Lawyer discharged with warning after admitting professional misconduct

By Lakmal Sooriyagoda

An Attorney-at-Law was yesterday discharged subject to a formal warning by the Supreme Court after pleading guilty to an act of professional misconduct, with the Court cautioning him to exercise greater diligence in the future to avoid conduct that could undermine the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.   

The rule (charges) relates to a case before the Kaduwela District Court in which the respondent Attorney-at-Law had filed a proxy on behalf of the first and second defendants, while the plaintiff was challenging the validity of a Deed of Transfer attested by the same lawyer. This conduct was found to be in violation of Supreme Court Rule 12, which expressly prohibits an Attorney-at-Law from accepting professional work in any matter where he knows, or has reason to believe, that he may be required to give evidence as a witness.   

It is alleged that the respondent Attorney-at-Law had acted in a dual capacity as counsel and a potential witness. When the matter was taken up, counsel appearing for the respondent informed the Court that the Attorney-at-Law wished to withdraw his earlier plea of not guilty and instead plead guilty to the charges.   

After considering the submissions, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Shiran Gooneratne, Justice K. Priyantha Fernando and Justice Sampath Wijeratne held that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the respondent being suspended from practice or removed from the roll of Attorneys-at-Law. Accordingly, the Court discharged him subject to a formal warning, while cautioning him to act with greater care in future so as not to compromise professional ethics or the proper administration of justice.   

The Court further directed the Registrar of the Supreme Court to make the relevant entries in the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law, noting that such a record would serve both as a deterrent to the respondent and as a reminder to the legal profession at large of the need for strict and scrupulous adherence to ethical rules.   

Delivering observations, Justice Shiran Gooneratne noted that the respondent Attorney-at-Law had candidly admitted his lapse, withdrawn his earlier plea of not guilty and tendered an unreserved apology to the Court. Such conduct, the Court observed, demonstrated remorse and a willingness to accept responsibility for his actions.   

The proceedings began after a complaint made by the plaintiff in the Kaduwela District Court case to the Chief Justice, following which the Supreme Court issued a Rule calling upon the respondent Attorney-at-Law to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice or removed from office under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978.   

Kuvera De Zoysa, PC with Sanjana De Zoysa appeared for the respondent. Viveka Siriwardena, ASG with Sabrina Ahmed, SSC appeared for the Attorney General. Counsel Harith De Mel appeared for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.