Lawyers: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Lawyers’ fees/ earnings */

2025-12-15T20:59:46Z

‎Lawyers’ fees/ earnings

Jyoti: /* Professional ethics */

2025-07-04T15:05:27Z

‎Professional ethics

Jyoti: /* How a few tar a profession */

2025-04-08T21:02:01Z

‎How a few tar a profession

Jyoti: /* `Senior advocate' designation */

2024-04-28T15:45:47Z

‎`Senior advocate' designation

Jyoti: /* SC’s guidelines, 2017 */

2023-11-28T06:51:00Z

‎SC’s guidelines, 2017

Jyoti at 16:32, 12 March 2023

2023-03-12T16:32:22Z

Jyoti: /* Lawyers’ fees/ earnings */

2021-05-26T20:50:26Z

‎Lawyers’ fees/ earnings

Jyoti: /* International forums */

2021-05-03T16:41:34Z

‎International forums

Jyoti: /* International forums */

2020-12-16T13:40:58Z

‎International forums

Jyoti: /* Legal aid, free */

2018-10-06T07:18:52Z

‎Legal aid, free

@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAWYERS: INDIA
 LAWYERS: INDIA]]
 =Lawyers’ fees/ earnings=
@@ Line 207: / Line 227: @@
 LAWYERS: INDIA]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAWYERS: INDIA
 LAWYERS: INDIA]]

@@ Line 289: / Line 289: @@
 The SC said it was for the Bar Council to consider whether practice by legislators could impinge upon their duties towards the House concerned
 =Professional ethics=
@@ Line 320: / Line 331: @@
 No one can ever imagine teaching law or rules to Jethmalani. But sometimes, even the best slip.
 =`Senior advocate' designation=

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
  The bench further addedthat the Shahdara Bar Association’s circular would be superseded by the uniform prescribed by Bar Council of Delhi, which would be followed uniformly across the city. “The impugned circular would not survive and shall be superseded by the uniform prescribed by Bar Council of Delhi, which would be followed uniformly across Delhi. The petition is accordingly disposed of,” the bench said.
  Earlier, the court had asked the chairman of Bar Council of Delhi to call for a meeting of all the stakeholders, including the district bar associations and Bar Council of India, to evolve a common consensus regarding a uniform dress code for interns. It had observed that since a larger numbe r of interns enter the premises of district courts and the high court, a uniform policy ought to be arrived at by all the stakeholders.
 =How a few tar a profession=
@@ Line 79: / Line 96: @@
 It is time for the legal fraternity — judges and lawyers — to work together to devise means and ways to infuse values and a self-correcting mechanism to protect public faith in the institution. Courts cannot shy away from inquiring into allegations with reasonable proof against judges. But insinuations based on suspicions must not punch holes in the ship delivering justice, for the judicial sea is witnessing rough weather.
 =Government lawyers=

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 28 April 2024
Line 341:		Line 341:

