Kerala High Court Imposes Rs 50,000 Cost on Lawyers for Blocking Former Client’s Decree to Recover Advocate Fees

In XXX and Anr. v. YYY and Ors., the Kerala High Court has made it clear that an advocate cannot block the execution of a former client’s decree only because legal fees remain unpaid. The Court dismissed the plea filed by two lawyers and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on them.

The matter arose from land acquisition reference proceedings in which one of the petitioners had earlier appeared for the claimants. After the Sub-Court passed an award in favour of the claimants and the State deposited the first instalment, a dispute broke out over advocate’s fees.

According to the record, the claimants then terminated the vakalath of the petitioners and moved forward through two other advocates. The earlier lawyers objected to this change and challenged the new vakalath, alleging fraud and procedural irregularity because no No Objection Certificate had been obtained from them.

The petitioners approached several authorities, including the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, the Bar Council and the District Court. They also sought to stop the execution proceedings and asked for status quo until their complaints were decided. They further questioned the validity of the permission given to the claimants to appoint fresh counsel.

The new advocates, however, told the Court that they had neither induced nor pressured the claimants. They submitted that the clients had lost confidence in their former lawyers and were fully entitled to revoke the earlier vakalath and appoint a new legal representative.

The claimants, on their part, said they had already paid more than ₹25 lakh to the petitioners. They alleged that further demands were made and that threats were issued that the case would not proceed unless more money was paid. It was also claimed that one petitioner refused to relinquish vakalath unless he received ₹1 crore.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that a dispute over unpaid fees cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226 and must be pursued before the appropriate civil forum. The Court also said an advocate cannot use pending proceedings as leverage against a former client.

The Court observed, “an Advocate has no right to halt the legal proceedings until his claim for fee is settled. The Advocate cannot demand that he be permanently engaged in a litigation by the litigant till its culmination. An Advocate is only a person representing his client. He does not step into the shoes of the client.”

The Court strongly stressed that the legal profession cannot permit conduct that corners or pressures litigants. It noted that even after disengagement, an advocate cannot act against the interests of a former client, especially given the fiduciary nature of that relationship.

Finding no merit in the plea, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioners to pay ₹50,000 to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. The ruling sends a clear message that fee disputes must be resolved through proper legal remedies, not by obstructing a client’s case.