The legal profession is a noble profession. It is not a business or a trade. A person practising law has to practise in the spirit of honesty and not in the spirit of mischief-making or money-getting. An advocate’s attitude towards and dealings with his client has to be scrupulously honest and fair.
 In V.C. Rangadurai v. D. Gopalan and Ors., AIR 1979 SC 281 Krishna Iyer, J. stated:
Law’s nobility as a profession lasts only so long as the members maintain their commitment to integrity and service to the community.
19. Any compromise with the law’s nobility as a profession is bound to affect the faith of the people in the rule of law and, therefore, unprofessional conduct by an advocate has to be viewed seriously. A person practising law has an obligation to maintain probity and high standard of professional ethics and morality.
Law is a noble profession, true; but it is also an elitist profession. Its ethics, in practice, (not in theory, though) leave much to be desired, if viewed as a profession for the people. When the Constitution under Art. 19 enables professional expertise to enjoy a privilege and the Advocates Act confers a monopoly, the goal is not assured income but commitment to the people-the common people whose hunger, privation and hamstrung human rights need the advocacy of the profession to change the existing order into a Human Tomorrow. This desideratum gives the clue to the direction of the penance of a deviant geared to correction. Serve the people free and expiate your sin, is the hint.
Law’s nobility as a profession lasts only so long as the members maintain their commitment to integrity and service to the community. Indeed, the monopoly conferred on the legal profession by Parliament is couples with a responsibility – a responsibility towards the people, especially the poor.
It is not in accordance with professional etiquette for one advocate to hand over his brief to another to take his place at a hearing (either for the whole or part of the hearing), and conduct the case as if the latter had himself been briefed, unless the client consents to this course being taken. Counsel’s paramount duty is to the client; accordingly where he forms an opinion that a conflict of interest exists, his duty is to advise the client that he should engage some other lawyer. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent given by all concerned after a full disclosure of the facts.
31. Nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. Lord Brougham, then aged eighty-six, said in a speech, 1864, that the first great quality of an advocate was ‘to reckon everything subordinate to the interests of his client’. What he said in 1864 about ‘the paramountcy of the client’s interest’, is equally true today. The relation between a lawyer and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. It is purely a personal relationship, involving the highest personal trust and confidence which cannot be delegated without consent. A lawyer when entrusted with a brief, is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his clients, in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. The appellant completely betrayed the trust reposed in him by the complainants.
