2 August 2024 08:07 am Views - 129
The Supreme Court has issued an order suspending a female lawyer from practicing for a period of five years for committing acts of misconduct while serving as defence counsel in a case before the Polonnaruwa High Court.
The lawyer provided instructions to a prosecution witness to expedite the case using improper methods.
Supreme Court Justice Shiran Goonaratne and Justice Janak de Silva (by majority decision) suspended Attorney-at-Law P. K. Palaketiya from practicing as a lawyer for a period of five years.
However, Justice S. Thurairaja ordered the suspension of the respondent from practicing as a lawyer for a period of 10 years.
The lawyer provided instructions to a prosecution witness to expedite the case using improper methods.
Supreme Court Justice Shiran Goonaratne and Justice Janak de Silva (by majority decision) suspended Attorney-at-Law P. K. Palaketiya from practicing as a lawyer for a period of five years.
However, Justice S. Thurairaja ordered the suspension of the respondent from practicing as a lawyer for a period of 10 years.
The Supreme Court held that it was inclined to impose a lenient sentence taking into consideration the fact that she pleaded guilty and accepted responsibility.
“Being officers of the court, defence counsels are not to act as apathetic devil’s advocates in achieving whatever the unscrupulous thing that may be demanded of them. They must at all times act within honest, honourable, legitimate and lawful means,” Justice Thurairaja observed.
The respondent, retained by the Accused when a sexual abuse case came before the High Court, is accused of having provided the prosecution witness (victim) of the said case with professional instructions in preparing an affidavit conveying her intention to conclude the case expeditiously. She is further accused of obtaining a signed blank sheet of paper in order to prepare the same.
The rule had been issued for breaching Rule 60 of the Supreme Court (Conduct and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules, 1988 as well as Rule 61 of the said Rules as she had conducted in such a manner that is unworthy of an Attorney-at-Law. It was further alleged that the respondent committed malpractice with the ambit of Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act (read with Rule 79 of the Supreme Court Rules of 1978), which renders it unfit to remain as an Attorney-at-Law.