	By Hitesh S JainIn April 2023, the Supreme Court transferred to itself a batch of petitions filed seeking legalisation of same sex marriages in India. The petitioners essentially sought the interpretation of the term 'marriage' in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) to include a marriage between 'persons' as opposed to just between male and female and for Section 4 of the SMA to be declared unconstitutional. They thus challenged personal laws related to marriage and the SMA on the grounds that these laws did not recognise same-sex marriages. In response, the Centre, relying on the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined under the Constitution, submitted that the debate, if any, on equal marriage and/or same sex marriage ought to be put up before Parliament. The SC was thus faced with the conundrum of not only balancing societal and individual rights but also deciding the contours of its own powers without impinging on the legislature's powers.On October 17, a five-judge bench pronounced its judgment in the case of Supriyo@Supriya Chakraborthy v. Union of India & Anr. The SC has unequivocally recognised the right of union and partnership of queer couples. It has asked the centre to proceed with formation of a committee to decide rights and entitlements of persons in queer unions. This committee will consider the following aspects: Inclusion of names in family ration cards, enabling queer couples to nominate their partners for joint accounts, rights accruing to partners for statutory dues such as pension and gratuity. The SC has also clarified that marriage is not a fundamental right, however, the rights of the LGBTQ+ community have to be recognised and protected with the force of law. Through this judgment, the SC has observed that separation of powers as a doctrine is elastic. However, the intention and manner in which the judgment has yielded to Parliament's decision-making power is testament to the SC's conscious adherence to institutional comity.It has always been the Centre's stand that questions and matters relating to same sex marriage are not a matter of being 'for' or 'against' the LQBTQ+ community. The government's efforts to uphold the rights of the LGBTQ+ community are well documented. In fact, the hearing of these batch of petitions came at the time when the SC had already passed landmark judgments in the case of Navtej Singh and NALSA v Union of India. Notably, none of these judgments have been attempted to be scuttled by the Centre, which has honoured the SC's verdicts and worked towards a progressive and inclusive society to give effect to the rights interpreted by the court.Questions of marriage, succession and maintenance in India are all governed by personal laws. This is precisely why the SC restricted itself to the challenge under SMA. However, questions of marriage naturally have an effect on other familial rights and the domino effect is vast. The government's stance was socio-legal, as to whether the judiciary's authority to indulge in this sphere amounts to overreach and whether such interpretations can be viewed in isolation. As submitted before the SC, any interpretation as sought by the petitioners would likely affect over 160 laws. Unlike matters where fundamental rights are enforced, their scope widened and/or defined in Part III of the Constitution, the question of equal marriage is not a mere matter of judicial interpretation.Questions of marriage and family permeate through the very fabric of Indian society. Any reference to American and/or European jurisprudence in this regard is akin to comparing apples with oranges. In a diverse social set-up with specific emphasis on personal laws, to read into provisions of the SMA to account for equal marriage cannot be at the cost of distinctions specifically mandated under personal laws. Any attempt by the SC to grant such reliefs would have stirred a hornet's nest.The judiciary has now indicated its alignment with the doctrine of separation of powers, while also recognising the need for practical benefits that ought to accrue to the queer community on account of their union/partnership. The SC was faced with the conundrum of distinguishing between a question of judicial interpretation vis-a-vis recognition of substantive rights, albeit in isolation. Which organ of the State is empowered to grant rights that affect the fabric of a democratic society? Is it the people's representatives, the legislature, or the indirectly appointed judiciary which is unaccountable to the electorate? With this verdict, the SC has answered the question