List of top Legal Studies Questions on Ethics & Cases of Professional Misconduct

The Supreme Court of India in Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju, (2002) 2 SCC 67, while considering the appropriate punishment for misappropriation of a client's money by an advocate, held that:

The Supreme Court of India in Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju, (2002) 2 SCC 67, while considering the appropriate punishment for misappropriation of a client's money by an advocate, held that:

In the following question, a Statement is followed by two Conclusions, I and II.
Statement: The Bar Council of India derives its rule-making power from Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which authorises it to frame rules governing professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates. Rule 20 framed thereunder categorically bars an advocate from stipulating for, or receiving, any fee whose quantum is dependent upon the outcome of litigation, or from entering into any arrangement to share in its proceeds. An advocate who contravenes this Rule is liable to be proceeded against under Section 35 of the Act.
Conclusion I: An advocate may lawfully enter into an outcome-linked fee arrangement so long as the client's written consent is obtained prior to the engagement.
Conclusion II: An advocate who violates the prohibition on contingency-based fees may face disciplinary action under the Advocates Act, 1961.
In the context of the above Statement and Conclusions, which one of the following is correct?

Which is the correct statement with regard to the professional ethics of a lawyer

Which is the body that award punishments to the advocates for misconduct

Punishment for Advocates for misconduct is defined in Advocates Act 1961 by

Section 24 A of Advocates Act 1961 provides the