Lawyers Professional Misconduct: Bangladesh Perspective 

ABSTRACT

This research examines professional misconduct among lawyers in Bangladesh, analyzing how advocates should conduct themselves under relevant laws, the nature of complaints filed against them, historical complaint data from 1991-2000, success rates, and the nature of alleged misconduct. Through qualitative analysis of Bar Council Tribunal decisions reported in Bangladesh Legal Decisions (BLD), this study identifies patterns of unethical behavior and evaluates the effectiveness of existing accountability mechanisms. The research reveals that forgery, fraud, and misappropriation of client funds constituted the primary forms of misconduct during this period, with disposal times ranging from 2-8 years. Findings indicate significant gaps in enforcement mechanisms and suggest reforms to strengthen professional accountability in the Bangladeshi legal profession.

Keywords: Legal Ethics, Lawyers, Professional Misconduct, Bangladesh Bar Council, Complaint Mechanisms, Disciplinary Tribunals

1. INTRODUCTION

Professional misconduct refers to violation of professional or ethical standards adopted or recognized as authoritative by the relevant regulatory authority. In the legal profession, such misconduct encompasses both acts that should have been performed but were not, and acts that should not have been performed but were, by persons bound to follow professional rules. Professional misconduct by advocates primarily refers to dishonorable or disgraceful behavior that undermines the integrity of the legal profession.

Professional ethics cannot be fully contained in Bar Council rules or textbooks but must be embodied in canons of conscience that command members of the bar to obey rules with morality and utility. The legal profession is among the most prestigious professions, and when an advocate’s conduct—even if unconnected with law practice—is so serious that it demonstrates the person is not fit and proper to continue as a member of the legal profession, it constitutes professional misconduct.

The Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order, 1972 (hereinafter “the 1972 Order”) does not provide an explicit definition of professional misconduct, leaving interpretation to the Bar Council and its tribunals through case-by-case adjudication.

1.1 Categories of Advocates in Bangladesh

Bangladesh recognizes five categories of advocates:

• Advocates of the Subordinate Courts
• Advocates of the High Court Division
• Advocates-on-Record
• Senior Advocates
• Advocates of the Appellate Division

1.2 Regulatory Framework

The Bangladesh Bar Council, established under the 1972 Order, serves as the statutory autonomous body under the Law Division, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. It functions as the licensing and regulatory body for all advocates in Bangladesh, maintaining the roll of advocates, establishing standards for admission to practice, and investigating complaints of professional misconduct.

2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This research pursues the following objectives:

1. To quantify professional misconduct cases filed during 1991-2000 through analysis of reported Bar Council Tribunal decisions
2. To categorize the nature of professional misconduct alleged and proved during this period
3. To determine the success rate of complaints filed with the Bar Council
4. To analyze the time required for disposal of misconduct cases
5. To identify systemic weaknesses in the complaint and adjudication process
6. To propose reforms for strengthening professional accountability mechanisms

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research employs a qualitative doctrinal methodology, analyzing secondary sources including:

• Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order, 1972
• Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, 1969
• Bangladesh Legal Decisions (BLD) Reports from 1991-2000
• Academic research papers on legal ethics in Bangladesh
• Bar Council publications and official records
• Books and scholarly articles on professional legal ethics

The study focuses on all reported Bar Council Tribunal decisions published in BLD from 1993-2000 (covering complaints filed from 1989-1997). Due to the reliance on published case decisions, primary data collection through surveys was not feasible. The analysis is therefore limited to publicly available tribunal decisions.

Limitations: This study acknowledges that not all complaints filed with the Bar Council result in published decisions, and unreported cases may present different patterns. Additionally, the research period (1991-2000) reflects historical practices that may differ from contemporary standards.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW: UNETHICAL LEGAL PRACTICES IN BANGLADESH

Despite the importance of legal ethics in regulating lawyer conduct, comprehensive research on this topic remains limited in Bangladesh. Legal ethics constitutes an underexplored area of research. Dr. Abdullah Al Faroque’s empirical study on unethical legal practices in Bangladesh, published in the Dhaka University Law Journal (2022), represents one of the few comprehensive examinations of this issue. Faroque’s research highlights the crisis of trust and public confidence facing the Bangladeshi legal profession, noting that lawyers serve not only private clients but also occupy important positions in government and private sectors.

