In Re: S, a Pleader, Raghunathpur

This is a proceeding u/s 13(f), Legal Practitioners Act, against one S, a pleader, who has been practising at Raghunathpur in the district of Manbhum. A suit was brought by the heirs of an assured person on a policy of insurance against the Insurance Company. The defence of the Insurance Company was that there had been fraud in the obtaining of the policy of insurance, and in the course of the suit the pleader amongst other persons was called as a witness in support of the plaintiff. It became clear from his evidence that the nominal agent of the company for negotiating the policy was the brother of the pleader, one B. De, who lives with the pleader at Raghunathpur. The evidence of the pleader made it further clear that it had been the practice for the pleader to render assistance to his brother in negotiating policies; but the evidence went very much further than the disclosure of the mere rendering of assistance in the particular case. It may well be that a pleader of experience may properly give advice from time to time to a younger brother who is engaged in business; and had the matter rested there, there would have been little to complain of; but the evidence of the pleader in this suit clearly shows that the insurance agency, though nominally that of the brother, was really that of the pleader. The brother is an ignorant young man with little education and little knowledge of English and it is improbable that he would ever have been appointed an agent but for the existence of the pleader brother against whom this complaint is made. In the particular case under investigation the suit was concerned with the insurance of a person named Surajmal and it is clear that the pleader played a most active part and his evidence indicates that no less active part must have been played by him in many cases that have passed through his brother''s hands. Now persons who wish to take up a profession must take their choice. If they wish to be insurance agents there is nothing to prevent them from carrying on that useful occupation; but if they enter the profession of the law as pleaders, then they must make up their mind to conduct the business of the pleader and nothing else. There is the most distinct rule of the Court by which a person who, after having been admitted as a pleader or mukhtear, accepts any appointment or enters into any other trade or business, must give notice to the High Court and the High Court has the power thereupon to suspend him from practice or pass any other suitable order. Here the pleader has clearly been trying to run two businesses at the same time, the business of pleader and the business of an insurance agent, and such a practice is in the highest degree injurious to the interest of the profession and to the interest of the public. We are satisfied that the pleader has been guilty of professional misconduct and we suspend him from practice for a period of six months from this date.