in alignment with constitutional principles and basic tenets of constitutional democracies. It has balanced its own powers and upheld the rights of a marginalised sector of society.The SC observed that striking down provisions of SMA would relegate the nation back to the pre-independence era, while reading words into the SMA would tantamount to assuming the role of the legislature, which would be ex-facie unconstitutional. In realising that the legitimacy of marriages brings with it more important practical benefits/rights, the SC has deferred the decision to Parliament but has in the same breath ensured that all rights that accrue by way of marriage are granted by the State to members of the LGBTQ+ community. Ultimately, the SC has ensured that while personal laws and sentiments towards those laws are respected, no citizen of India is to suffer on the basis of their sexual orientation.(The writer is Managing Partner, Parinam Law Associates)		By Hitesh S JainIn April 2023, the Supreme Court transferred to itself a batch of petitions filed seeking legalisation of same sex marriages in India. The petitioners essentially sought the interpretation of the term 'marriage' in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) to include a marriage between 'persons' as opposed to just between male and female and for Section 4 of the SMA to be declared unconstitutional. They thus challenged personal laws related to marriage and the SMA on the grounds that these laws did not recognise same-sex marriages. In response, the Centre, relying on the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined under the Constitution, submitted that the debate, if any, on equal marriage and/or same sex marriage ought to be put up before Parliament. The SC was thus faced with the conundrum of not only balancing societal and individual rights but also deciding the contours of its own powers without impinging on the legislature's powers.On October 17, a five-judge bench pronounced its judgment in the case of Supriyo@Supriya Chakraborthy v. Union of India & Anr. The SC has unequivocally recognised the right of union and partnership of queer couples. It has asked the centre to proceed with formation of a committee to decide rights and entitlements of persons in queer unions. This committee will consider the following aspects: Inclusion of names in family ration cards, enabling queer couples to nominate their partners for joint accounts, rights accruing to partners for statutory dues such as pension and gratuity. The SC has also clarified that marriage is not a fundamental right, however, the rights of the LGBTQ+ community have to be recognised and protected with the force of law. Through this judgment, the SC has observed that separation of powers as a doctrine is elastic. However, the intention and manner in which the judgment has yielded to Parliament's decision-making power is testament to the SC's conscious adherence to institutional comity.It has always been the Centre's stand that questions and matters relating to same sex marriage are not a matter of being 'for' or 'against' the LQBTQ+ community. The government's efforts to uphold the rights of the LGBTQ+ community are well documented. In fact, the hearing of these batch of petitions came at the time when the SC had already passed landmark judgments in the case of Navtej Singh and NALSA v Union of India. Notably, none of these judgments have been attempted to be scuttled by the Centre, which has honoured the SC's verdicts and worked towards a progressive and inclusive society to give effect to the rights interpreted by the court.Questions of marriage, succession and maintenance in India are all governed by personal laws. This is precisely why the SC restricted itself to the challenge under SMA. However, questions of marriage naturally have an effect on other familial rights and the domino effect is vast. The government's stance was socio-legal, as to whether the judiciary's authority to indulge in this sphere amounts to overreach and whether such interpretations can be viewed in isolation. As submitted before the SC, any interpretation as sought by the petitioners would likely affect over 160 laws. Unlike matters where fundamental rights are enforced, their scope widened and/or defined in Part III of the Constitution, the question of equal marriage is not a mere matter of judicial interpretation.Questions of marriage and family permeate through the very fabric of Indian society. Any reference to American and/or European jurisprudence in this regard is akin to comparing apples with oranges. In a diverse