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.

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

Hint:

Remember: Success Fee = Not Allowed Contingency Fee = Not Allowed Violation of Rule 20 = Professional Misconduct under Section 35.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

A good way to check these conclusions is to ask what the profession's ethics actually allow, rather than debate the wording alone. Indian advocates are barred outright from taking a cut of the outcome of a case, and this bar is treated as a matter of professional discipline, not contract.

1. Only Conclusion II follows: Since Rule 20's bar on contingency fees is absolute and enforced through the disciplinary machinery under Section 35, an advocate who breaches it is exposed to disciplinary proceedings exactly as Conclusion II says. No consent from the client changes the ethical character of the arrangement, so Conclusion I, which treats written consent as a cure, does not hold. This choice correctly isolates Conclusion II as the one that follows.
2. Both Conclusions I and II follow: For this to be right, client consent would have to legitimise an outcome-linked fee. Rules of this kind exist precisely to remove the client's ability to consent away the protection, since a client under litigation pressure is not treated as bargaining on equal terms with the lawyer, so this option cannot be correct.
3. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows: This would mean an advocate who takes contingency fees faces no consequence at all under the Act, which contradicts the express reference in the statement to liability under Section 35, so this option is too weak.
4. Only Conclusion I follows: This would mean the consent exception is valid and the disciplinary consequence is not, which gets the ethics backwards, since the whole reason contingency fees are barred is to protect clients irrespective of what they agree to.

Testing the conclusions against the actual ethical policy behind Rule 20, rather than only the statement's wording, again shows Conclusion II alone follows.

Answer 2

Another reliable technique for statement-conclusion questions is to trace each conclusion back to a specific clause in the statement and see whether that clause supports, contradicts, or is silent on the conclusion.

1. Only Conclusion II follows: The statement's final clause says an advocate who contravenes Rule 20 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 35, which maps word for word onto Conclusion II's claim of possible disciplinary action. No clause in the statement mentions written consent at all, so Conclusion I is built on a fact absent from the passage. Tracing each conclusion to its source clause confirms this option.
2. Both Conclusions I and II follow: For this to hold, some clause of the statement would need to address client consent as a way around Rule 20. The statement's clause on Rule 20 instead says advocates are barred categorically from outcome-linked fees, a word that leaves no room for a consent-based exception, so this option cannot be supported by the text.
3. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows: This option would require even the Section 35 clause to be disregarded, but that clause is stated as a plain fact in the passage, not as a possibility to be doubted, so rejecting Conclusion II here would mean rejecting the statement's own express words.
4. Only Conclusion I follows: This would require the Rule 20 clause to secretly permit a consent exception while ignoring the express Section 35 clause, both of which run against what the statement actually says.

Mapping each conclusion to the specific clause of the statement it depends on shows that only the Section 35 based conclusion, Conclusion II, is properly supported.

The correct answer is therefore Only Conclusion II follows.