Advocate Can't Stall Execution Of Former Client's Decree Over Unpaid Fees: Kerala High Court Slaps ₹50K Cost On Two Lawyers

Noting that the engagement of the petitioners as lawyers was terminated by the clients, owing to disputes relating to Advocates fees, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that an advocate has no right to halt proceedings until his claim is settled:

“an Advocate has no right to halt the legal proceedings until his claim for fee is settled. The Advocate cannot demand that he be permanently engaged in a litigation by the litigant till its culmination. An Advocate is only a person representing his client. He does not step into the shoes of the client. If in case any fee is due to an Advocate, and if the client refuses to pay, his remedy is to initiate appropriate legal remedies. An Advocate has no lien over the case bundles or the proceedings. Since an Advocate cannot have any right to be permanently engaged by a client, he cannot, after his engagement is terminated, dictate, control or navigate the proceedings in the case.”

One of the petitioners had conducted a case for the claimants in a land acquisition reference and an award in their favour was passed by the Sub-Court. After execution petition was filed and first instalment of award was deposited by the State, differences of opinion regarding Advocates fees arose.

The claimants terminated the valakath of the petitioners and filed the cheque applications prepared by them through two other advocates without obtaining No Objection Certificate. These new advocates, who were also arrayed in the present proceedings as respondents.

The petitioners preferred complaints before the Chief Justice of Kerala, the Bar Council and the District Court against the respondent Advocates alleging that they played fraud by filing vakalath. They also preferred an application in the execution proceedings to dismiss the cheque application and to stay the matter until complaints filed by them are decided.

One of the petitioners also filed representation before the District Judge and to the Advocates Grievance Redressal Committee, and the matter was referred to the Bar Association for consideration.

While this was so, the execution court posts the case for steps as a last chance. It was at this juncture that the petitioner came before the High Court praying for a direction to maintain status quo in the execution proceedings until complaints are decided and for a declaration that the decision permitting the claimants to appoint other advocates in place of them was invalid. Additionally, the petitioners have sought for a direction to the claimants to return the money illegally encashed by them.

The respondent advocates submitted that they did not induce or coerce the claimants to engage them and it was because the latter lost confidence in the petitioners. Further, it was pointed out that the court had accepted their vakalath based on an affidavit filed and the claimants have an unfettered right to revoke valakath or to engage new counsel.

The stand of the claimants was that they already paid more than Rs. 25 lakhs to the petitioners and, it was only when the petitioners demanded more money and threatened not to proceed with the case that they had to engage another counsel. They also told the Court that the first petitioner refused to relinquish valakath until he was paid Rs. One Crore. It was also submitted that the first petitioner was not personally conducting the case but had engaged another lawyer without their knowledge or consent.

After hearing the parties, the Court at the outset remarked that the dispute relating to non-payment of Advocate fees by a litigant cannot be entertained in a writ petition under Article 226 but must be agitated before a competent civil court.

Referring to the observations in Mathew B. Kurian v. NCTE regarding right of an advocate to receive fees, the Court opined that those do not apply in the present case with private litigants since that case was with regard to non-payment of fees by State instrumentalities.

Next, the Court looked into the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette under the Bar Council of India Rules and remarked:

“The legal profession is undoubtedly a noble profession. Its nobility is however determined by the persons adorning the black robes. If the members of the legal profession conduct themselves in a manner prejudicial to the interests of their clients, the facade of nobility will be torn. The profession can ill afford that…There cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be a situation where the litigant is pushed to a corner or blackmailed into paying the fee demanded by the Advocate. Even worse is the situation when the Advocate, after termination of his engagement, attempts to stall the very proceeding in which he was appearing on behalf of the litigant. Such conduct is an affront to the very nobility of the profession and has to be dealt with a stern hand.”

The Court further remarked that even after termination of engagement, an advocate has a duty not to act against his former client and that their relationship is fiduciary in nature:

“Rule 15 of Section II in the Rules dealing with Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette stipulates that an Advocate has the duty to fearlessly uphold the interests of his client by all fair and honourable means, without regard to any unpleasant consequence to himself or any other. Such duty though terminated by the relinquishment of the engagement or its termination, the Advocate cannot be permitted to turn around and act against the interests of an erstwhile client after termination.”

The Court then mentioned that provisions under the High Court of Kerala Rules and Civil Rules of Practice provide that a party is entitled to obtain special permission of court to engage another advocate if the previous advocate refuses to give relinquishment.

Thus, the Court found that there are not merits in the plea and dismissed the same with a cost of Rs. 50,000 payable to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority.

Case No: WP(C) No. 28533 of 2025

Case Title: XXX and Anr. v. YYY and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 193

Counsel for the petitioners: Roy Pallikoodam, R. Prasanth Kumar, R. Kalesh, K.K. Murukesan, P. Jayaprakash (Alappuzha), Jayaprakash Narayanan, Moosakutty V.S., Rajan K.

Counsel for the respondents: Shyni Das J.S., M.U. Vijayalakshmi, Appu Ajith

Click to Read/Download Judgment