social set-up with specific emphasis on personal laws, to read into provisions of the SMA to account for equal marriage cannot be at the cost of distinctions specifically mandated under personal laws. Any attempt by the SC to grant such reliefs would have stirred a hornet's nest.The judiciary has now indicated its alignment with the doctrine of separation of powers, while also recognising the need for practical benefits that ought to accrue to the queer community on account of their union/partnership. The SC was faced with the conundrum of distinguishing between a question of judicial interpretation vis-a-vis recognition of substantive rights, albeit in isolation. Which organ of the State is empowered to grant rights that affect the fabric of a democratic society? Is it the people's representatives, the legislature, or the indirectly appointed judiciary which is unaccountable to the electorate? With this verdict, the SC has answered the question in alignment with constitutional principles and basic tenets of constitutional democracies. It has balanced its own powers and upheld the rights of a marginalised sector of society.The SC observed that striking down provisions of SMA would relegate the nation back to the pre-independence era, while reading words into the SMA would tantamount to assuming the role of the legislature, which would be ex-facie unconstitutional. In realising that the legitimacy of marriages brings with it more important practical benefits/rights, the SC has deferred the decision to Parliament but has in the same breath ensured that all rights that accrue by way of marriage are granted by the State to members of the LGBTQ+ community. Ultimately, the SC has ensured that while personal laws and sentiments towards those laws are respected, no citizen of India is to suffer on the basis of their sexual orientation.(The writer is Managing Partner, Parinam Law Associates)
		+
		+	=`Senior advocate' in position=
		+	==2024: women lawyers==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=20_01_2024_017_001_cap_TOI January 20, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	New Delhi : Supreme Court designated a record 11 women as senior advocates while granting the tag to a total of 56 lawyers, reports Dhananjay Mahapatra. Only 13 women lawyers have got the coveted gown from the highest court since it designated Indu Malhotra senior advocate in 2007.
		+
		+	If one counts five retired women high court judges — Shobha Dixit (1998), K K Usha (2004), Sharda Aggarwal (2006), Rekha Sharma (2015) and Mridula Mishra (2018) — designated senior by the SC, women advocates given the designation add up to 18, among the 436 to be designated such since 1966, before Friday’s list.
		+
		+	On Friday, the full court of the SC led by CJI D Y Chandrachud, a supporter of women’s increased participation in all spheres of life, decided to designate 56 lawyers as senior advocates. Among them were 11 women — Shobha Gupta, Swarupama Chaturvedi, Liz Mathews, Karuna Nundy, Nisha Bagchi, Uttara Babbar, Haripriya Padmanabhan, Archana Pathak Dave, N S Nappinai, S Janani and Shirin Khajuria.
		+
		+	Apart from Malhotra, the 12 other women lawyers designated senior advocates by the SC are Meenakshi Arora, Kiran Suri and Vibha Datta Makhija (2013); V Mohana and Mahalakshmi Pavani (2015); Madhavi Divan, Menaka Guruswamy, Anitha Shenoy, Aparajita Singh, Aishwarya Bhati and Priya Hingorani (2019) and Rachana Srivastava (2021).
		+
		+	Of the 56 designated on Friday, 34 are first-generation lawyers and six are below 45 years of age. Interestingly, the five-member selection committee, for the first time, had a woman member in Kiran Suri. Other members of the committee were the CJI, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and B R Gavai, and attorney general R Venkataramani.
		+
		+	For the first time, the academic work of the advocates was evaluated by professors of national law universities and the assessment was included in the process for shortlisting those who had applied for the senior designation.
		+
		+	Interestingly, the husband-wife advocate duo of Liz Mathews and Raghent Basant got their designation as senior advocates on Friday. Among the 56 who were designated, 30 are advocates-on-record, a special category of lawyers who on passing a tough written examination qualify to file cases in the SC.
		+
		+	Indira Jaising was the first woman in the country to get designated as senior advocate by Bombay HC in 1986. It was on her petition that the SC passed a series of orders streamlining the process for conferring senior advocate designation.