4.1 Core Areas of Legal Ethics

Faroque identifies three core ethical duties:

• Duty to be competent through proper licensing and qualification
• Duty to uphold the law and legal system
• Duty to maintain client confidentiality

4.2 Areas of Unethical Practices

Faroque’s research documents various unethical practices including:

• Bribing judges
• Misquoting document contents
• Rude behavior toward witnesses during cross-examination
• Inappropriate reactions to adverse judicial decisions
• Mistreating clients
• Creating forged documents and court orders
• Refusing representation based on clients’ religion, social status, financial condition, or political affiliation
• Engaging in other professions or businesses full-time while practicing law

4.3 Accountability Mechanisms

Two primary accountability mechanisms exist for lawyer misconduct in Bangladesh:

Institutional Sanctions: Institutions within which lawyers work may impose sanctions including suspension from legal practice.

Liability Rules: Lawyers may be sued in contract or tort for breach of contractual duty of care to clients. Breach of legal obligations confers upon affected persons a right to remedy against the lawyer.

4.4 Suggested Reforms

Faroque’s research proposes several reforms:

• Strengthening District Bar Associations to address local misconduct issues
• Empowering local associations with procedures similar to Bar Council mechanisms
• Increasing public awareness through display boards with complaint submission information
• Amending Bar Council Canons to address new forms of unethical practices
• Prescribing punishments proportionate to offense gravity
• Making accountability mechanisms more effective

5. LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE BANGLADESH LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AND BAR COUNCIL ORDER, 1972

The Bar Council was established in 1972 through the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order, superseding the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1965. The Council comprises 15 members including the Attorney General of Bangladesh ex officio. It publishes Bangladesh Legal Decisions (BLD), the official legal journal containing Bar Council Tribunal decisions and other significant cases.

5.1 Key Functions of the Bangladesh Bar Council

Membership and Representation: The Council consists of elected representatives from the Supreme Court Bar Association, district bar associations, and specialized bar associations.

Licensing and Registration: The Council establishes criteria and standards for admission to the legal profession, including qualifications and requirements for becoming an advocate.

Disciplinary Authority: The Council investigates complaints against lawyers and takes disciplinary action in cases of professional misconduct, with power to suspend or revoke licenses.

Legal Education and Training: The Council promotes and regulates legal education and training, sets standards for law schools, conducts examinations for aspiring lawyers, and oversees curriculum quality.

Professional Development: The Council organizes professional development programs, seminars, and workshops to enhance lawyers’ knowledge and skills, encouraging continuous learning and professional growth.

5.2 Rule-Making Power

Under Section 18(q) of the 1972 Order, the Bar Council may make rules by notification in the official gazette to carry out the purposes of the Order, including rules governing professional conduct and etiquette.

6. CANONS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE

The Bar Council framed the Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette in exercise of powers conferred by Section 18(q) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1965, adopted by resolution on January 5, 1969. These Canons remain in force under the 1972 Order and establish ethical standards across four key areas:

6.1 Conduct Regarding Other Advocates

The Canons require advocates to:

• Uphold the dignity and standing of the profession
• Avoid soliciting employment through advertisements (except conventional professional cards, name plates, and directory listings limited to professional/academic qualifications and current public offices)
• Refrain from employing others to solicit professional employment
• Avoid communicating with represented parties without their advocate’s consent
• Not communicate ex parte with judges on contested matters
• Maintain courtesy toward fellow advocates regardless of client animosity
• Avoid personal clashes and unseemly wrangling
• Prohibit fee division except with other advocates based on work division agreements
• Respect the order of precedence according to the Roll of Advocates
• Junior members must show respect to senior members

6.2 Conduct Regarding Clients

Key prohibitions and requirements include:

