Question

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?

• A. Only Conclusion I follows
• B. Only Conclusion II follows
• C. Both Conclusions I and II follow
• D. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Hint:

In legal logic questions, always stick strictly to the facts provided in the statement. Do not import external knowledge or assume exceptions that are not explicitly stated.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Read the statement carefully.
The statement tells us three things. First, the Bar Council of India makes its rules using Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Second, Rule 20 made under it stops a lawyer from charging a fee that depends on whether the case is won, or from sharing in the money the case brings. Third, a lawyer who breaks this rule can be punished under Section 35.

Step 2: Understand what a contingency fee is.
A contingency fee, or outcome-linked fee, means the lawyer only gets paid (or gets paid more) if the client wins. The law treats this as wrong because it tempts the lawyer to twist the case for money instead of giving honest advice.

Step 3: Test Conclusion I.
Conclusion I says such a fee becomes lawful if the client gives written consent first. But the statement says the rule bars it flatly, with no exception. The client's permission cannot make a banned arrangement legal. So Conclusion I does not follow.

Step 4: Test Conclusion II.
Conclusion II says a lawyer who breaks this ban may face disciplinary action under the Act. The statement itself says breaking Rule 20 makes the lawyer liable under Section 35. So Conclusion II is directly supported and clearly follows.

Step 5: Compare the options.
Since only Conclusion II follows and Conclusion I does not, the answer must be the one that says only Conclusion II follows. We can drop the choices that accept Conclusion I or reject both.

Step 6: State the answer.
Only Conclusion II logically follows from the statement.
\[ \boxed{\text{Only Conclusion II follows}} \]