The council ought to be cautious in performing his skilled duties. If a counsel, by his acts or omission, causes the curiosity of the celebration partaking him, in any authorized proceedings to be prejudicially affected, he does so at his peril.
In India, Part 5 of the Authorized Practitioners (Charges) Act, 1926 offers that “no authorized practitioner i.e. advocate, vakil, pleader, mukhtar or income agent, who has acted or agreed to behave shall, by purpose solely of being a authorized practitioner, be exempt from legal responsibility to be sued in respect of any loss or harm as a consequence of any negligence within the conduct of his skilled duties”.
In Somasundaram v. M. Julius Meichior and Co., [(1989) 1 All ER 129 (QA)1, the plaintiff who had been goaled for an assault upon his wife, sued his solicitors, alleging that they were guilty of negligence in advising him to plead guilty.
The Court of Appeal upheld the striking out of the action and found it unnecessary to decide whether the solicitor’s immunity from suit extended to the advice given.
In Manjit Kaul v. Deol Bus Service, [AIR 1989 P&H 183], plaintiff’s husband died in a street accident, filed an enchantment by her counsel for enhanced compensation.
The case remained on the every day checklist for 2 weeks after which it was dismissed in default as a result of the counsel failed to look on behalf of the shopper.
The appliance for re-hearing of the enchantment additionally grew to become time-barred, as a result of the council didn’t talk with the celebration something in regards to the enchantment for years.