• Advocates shall not acquire interests adverse to clients in subject property
• Prohibition on accepting employment adverse to former clients regarding confidential matters
• Must disclose relationships with adverse parties before accepting employment
• Cannot represent conflicting interests
• Prohibited from purchasing property at sales in proceedings where they appear
• Must keep client property separate and report receipt promptly
• Cannot advise commencement of litigation without consultation (except in limited circumstances)
• Shall not advise violation of law (except good faith advice that a law is invalid)
• Right and duty to defend accused persons regardless of personal opinions
• Fee considerations must balance reasonable compensation with client’s ability to pay
• Must assist widows and orphans of advocates free of charge
• Should avoid controversies with clients concerning compensation
• Cannot assert personal belief in client’s innocence or cause justice
• Should leave case conduct to other advocates when serving as witness (except for formal matters)
• Must exercise independent judgment on procedural courtesy matters

6.3 Duties to the Court

Advocates must:

• Maintain respectful attitude toward courts for institutional importance
• Support judges against unjust criticism while properly voicing legitimate grievances
• Not advise witnesses to avoid service of process or conceal themselves
• Not intentionally misquote testimony, arguments, document contents, legal authorities, or cite invalidated precedents knowingly
• Avoid undue attention or hospitality toward judges that could be misconstrued
• Not communicate privately with judges on pending matters
• Public prosecutors must prioritize justice over conviction, avoiding suppression of exculpatory evidence
• Generally refrain from newspaper publications about pending litigation
• Endeavor to prevent political considerations from outweighing judicial fitness in appointments
• Appear when matters are called or make alternative arrangements
• Refrain from volunteering opinions in cases where not engaged unless requested by the court

6.4 Conduct Regarding the Public

The Canons establish that advocates shall:

• Not accept employment to prosecute or defend out of spite or for harassment purposes
• Treat adverse witnesses and parties with fairness and consideration
• Not minister to client malevolence or prejudices
• Decline to conduct civil causes intended merely to harass or injure
• Have the right to decline professional employment based on independent judgment
• Not render service involving disloyalty to law, disrespect to judicial office, corruption of public officials, or deception/betrayal of the public
• Disclose advocate status when appearing before public officers/bodies
• Not accept employment on matters previously handled in judicial capacity
• Not carry on other professions or businesses or be active partners in such ventures while practicing law

7. BAR COUNCIL TRIBUNAL: FORMATION, POWERS, AND PROCEDURE

Sections 33-37 and 41 of the 1972 Order govern the formation and functioning of Bar Council Tribunals, which serve as the primary adjudicatory bodies for professional misconduct complaints.

7.1 Formation (Section 33)

The Bar Council may constitute one or more Tribunals, each consisting of three persons:

• Two persons elected by the Council from amongst its members
• One person co-opted from advocates on the roll
• The senior-most advocate among members serves as Chairman
• The Attorney General cannot be a Tribunal member

Transitional Provisions: Inquiries pending before tribunals constituted under the 1965 Act transfer to tribunals under the 1972 Order, continuing from the stage where predecessor tribunals left off. Inquiries pending at the expiry of a Bar Council term may be completed by the same tribunal or transferred by the Chairman’s order.

7.2 Procedure (Section 34)

Tribunals follow prescribed procedures in inquiries relating to advocate conduct:

1. Notice and Hearing: The Tribunal fixes a hearing date and provides notice to the advocate concerned and the Attorney General, affording both opportunity to lead evidence and be heard.

2. Preliminary Issues: The Chairman may empower one Tribunal member to consider preliminary issues and record evidence.

3. Orders: Upon completing inquiry, the Tribunal may:

   • Dismiss the complaint
   • Direct that proceedings be filed (where reference was made at Bar Council motion)
   • Impose penalties under Article 32(1)

4. Suspension Orders: When ordering suspension, the Tribunal specifies the period during which the advocate is debarred from practicing before any court or authority in Bangladesh.

5. Costs: The Tribunal may order costs as it deems fit. Where a complaint is found false and vexatious, the Tribunal may impose deterrent costs up to Tk. 500 upon the complainant, payable to the advocate as compensation.

