Lawyer Is Not Client's Agent, But Responsible Spokesman; Should Not Step Into Shoes Of Client And Disrespect Court: Karnataka High Court
Court says lawyer is a responsible spokesperson and not an agent of the client; declines to initiate Bar Council action despite finding advocate exceeded limits during arguments
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a review petition in a property dispute while also making strong observations on the conduct of an advocate during court proceedings, stating that a lawyer cannot step into the shoes of a client and argue a case as if it were a personal grievance. It emphasised that although a client may be dissatisfied with the outcome of a case, a lawyer cannot express that dissatisfaction in a manner that disrespects the Court or undermines the decorum of judicial proceedings.
The Bench held that an advocate is a dignified and responsible spokesperson for the client and not merely an agent, and therefore must maintain the dignity and decorum of the court while presenting arguments. The Court observed that one of the advocates appearing in the matter had exceeded the limits expected of a lawyer while addressing the Court during the hearing of the review petition.
Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar observed, “A client engages a lawyer for addressing his grievances. The lawyer is not an agent of his client, but he is dignified, responsible spokesman. The lawyer cannot wear shoes of his client. The Court cannot satisfy both parties; one party obviously being dissatisfied and the Advocate - Sri. B.M. Arun could not have stepped into the shoes of the client to express his dissatisfaction as if it is a personal case and ought not to have addressed the Court in the conduct disrespecting the Court and harming dignity and decorum of the Court”.
Although such conduct could have warranted a request to the Bar Council to initiate disciplinary action, the Court said it refrained from taking that step out of its highest regard for the legal profession.
“…Filing of review petition is statutory right of the parties and let them file, but on the guise of filing review petition no one should threaten or defame or browbeat the Court, just because they did not receive the order what they want. Therefore, this Court is constrained to make above observations”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Arun B. M. appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Sunil Kumar H appeared for the respondent.
The advocate reportedly became agitated while arguing the review petition after the Court declined to reconsider its earlier order directing that one-fourth share in the disputed property be reserved for the plaintiffs and another co-sharer during the pendency of the partition suit.
During the arguments, he expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Court’s previous decision and sought to re-argue the merits of the case. The Court observed that in doing so, the advocate appeared to argue the matter as though it were his personal grievance, which led to remarks that he had exceeded the limits expected of counsel while addressing the Court.
On the merits of the case, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record that would justify invoking review jurisdiction. It reiterated that review proceedings cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or as a means to reargue issues already decided.
Therefore, observing that allowing the entire property to be alienated during litigation could result in a situation where the successful party obtains only a “paper decree” without practical benefit, the Court held that the earlier directions were necessary to safeguard the rights of the parties.
Cause Title: K. Ganesh & Anr. v. C. Manju & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:12942]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Arun B. M., Advocate.
Respondents: Sunil Kumar H., Parushuram Ajjampur, Advocates.
Click here to read/download the Judgment