Duty Towards the Court

Introduction
The legal profession is all about ethics. In this regard, lawyers, as key players in the
administration of justice in any jurisdiction, must comply with both formal and informal rules
governing it. Generally, the lawyer is defined as one who is licensed to practice law.1 The duty of
the lawyer to the court has a long history, dating back to the medieval era. Professional lawyers
in England and other parts of Western Europe were widely recognised and permitted in courts
by the early 13th century.

Medieval courts, such as ecclesiastical courts, were among the first to establish a code of
professional conduct for legal advocates through oaths. These practitioners swore to God that
they would comply with the ethical standards governing their duty to the court. The legal
advocates took oaths, including commitments to reject unjust causes, avoid seeking unjust
delays, and refrain from taking a stake in litigation.

In addition to the professional codes set by ecclesiastical courts, the English Parliament in 1275
enacted the Statute of Westminster I, which regulated lawyers’ conduct. This statute
emphasised candour to the court as a fundamental duty.2

The rationale behind the duty to the court was to uphold the administration of justice and
maintain public confidence in the legal profession. Lawyers, as officers of the court, were
obligated to protect the integrity of judicial processes and prevent their abuse.

Advocate's Duty Towards the Court Under the Bar Council of India Rules
The legal profession in India is regarded as a noble and learned vocation, entrusted with
upholding justice and maintaining the sanctity of the judicial system. To ensure ethical conduct
among legal practitioners, the Advocates Act, 1961, empowers the Bar Council of India (BCI) to
frame rules prescribing standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates. While
earlier regulations, such as the Legal Practitioners’ Act, 1879, contained provisions on
professional ethics, they were often vague and lacked clarity in defining misconduct.
1
Garner, B.A, (Ed), The Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, Thomson West, London, 2004,p.2595

2
Andrews (n 1) p. 1394- 1395.
Under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, the BCI has formulated strict ethical guidelines,
subject to the approval of the Chief Justice of India3, to govern an advocate’s conduct. Chapter
II, Part VI of the BCI Rules specifically outlines an advocate’s duties towards the court, the
client, the opposite party, and fellow advocates.

The advocate owes respect and courtesy to the court. Rules 1 to 10 deal with the duties of an
advocate to the court.

1. Act in a Dignified and Self-Respected Manner: The conduct of an advocate at the time of
presentation of his case or whenever acting before the court should be dignified and
self-respected. It is the right and duty of an advocate to submit the grievance to the proper
authority if there are grounds for a serious complaint against a judicial officer.4 This rule imposes
a duty on the advocate to present the matter to the client and submit the grievance based on a
serious complaint fearlessly.

2. Respectful towards the Court: An advocate is required to remain respectful towards the court
and maintain the dignity of the Judicial Office. A free community will be in danger if the dignity of
the Judicial Office is not maintained. It balances the duty imposed in rule 1 and directs the
advocate to hold the decorum of the Judicial Office. In Lalit Mohan Das v Advocate General5 the
court observed, “In suggesting that the Munsif followed no principle in his orders, the appellant
was adding insult to injury, because the preliminary point of jurisdiction and Court fees, which
order had been upheld by the High Court in revision. Scandalising the Court in such a manner is
polluting the very fount of justice and bringing into disrepute the whole administration of justice.”

3. No Private communication with Judges: It is forbidden for an advocate to communicate with

3
The Advocates Act, 1961 (Act 25 of 1961), s. 49.
4
The Bar Council of India Rules
5
Lalit Mohan Das v Advocate General AIR 1957 SC 250
6
Rizwan-ul-Hassan v State of U.P. AIR 1953 SC 135
Soni v Bar Council of Rajasthan,7 an advocate took money to bribe an officer to give favourable
evidence. This was held as professional misconduct.

4. Restrain own counsel from employing illegal means: The advocate must prevent the counsel
from using any unfair, illegal, or improper means that the advocate ought not to use himself. The
advocate should not represent such client who continuously performs such improper conduct.
Also, the advocate should exercise his judgment in using the language for arguing against the
opponent and avoid scurrilous attacks. An advocate is not a mere mouthpiece of his client but
also an officer of the Court, and the court acts on his statement.

