failure to act diligently and maintain client funds constitutes gross negligence warranting sanction.

 

 

Major W. W. M. L. S. Palipana, No. 36, Nuwarathanna Road, Wathegama.

Complainant a Wasantha Wijewardane, Attorney-at-Law, No. 03, Colombo Street, Kandy.

Disciplinary proceedings against an Attorney-at-Law – Section 42(2) Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978 – Supreme Court (Conduct and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988 – Professional misconduct – Negligence – Failure to return client’s documents – Breach of fiduciary duty – Previous suspension – Removal from Roll. 

The Complainant retained the Respondent-Attorney-at-Law to institute proceedings in pursuance of Supreme Court determinations in SC (FR) 68/2006. An advance of Rs. 50,000 was paid. The Respondent failed to act, refused to return documents, and delayed refunding fees. A Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Association, after inquiry, found that the Respondent had been negligent, evasive, and unprofessional, causing serious prejudice to the client. Its findings were referred to the Supreme Court, which issued a Rule under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act.

The Respondent, though personally served, failed to appear or show cause. Evidence showed repeated misconduct, including a prior seven-year suspension in SC Rule No. 08/2014 for similar offences.

Held:

The Respondent’s conduct amounted to deceit, malpractice, and professional dishonour, constituting violations of Rules 10, 15, 16, 18, 18(a), 60 and 61 of the Supreme Court (Conduct and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988.

The Supreme Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 42(2), has the power to remove or suspend an attorney whose conduct undermines public confidence in the profession.

Disciplinary control serves not as punishment but as a safeguard for the integrity of the Bar and public trust in the administration of justice.

Recurrence of similar misconduct and absence of remorse justified the Respondent’s removal from the Roll.

Principles discussed:

Professional Ethics – A.R.B. Amerasinghe, Professional Ethics and Responsibilities of Lawyers (1993) – the lawyer’s duty of probity and avoidance of impropriety.

Dhammika Chandratileke v. Susantha Mahes Moonesinghe (SC Rule No. 04/2024) – misconduct of criminal character warrants removal even absent criminal conviction.

SC Rule No. 05/2022 – failure to act diligently and maintain client funds constitutes gross negligence warranting sanction.

Held further, the Respondent’s conduct was reprehensible and wholly incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession; the Rule affirmed; the Respondent removed from the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law.

(A.L. Shiran Gooneratne J.; Mahinda Samayawardhena J.; K. Priyantha Fernando J. agreeing.)


ACCESS THE RULING ONLINE - CLICK

Comments