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

A statement based question like this asks us to check each conclusion strictly against the words given, without importing outside assumptions.

1. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows: Not correct, since the statement plainly says that breaking Rule 20 makes an advocate liable under Section 35. That is exactly what Conclusion II claims, so at least one conclusion does hold.
2. Both Conclusions I and II follow: Not correct either, because Conclusion I cannot be squared with the statement. The statement bars contingency fee arrangements outright under Rule 20 and never mentions written consent as a way around this bar.
3. Only Conclusion I follows: This fails for the same reason. Adding client consent to the picture is an assumption not found anywhere in the statement, so Conclusion I goes beyond what is actually stated and cannot be treated as following from it.
4. Only Conclusion II follows: This matches the statement exactly. Section 49(1)(c) gives the Bar Council power to frame conduct rules, Rule 20 prohibits outcome linked fees, and any advocate who violates it is liable under Section 35, which is precisely disciplinary action under the Act.

Once Conclusion I is ruled out and Conclusion II is confirmed, only one option remains valid.

The correct answer is Only Conclusion II follows.

Answer 2

Before checking the options, it helps to recall why Rule 20 exists at all. Contingency fees are discouraged in the Indian legal profession because tying an advocate's payment to the result of a case can tempt the advocate to act in self-interest rather than give impartial, honest advice to the client. Keeping this policy purpose in mind makes it easier to test each conclusion.

1. Both Conclusions I and II follow: Ruled out immediately, since accepting this option would mean the consent based exception in Conclusion I is valid, and the statement gives no room for such an exception.
2. Only Conclusion I follows: Also ruled out. If written consent could validate an outcome linked fee, Rule 20 would lose most of its force, since consent could always be obtained beforehand. The statement's language is absolute, barring the arrangement itself, not merely barring it in the absence of consent.
3. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows: Ruled out because it wrongly denies Conclusion II, which is not an assumption at all but a restatement of the statement's own words connecting a Rule 20 breach to Section 35 liability.
4. Only Conclusion II follows: This is the one option consistent with both the wording of the statement and the policy behind it. Conclusion II adds nothing beyond what the statement already establishes, while Conclusion I imports an exception that does not exist.

Rejecting the three flawed options leaves a single valid reading of the statement.

The correct answer is Only Conclusion II follows.