	[[Category:India\|L LAWYERS: INDIALAWYERS: INDIALAWYERS: INDIA		[[Category:India\|L LAWYERS: INDIALAWYERS: INDIALAWYERS: INDIA

@@ Line 335: / Line 335: @@
 A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, R F Nariman and Navin Sinha appreciated the heartburn caused by perceptible discrimination in conferring senior designation status to lawyers, some of whom were unanimously singled out by lawyers as undeserving. The bench laid down an eight-point check list, which is far more stringent than the method employed to select judges for the SC and HCs.
 =Strikes by lawyers=
 ==2003, 2018: SC’s strict instructions against striking lawyers==

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 |}
-[[Category:India |L ]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary |L ]]
 =How a few tar a profession=
@@ Line 370: / Line 382: @@
 [[Lawyers: India]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 3 May 2021
Line 108:		Line 108:

	While some have said that Rajput's links with R S S might have had a role in his nomination, which is denied by MEA, he himself said, “International relations is important but member-states of the UN have to vote for the candidate who has recognised competence in international law and the number speaks for itself.“		While some have said that Rajput's links with R S S might have had a role in his nomination, which is denied by MEA, he himself said, “International relations is important but member-states of the UN have to vote for the candidate who has recognised competence in international law and the number speaks for itself.“
		+
		+	=Judges/ courts: Lawyers vis-à-vis judges/ courts==
		+	==Insinuations through the media==
		+
		+	[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/insinuations-by-lawyers-make-our-job-hard-says-supreme-court/articleshow/67765104.cms Dhananjay Mahapatra, Jan 31, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Insinuations by lawyers make our job hard, says Supreme Court
		+	NEW DELHI: Ringing the alarm bell, the Supreme Court said in a hard-hitting judgment that it was becoming increasingly difficult for judges to render justice in a fair, impartial and fearless manner because of insinuations made by advocates in cases of political importance.  “Whenever any political matter comes to court and is decided, either way, political insinuations are attributed by unscrupulous persons/advocates. Such acts are nothing but an act of denigrating the judiciary itself and destroys the faith of the common man which he reposes in the judicial system,” a bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran said in its 75-page judgment.  Taking note of the tendency among some advocates to rush to the media from courtrooms, the bench said “hunger for cheap publicity is increasing” and termed it as anathema to the standards of the noble profession. “Statutory rules prohibit advocates from advertising and cater to press/media,” it said, adding it had become common to dish out “distorted versions of court proceedings”.   Cases cannot decided by media trial, says apex court   This had a chilling effect on judges who could not go to the media with their point of view, the bench said. “It is making it more difficult to render justice in a fair, impartial and fearless manner,” the bench said and complained that making public accusations against judges was a tactic adopted by unscrupulous elements to “influence the judgment and even to deny justice with ulterior motives”.   In the last year, apex court judges have faced a lot of insinuations from activist lawyers while dealing with politically sensitive matters — plea of Muslim parties for reference of Ayodhya land dispute to a five-judge bench, petition seeking quashing of UAPA charges against social activists including Sudha Bharadwaj and Gautam Navlakha, plea for SIT probe into judicial officer B H Loya’s alleged suspicious death, PILs for probe into Rafale jet purchase and petitions challenging the Centre’s decision to divest then CBI director Alok Verma of his powers.   “Something has to be done by all concerned to revamp the image of the bar,” the SC said. Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Mishra said, “It is impermissible to malign the system itself by attributing political motives and false allegations against the judicial system and its functionaries. Judges who are attacked are not supposed to go to the press or media to ventilate their point of view.”   Taking note of hype created in media by certain advocates in matters of political importance, the SC said, “Cases cannot be decided by media trial... No outside interference is permissible. A lot of sacrifices are made to serve the judiciary for which one cannot regret as it is with a purpose and to serve judiciary is not less than the call of military service.   “For the protection of democratic values and to ensure that rule of law prevails in the country, no one can be permitted to destroy the independence of the system from within or outside... Let each of us ensure our own institution is not jeopardised by the blame game and make an endeavour to improve upon its own functioning and independence.”   The SC was testing the validity of the rule framed by Madras high court empowering it to debar an advocate to control situations which arose in the past, including shouting of slogans, using foul language against judges and vandalism. Though anguished by past conduct of lawyers in the HC, it struck down the rule and said the HC could not usurp disciplinary powers vested in bar councils.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|L LAWYERS: INDIA
		+	LAWYERS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|L LAWYERS: INDIA
		+	LAWYERS: INDIA]]

	=Lawyers’ fees/ earnings=		=Lawyers’ fees/ earnings=

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:40, 16 December 2020
Line 108:		Line 108:

