Question

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:

• A. Reprimand is the appropriate punishment for a first-time misappropriation, since removal from the roll would be disproportionate.
• B. Suspension from practice for a period of five years is the standard sanction for misappropriation of client funds.
• C. A monetary penalty equal to double the amount misappropriated is the appropriate sanction under the Act.
• D. Misappropriation of a client's money constitutes one of the gravest forms of professional misconduct and ordinarily warrants removal of the advocate's name from the State roll.

Hint:

Remember: For lawyers, the fiduciary duty is absolute. The Supreme Court considers misappropriation of client funds a "death sentence" for professional practice—removal from the roll is the expected outcome!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Recall the case.
Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju (2002) is a Supreme Court case about what punishment fits an advocate who misappropriates, that is, wrongly takes, a client's money.

Step 2: Understand the duty of an advocate.
An advocate is in a position of trust. When he holds a client's money, he holds it in a fiduciary capacity, meaning he must protect it honestly, like a guardian of that money.

Step 3: See what the Court said.
The Court held that misappropriating a client's money is one of the gravest forms of professional misconduct. It is a serious betrayal of the trust the client placed in the lawyer.

Step 4: See the punishment.
The Court said that for such a grave breach, the usual punishment should be removing the advocate's name from the State roll. A mere reprimand or a short suspension would be too soft.

Step 5: Reject the wrong options.
Reprimand for a first offence is wrong because the Court found this too lenient. A fixed five-year suspension as a standard rule is not what the Court laid down. A money penalty of double the amount is not the holding either.

Step 6: State the answer.
Misappropriation is among the gravest misconduct and ordinarily warrants removal from the roll.
\[ \boxed{\text{Misappropriation of a client's money constitutes one of the gravest forms of professional misconduct and ordinarily warrants removal of the advocate's name from the State roll.}} \]