for unpaid fees could harm the client's
case.
10. Advocates should not have the right to withhold records due to unpaid fees; instead,
they can pursue legal remedies for payment.
11. If a client changes advocates, the former must return the case files, and disputes over fees
should be resolved separately.
12. The court stressed the social duty of the legal profession to support people, ensuring
they are not deprived of their rights due to an advocate's position.
13. While advocates can set fees by agreement, unpaid fees do not justify withholding client
documents.
14.
RD Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma Judgement
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bar Council of India, finding R.D. Saxena guilty
of professional misconduct for refusing to return the case files. However, the Court recognised
that there were no prior Supreme Court precedents on this issue and acknowledged Saxena’s
possible bona fide belief that he had a right of lien. Therefore, the Court reduced the severity of
the punishment. Instead of debarment from practice for 18 months, the Court issued
a reprimand to Saxena.
The Court also clarified that the lighter punishment in this case should not be taken as a
precedent for future cases. In the future, any advocate found guilty of similar misconduct would
face stricter penalties.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in R.D. Saxena v Balram Prasad Sharma is a landmark
judgement that establishes clear boundaries for the professional conduct of advocates. The Court
ruled that an advocate cannot claim a lien on litigation papers for unpaid fees, as such papers are
not “goods” under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The decision emphasised the ethical
responsibilities of advocates and the fiduciary nature of the advocate-client relationship.
The case serves as an important precedent, ensuring that clients are not deprived of their legal
rights due to financial disputes with their advocates. It also underscores the need for advocates to
resolve disputes over fees through proper legal channels, without withholding crucial legal
documents from their clients. The ruling reinforces the ethical standards expected from members
of the legal profession, safeguarding the interests of litigants and promoting fairness in the legal
process.