1 November 2024 07:39 am Views - 42
By Lakmal Sooriyagoda
In a landmark disciplinary action, Supreme Court has suspended a lawyer from practising law for five years following findings that he failed to appear before the High Court in a criminal matter where he was appointed as the assigned Counsel by court. This ruling underscores the apex court’s stance on the critical responsibilities and ethical obligations lawyers carry when entrusted with court as the assigned Counsel. Assigned counsel are lawyers appointed by the court to represent people who cannot afford to hire a private attorney.
Supreme Court three-judge-bench comprising Justices S. Thurairaja, Mahinda Samayawardena and Arjuna Obeyesekere decided to suspend Attorney-at-law R. D. Ranaweera from practice for a period of five years.
The disciplinary ruling came after court finds that the respondent, demonstrated repeated neglect in handling his client’s case, ultimately failing to provide the necessary legal diligence and advocacy expected under the law.
This Rule was filed by the Supreme Court registrar pursuant to complaints against the respondent Attorney-at-Law, dated 12th January 2022 and 20th December 2022, alleging failures on the part of the respondent to appear before the High Court in a criminal matter where he was appointed as the assigned Counsel. The said complaints were made to the Chief Justice by High Court Judge Adithya Patabendige.
It was alleged that the respondent lawyer failed to exercise due diligence in respect of a professional matter and therefore acted in a manner which is contrary to Rule 10, 15, 16, 18(a), 50 and 61 of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette of Attorneys-at-Law) Rules 1988 made under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Meanwhile, the respondent had pleaded guilty and entered a plea in mitigation supported by Affidavit dated 16th October 2024.
“Any attorney who cannot appear before the court must take necessary steps to appoint a competent deputy to appear in their stead. Where that cannot be done, they must take steps to inform the court of the reasons for such failure,
as soon as practicable, so as to ensure that their client is not prejudiced by such failure,” Justice Thurairaja observed.