5. Appear in proper dress code: An advocate shall always appear in court only in the prescribed
dress, and their appearance shall always be presentable. An advocate attending the court with
a firearm is not befitting of the dignity of the legal profession and is a distressing feature. If an
advocate attends the code with firearms, misconduct will not be consistent with the dignity of the
legal profession, and it should be deprecated.8

6. Not to appear before relation: An advocate should not appear, plead, practice or act before
any judicial authority if any member of such authority is related to the advocate. The relations
prohibited from appearing before our Father, grandfather, son, grandson, uncle, brother,
nephew, first cousin, husband, wife, mother, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, father-in-law,
mother-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law, or sister-inlaw. The object is to avoid
the personal bias of the authority towards the advocate. This rule acts as a safeguard against
the violation of the natural justice principle of Nemo Judex in Causa Sua. It is professional
misconduct to appear before any judicial authority if any member of such authority is related to
the advocate.9

7. Not to wear bands or gowns in public places: Except for the occasions prescribed by the Bar
Council of India or the Court, an advocate shall not wear a gown or bands in a public place.

8. Abstain from appearing in the case of his establishment: An advocate should not appear in or
before any judicial authority, for or against any establishment, if he is a member of the
management of the establishment. This rule does not apply to a member appearing as “amicus
7
(1983) 4 SCC 255
8
U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association AIR 1996 SC 98
9
Satyendra Nararain Singh v Ram Nath Singh AIR 1984 SC 1755
curiae” or without a fee on behalf of the Bar Council, Incorporated Law Society, or a Bar
Association.10
9. Abstain from appearing in a matter involving his pecuniary interest: An Advocate should not
act or plead in any matter in which he is himself pecuniarily interested. For instance, if a person
files a petition for bankruptcy and the advocate himself is a creditor of that person, then he
should constrain himself from acting in that matter.

10. Not stand as surety for the client: An advocate should neither stand as a surety nor certify
the soundness of a surety that his client requires for any legal proceedings.11

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1. Ethics means doing the right thing. Professional ethics are a code of conduct that governs
how members of a profession deal with each other and third parties. Lawyers have a
professional code of conduct, and we need to follow that code to protect our image and benefit
society's people. As a future lawyer, I will try to follow all of the ethics. Our clients expect us to
take them from untruth to truth, darkness to light. I will not misuse their expectations.12
2. There are two major aspects in this regard. The first is related to ‘legal education’- i.e.
observance of ethics in the legal profession can be enhanced by ‘building a habit of lawyers for
observing ethical rules when they are students’. The second is related to the ‘honesty of
lawyers’ to faithfully follow the rules of ethics. The theory of activist moral epistemology
emphasises the first paradigm. It is a theory of learning that emphasises “actions” as a means of
attaining moral knowledge.13
3. Discipline at the bar is very essential. This is because offences, to which the police attach no
significance when committed by a medical doctor, may be attended with humiliation and
embarrassment when committed by a lawyer. Similarly, a simple act of breach of the law by an
accountant, which may not be considered anything, may form banner headlines in newspapers
and magazines if committed by a lawyer.14
4. This only stresses the fact that society views lawyers as custodians of a high moral value and
distinguished members of society, whose conduct and activities should serve as a light to the
rest of society. To maintain this standard and meet the high expectation of the society on lawyer,

10
The Bar Council of India available at:
http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/BCIRulesPartVonwards.pdf
11
Ibid
12
Popovski 2014
13
Cranston 1995
14
Dutt-Majumdar 1975
the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners has been put in place to guide and
regulate legal practice and the conduct of legal practitioners, especially concerning their duties
and responsibilities to their clients, the court, the profession and the society at large, and of
course their rights and privileges. 15
5. Lawyers possess training, skills, and position which give them immense power and which
raise enormously complex moral questions inherent in the work itself. Does a lawyer
representing a toy manufacturer retain his client’s confidence that a toy on the market is
dangerously defective, or does he/she warn the public?16

METHODOLOGY
For this research, the primary data was collected in Thiruvananthapuram. The SPSS software
by IBM was used to calculate the descriptive statistics. The sample size was 200. Dependent
variables are about the importance of professional ethics, responsibilities of an advocate,
awareness of the rules of the Bar Council, duties of an advocate and their punishments for
professional misconduct of an advocate. Independent variables are Age and gender. Various
tools, like simple percentage analysis and graphical representation.

ANALYSIS
1. How much do you agree that professional ethics is important in the legal profession?

Legend:- This figure shows how many people agree that professional ethics is important in the
legal profession, which is compared with Age.

15
Bhalla ND
16
Marsh HUGHES 1845
2. How much are you aware of the rules of the Bar Council of India and the Advocates Act about
professional ethics?

Legend:- This figure shows how many people are aware of the rules of the Bar Council of India
and the Advocates Act about professional ethics, which is compared with Age.

3 .How much do you rate that an advocate must maintain a respectful attitude while in court?

Legend:- This figure shows the rating that an advocate must maintain a respectful attitude while
at a court, which is compared with the Age

4. How much do you agree that the advocate's duty towards the client is more important?
Legend:- This figure shows how much people agree that the advocate's duty towards the client
is more important, compared with Age.