	While some have said that Rajput's links with R S S might have had a role in his nomination, which is denied by MEA, he himself said, “International relations is important but member-states of the UN have to vote for the candidate who has recognised competence in international law and the number speaks for itself.“		While some have said that Rajput's links with R S S might have had a role in his nomination, which is denied by MEA, he himself said, “International relations is important but member-states of the UN have to vote for the candidate who has recognised competence in international law and the number speaks for itself.“
		+
		+	=Lawyers’ fees/ earnings=
		+	==As in 2019==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F07%2F08&entity=Ar01008&sk=5CAD827E&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, July 8, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Lawyers will constitute the largest group of individual professionals who will be affected by a steep hike in tax rate on crorepatis, which was proposed in the budget by India’s first fulltime woman finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman.
		+	The proposed tax rate of 39% on an annual income of Rs 2-5 crore and 42.7% on annual income of over Rs 5 crore would be applicable to many well-known figures in the legal world. It would also include many retired judges who are sought after as arbitrators and are raking in the moolah.
		+
		+	Some successful lawyers earn over Rs 1 crore on a daily basis. Remember the bill raised by India’s ace criminal lawyer Ram Jethmalani on Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal for defending him in a Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed by successful lawyerpolitician Arun Jaitley?
		+
		+	Jethmalani charged a retainer fee of Rs 1 crore and Rs 22 lakh per appearance before the trial court. He will not feel the heat of the stiff tax proposed by Sitharaman. He has earned his fame and money and has quietly retired from practising law on a day to day basis.
		+	Others who could measure up to him in success, knowledge and wealth, achieved through practice of law, would include Soli J Sorabjee, Fali S Nariman and K Parasaran. Unlike Jethmalani, they still take up a select few cases and appear before the Supreme Court. A few years ago, all three would have been bracketed among the super rich based on their annual income, but not now.
		+	A few others who will also escape Sitharaman’s ‘tax the super rich’ proposal will be Rohinton F Nariman, U U Lalit and L Nageswara Rao as they accepted offers and become SC judges, sacrificing huge personal incomes.
		+
		+	But those who will feel the pinch of higher tax include Harish Salve, Mukul Rohatgi, Kapil Sibal, A M Singhvi, Gopal Subramanium, P Chidambaram, Salman Khurshid, Parag Tripathi, K T S Tulsi, Maninder Singh, Vikas Singh, Ranjit Kumar, Siddharth Luthra, Ajit Sinha, Shyam Divan and K V Vishwanath. The list is much longer but it is difficult to recall names of all who earn much more than Rs 2 crore a year with their law practices in the SC and high courts. The taxmen will not find it as difficult!
		+
		+	The profession of law became a cash-rich occupation post-liberalisation in 1992. In the next two decades, fees of successful lawyers zoomed and reached a level where they were unaffordable for most unless they decided to take up a case pro bono.
		+	There will not be many in any other profession across countries who command fees of Rs 15-20 lakh for a five-minute argument in a case before the SC. There are instances where senior advocates demand consultation fees running into lakhs for discussing a case with the briefing counsel while travelling in a car from the SC to the Delhi high court, a distance covered in 10 minutes in peak traffic.
		+	But how did the legal profession take birth in India? The British East India Company’s Charter of 1774 empowered courts existing then to approve, admit and enrol advocates and attorneys to plead and act on behalf of suitors, simultaneously conferring power on courts to remove lawyers from the rolls on a reasonable cause and to prohibit practitioners not properly admitted and enrolled from practising (Law Commission’s 131st report, 1988).
		+
		+	After the British took over administration of India in 1858, Indian High Courts Act, 1861, was enacted and HCs were established in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay in 1862. This was followed by HCs in Allahabad (1880), Patna (1916) and Lahore (1919).
		+	The Law Commission report said, “Although establishment of the Indian legal profession was originally a case of ‘transfer of a western institution’ brought about by a foreign power to meet exigencies of administration in India, it soon assumed leadership of national struggle for independence. It acquired its awareness because of its connection with British democratic institutions through legal literature.”
		+
		+	India’s struggle for independence was led by a lawyer, Mahatma Gandhi. There were many stalwart lawyers — Motilal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, C Rajagopalachari, Lala Lajpat Rai, C R Dar, Saifuddin Kichlew, Rajendra Prasad, Bhulabhai Desai, Jawaharlal Nehru, Madan Mohan Malviya, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Asaf Ali, B R Ambedkar and K N Katju — who played stellar roles in the freedom struggle. They richly contributed for ‘swaraj’ without amassing personal wealth. Not many of them, except Motilal and Jawaharlal, could be categorised as rich, money-wise.
		+	The Law Commission had said, “Till the advent of freedom, it cannot be gainsaid that the members of legal profession occupied a vantage position.” And then, it asked, “Is that the position maintained till today? In the post-independent era, has the legal profession maintained and augmented its position as leaders of thought and society?”
		+
		+	It went on to say, “No one can seriously question, though evidence of a concrete nature is hard to come by for reasons not difficult to foresee, that the fees charged (by advocates) have reached astronomical figures. There may be a class of litigants who can afford the same. But that microscopic minority class need not destroy the culture of legal profession nor the market of fees.” If 30 years ago, the commission headed by retired SC judge D A Desai thought fees quoted by lawyers were astronomical, it is hard to find a term which can appropriately describe the fees sought by them today.
		+
		+	By imposing a higher tax on the super rich, many of whom are lawyers, the government may add a few more crores to its kitty but unless these successful legal practitioners attempt to achieve a healthy balance in taking up cases of rich and poor litigants, their stature as money minting machines will not get a humane face.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|L
		+	LAWYERS: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|L
		+	LAWYERS: INDIA]]

	=Lawyers who defended much-hated clients=		=Lawyers who defended much-hated clients=

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 To begin with, the study stresses the need to have a more rigorous empanelment process as most of the LAC view Legal Aid services as just a platform to achieve other better employment opportunities. This, in turn, translates into “lack in the zeal and commitment towards their work“ affecting the quality of legal aid services across Delhi, the report concludes.
 =Professional ethics=
 ==Ram Jethmalani: derogatory word blamed on client's instructions==