SC: Can’t blame lawyer for flop tip
A significant ruling of the Supreme Court delivered five years ago has been trending on the social media, including on some foreign blogs and websites run by advocates and doctors.
In the ruling, the apex court stated that no FIR shall be issued against lawyers and doctors in case an advice given by them goes wrong. This ruling was given in a case filed against a Hyderabad lawyer.
The CBI had filed the case against the advocate, alleging that he submitted a false legal opinion to Vijaya Bank in respect of a housing loan disbursal. He did so in the capacity of an empanelled advocate, and did not throw light on the actual ownership of the properties.
The Hyderabad High Court had quashed the criminal charges against the advocate, concluding that the material placed by the CBI against him was inconclusive, and there was no material to show that he had joined hands with the other accused to deliberately give a wrong advice to the bank.
Aggrieved by the High Court order, the CBI had moved an appeal before the Supreme Court.
A two-member bench comprising Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed the appeal and observed that a “lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case under all circumstances. Likewise, a physician would not assure his patient of full recovery. A surgeon cannot The only assurance that a professional can give, or imply, is that he possesses the requisite skills in a branch of the profession he practises; while performing the task entrusted to him, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence.
— and does not guarantee that the result of the surgery would invariably be beneficial, much less to the extent of 100 per cent, for the person operated on.”
“A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings — viz, either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed; or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence, the skill which he did possess,” it observed.
The bench said, “It is beyond doubt that a lawyer owes an unremitting loyalty to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer’s responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interests of the client. Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution.”
The bench reminded the petitioner that in the law of negligence, professionals such as lawyers, doctors, architects and others are included in the category of persons professing some special skills.