5. What do you think is the effective disciplinary action taken by the disciplinary committee for
the professional misconduct of an advocate?

Legend:- This figure shows the effective disciplinary action taken by the disciplinary committee
for a professional misconduct of an advocate, which is compared with Age.

DISCUSSION
●​ Figure 1:- Result of the survey shows that the people of the age group less than 20
years strongly agreed 11%, age group 21-30 years also strongly agreed 13%, age group
31-40 years disagreed 14% and age group 41-50 years strongly agreed 4% that
professional ethics is important in the legal profession. From this result, we came to
know that professional ethics is important in the legal profession.

●​ Figure 2: The survey reveals that respondents across all age groups rated their
awareness of the Bar Council of India Rules and the Advocates Act, 1961 at 4 out of 5,
specifically about professional ethics. This result is significant when considered in the
context of an advocate’s duty towards the court. As officers of the court, advocates are
expected to uphold the dignity, integrity, and fairness of judicial proceedings. The high
rating across age groups indicates a widespread recognition of the formal ethical
framework that governs courtroom behaviour. Such awareness is essential, as ethical
 lapses in court, whether through misleading arguments, suppression of facts, or
disrespectful conduct, directly undermine the justice system. Thus, this finding affirms
that the foundational knowledge of ethical obligations toward the court is well established
among the public and aspiring legal professionals.

●​ Figure 3: The survey results show that respondents across all age groups consistently
rated 4 out of 5 when asked whether an advocate must maintain a respectful attitude
while at court. This consensus highlights a shared understanding of one of the core
ethical responsibilities an advocate owes to the judiciary. Respectful conduct is not
merely a matter of courtroom etiquette; it is a reflection of the advocate’s role as an
officer of the court who contributes to the dignity and orderly functioning of judicial
proceedings. Upholding respect for the court strengthens public trust in the legal system
and reinforces the institutional integrity of the judiciary. This result reinforces the idea
that professional decorum is an essential part of legal ethics, particularly in fulfilling an
advocate’s duty towards the court.

●​ Figure 4: The survey results reveal a trend that underscores a growing preference for
client-focused advocacy over a principled duty toward the court. In the age group below
20 years, 9% strongly agreed that an advocate’s duty toward the client is more
important, while 14% of the 21–30 age group also agreed with this view, the highest
among all surveyed categories. This suggests that newer generations entering the legal
field may prioritise loyalty to the client over the broader responsibility to the justice
system. Meanwhile, 11% of the 31–40 age group disagreed, and only 4% of the 41–50
age group agreed, reflecting a potential generational shift in how professional ethics are
understood and practised.
These findings point to a critical ethical concern: the duty towards the court, which
includes honesty, integrity, and upholding justice is increasingly being overshadowed by
the perceived obligation to secure favourable outcomes for clients. While client advocacy
is undeniably central to legal practice, it cannot justify misleading the court, suppressing
facts, or prioritising victory over truth. The diminishing emphasis on duty to the court may
lead to an erosion of trust in the legal system itself.
This highlights an urgent need for stronger ethics education and institutional
reinforcement to restore balance between the lawyer’s obligation to the client and their
non-negotiable duty to the court.
 ●​ Figure 5: The survey findings offer insight into how different age groups perceive the
appropriate disciplinary response to an advocate’s professional misconduct, a breach
that directly impacts the advocate’s duty towards the court. Respondents in the age
groups below 20 and between 41–50 years suggested that such complaints should be
dismissed, possibly indicating a lack of emphasis on the systemic harm caused by
unethical conduct. On the other hand, participants in the 21–30 and 31–40 age groups
believed that suspension from legal practice for a certain period is a more appropriate
disciplinary measure.
This view aligns closely with the core principle that an advocate's duty to the court to
uphold honesty, integrity, and respect for judicial processes is not optional but essential.
Professional misconduct, especially within courtroom practice, does not merely harm the
client but also undermines the dignity and authority of the judiciary. This reflects the
purpose of disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act, 1961, where such
penalties aim to deter misconduct and uphold the ethical standards expected of an
officer of the court.

CONCLUSION
This study underscores the vital importance of an advocate’s duty towards the court in
maintaining the integrity and dignity of the legal system. As officers of the court,
advocates are expected to act with honesty, fairness, and respect for judicial
proceedings. While the survey indicates a general awareness of ethical standards and
professional responsibility across age groups, it also reveals a concerning trend,
particularly among younger respondents, towards prioritising the advocate’s duty to the
client over their obligation to the court.
To restore balance, there is a pressing need to re-emphasise courtroom ethics through
legal education, bar training, and institutional accountability. Advocates must remember
that their foremost duty is not only to represent, but to serve the cause of justice and
uphold the authority of the court they appear before.