Professional Integrity: Attorneys-at-Law must be of “good repute and competent ability.” Acts of deceit, malpractice, or dishonour render one unfit to practice. Burden of Conduct: Rule 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct & Etiquette) Rules 1988 – prohibits disgraceful, dishonourable, or deplorable conduct. Public Trust: Section 42 of the Judicature Act empowers the Supreme Court to suspend or remove lawyers guilty of misconduct to preserve standards of justice. False Identity & Concealment: Suppressing one’s identity when accessing court records indicates preparation to commit an illegal act; courts draw adverse inference from lack of plausible explanation. Uncontroverted Evidence: Where corroborated testimony of independent witnesses stands unchallenged, denial without plausible reason is rejected. Lack of Remorse: Failure to admit guilt or show repentance aggravates professional misconduct.

-

 







Supreme Court of Sri Lanka

In re: Rule under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act against Wickramage Don Dharmasiri Karunaratne, Attorney-at-Law
SC Rule No. 16/2023 – Decided 06 August 2025   

Summary

An Attorney-at-Law was charged with professional misconduct for unlawfully accessing and mutilating a case record at the Court of Appeal Registry. He used a false name to obtain the file, tore out two pages, and attempted to conceal them. Three witnesses (a binder, a staff officer, and the Deputy Registrar) gave direct corroborative evidence. The Attorney-at-Law denied tearing pages but admitted obtaining the record under a false name. The Court found the charges proved, held him guilty of deceit, malpractice, crime, and conduct disgraceful to the profession, and ordered his removal from the roll of Attorneys-at-Law.

Background

  • On 24 January 2023, the Respondent Attorney-at-Law applied under a false name (“C. Fernando”) to peruse case record No. COC/11/2022 at the Court of Appeal record room.

  • Staff observed him tearing pages that contained the case caption and charges, then inserting them into his personal file.

  • Staff reported the incident immediately to the Deputy Registrar, who verified missing pages and the false entry in the register.

  • The Respondent was arrested and produced before the Magistrate’s Court (B/3285/23).

  • The Supreme Court issued a Rule under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act to show cause why he should not be suspended or removed.

  • After inquiry, with unimpeached witness testimony, the Court found the charges proved.

Principles Applied in the Judgment

  1. Professional Integrity: Attorneys-at-Law must be of “good repute and competent ability.” Acts of deceit, malpractice, or dishonour render one unfit to practice.

  2. Burden of Conduct: Rule 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct & Etiquette) Rules 1988 – prohibits disgraceful, dishonourable, or deplorable conduct.

  3. Public Trust: Section 42 of the Judicature Act empowers the Supreme Court to suspend or remove lawyers guilty of misconduct to preserve standards of justice.

  4. False Identity & Concealment: Suppressing one’s identity when accessing court records indicates preparation to commit an illegal act; courts draw adverse inference from lack of plausible explanation.

  5. Uncontroverted Evidence: Where corroborated testimony of independent witnesses stands unchallenged, denial without plausible reason is rejected.

  6. Lack of Remorse: Failure to admit guilt or show repentance aggravates professional misconduct.

Precedents Recited and Principles in a Nutshell

  • Rule 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct & Etiquette Rules 1988): An Attorney-at-Law must not act in a way disgraceful or dishonourable to the profession; violation makes him unfit to remain enrolled.

  • Rule 61: An Attorney-at-Law shall not conduct himself in any manner unworthy of the profession.

  • Rule 62: The Rules are not exhaustive; courts may sanction other unworthy conduct.

  • Section 42, Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978: Supreme Court has power to suspend or remove Attorneys-at-Law found guilty of deceit, malpractice, crime, or offence.

  • General principle cited: Lawyers are enrolled only if of good repute; once enrolled, any act of dishonesty or malpractice destroys public confidence and justifies removal

    sc_rule-16_2023

Decision

  • The Respondent was found guilty of acts of deceit, malpractice, crime, and offence under Section 42(2).

  • His denial was rejected as false; his conduct was disgraceful and dishonourable.

  • Order: Respondent Attorney-at-Law removed from the roll forthwith; Registrar directed to implement the order

    READ JUDGMENT ONLINE - CLICK

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

constructive trust - synopsys of a presentation

-
Image
  TRUST - A presentation -  October 29, 2016 786 GALLELAW BLOGGER   [ many authorities cited in this document have been hyperlinked by the blogger to save the precious time of the reader]     "Constructive trust serves as the guardian of the oppressed when the rigidity of written law hinders the pursuit of justice. It embodies the flexibility and moral conscience of the legal system, ensuring that equity prevails where legal technicalities may fall short. By recognizing the rightful claims of those unjustly deprived, constructive trust provides a path to fairness and restores balance, offering hope and remedy to those wronged by the limitations of formal law." - GALLELAWBLOGGER     October 29, 2016   TRUST – synopsis of a presentation made to the District Judges on 24.8.2002 by A W A Salam at the auditorium of the Office of Judicial Service Commission presided over by Justices Udalagama Director of SLJI  ...
Read more

some selected

-
Image
  Terms of Service · Privacy · Content Policy All Blogs MANAGE GALLELAW BLOGGER 1 minute ago PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER Sri Lanka Law Reports 2002 - Volume 2 , Page No - 128 *PEIRIS AND ANOTHER v. PERERA AND ANOTHER* *(The blogger's understanding of the judgment is summarized as follows)* *CLICK ON ME* The defendants filed a petition seeking permission to appeal against the orders issued by the District Judge on January 19 and January 24, 2001. They also requested a stay of proceedings in DC Panadura case No. 2794/spl. Initially, the court granted a stay order on January 31, 2001, but later refused to extend it on April 6, 2001, as the dispute involved a right of way. The situation arose from the following facts: The District Judge, through his o...  read more GALLELAW BLOGGER 5 days ago Having exercised jurisdiction the Magistrate is not permitted to revisit the question of breach of peace. The Magistrate is clothed with the jurisdiction to ent...
Read more

EQUITY SAVES A MAN AND HIS RESIDENCIAL HOUSE- CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST SUPREME COURT RECENT JUDGMENT ARJUNA OBEYSEKERA J

-
Image
  The plaintiff sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants for a declaration of title to the subject matter of the action and ejectment of a landed property. In the amended answer, the 2nd defendant admitted the execution of several deeds affecting the subject matter including one in favour of Odayan Kureishan, but claimed that Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff, came to hold the property in trust for him [ the 2nd Defendand]​​  The main issue was whether the beneficial interest in the property had been transferred to Odayan Kureishan or if the property was being held in trust for the 2nd  defendant by Kureishan, the 1st defendant, and subsequently the plaintiff. Essentially, the court had to determine if these transactions were actual sales or just loans with the second defendant still owning the property.  The District Court decided that the beneficial interest in the property had not been transferred to Odayan Kureishan. The court held that the prop...
Read more