6. Execution: Cost orders are executable as High Court orders.

7. Review: The Tribunal may review its orders on costs or deterrent costs suo motu or on application, maintaining, varying, or rescinding them as appropriate.

8. Records: When an advocate is reprimanded or suspended, the punishment is recorded against the advocate’s name in the roll. When removed from practice, the name is struck off the roll and the certificate recalled.

7.3 Powers of Tribunals (Section 35)

For inquiry purposes, Tribunals possess powers vested in courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding:

• Enforcing attendance of persons
• Compelling production of documents
• Issuing commissions for witness examination

Limitations: Tribunals cannot require attendance of presiding officers of courts without prior sanction of the High Court or, for criminal/revenue court officers, Government approval.

Deemed Judicial Proceedings: Inquiries are deemed judicial proceedings under Sections 193 and 228 of the Bangladesh Penal Code, and Tribunals are deemed civil courts for purposes of Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Jurisdictional Limits: Local limits of Tribunal jurisdiction correspond to Bar Council jurisdiction. Tribunals may send summons or process to civil courts having jurisdiction where the Tribunal sits, and such courts serve process or issue commissions as if for their own proceedings.

Evidence: Proceedings are deemed civil proceedings for purposes of Section 132 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

7.4 Appeals (Section 36)

Persons aggrieved by Tribunal orders may appeal to the High Court Division within ninety days from communication of the order. Appeals are heard by a Division Bench, whose order is final. Sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1908 apply to such appeals (Section 37).

7.5 Unauthorized Practice (Section 41)

Persons who are not advocates and practice law, or persons not entitled under the Order to practice in the High Court Division who practice before that Court, are punishable with imprisonment up to six months.

7.6 Complaint Filing Procedure

Complainants believing their lawyer acted improperly (not merely disagreements or poor performance) may register complaints with the Bangladesh Bar Council by email, facsimile, or post using the prescribed complaint form.

Requirements:

• Completed complaint form
• Written and signed complaint
• Payment of Tk. 1,000 filing fee
• Photocopies of relevant documents (letters, cancelled checks, etc.)

8. ANALYSIS OF BAR COUNCIL TRIBUNAL DECISIONS (1991-2000)

This section analyzes 16 reported Bar Council Tribunal cases from Bangladesh Legal Decisions (BLD) volumes 1993-2000, covering complaints filed from 1989-1997.

8.1 Summary Statistics

Total Cases Analyzed: 16
Successful Complaints (Misconduct Proved): 13 (81.25%)
Unsuccessful Complaints (Dismissed): 3 (18.75%)

Disposal Time Analysis:

• Minimum: 2 years
• Maximum: 8 years
• Average: Approximately 4 years

8.2 Categories of Misconduct

The cases reveal the following patterns of alleged misconduct:

1. Forgery and Fraud (6 cases – 37.5%)

• Forging educational certificates/degrees
• Creating false court documents
• Misrepresenting qualifications
• False claims of notary public status

2. Misappropriation of Client Funds (4 cases – 25%)

• Retaining court fees without filing
• Retaining decretal amounts
• Issuing false checks for refunds
• Taking money under false pretenses

3. Violation of Canon Prohibitions (3 cases – 18.75%)

• Advertising legal services in newspapers
• Soliciting professional employment
• Unauthorized use of professional titles

4. Conflict of Interest/Breach of Duty (2 cases – 12.5%)

• Accepting adverse employment
• Following conflicting instructions
• Forging client signatures

5. Conduct Unbecoming (1 case – 6.25%)

• Using intimidation and violence
• Organizing criminal elements
• General harassment of public

8.3 Detailed Case Analysis

Complaint Case No. 44 of 1989 (BLD 1993)

Parties: MD Ismail Hossain Sardar and Others v. Sardar Mokhlesur Rahman
Nature: Using threats and physical intimidation for personal gain
Disposal Time: 3 years (1989-1992)
Outcome: Guilty – 10-year suspension

Facts: The opposite party, an advocate attached to Naogaon District Bar Association, allegedly organized a Lathial Bahini (armed gang) comprising bad characters to oppress and exploit local people by creating forged documents and involving innocent people in false litigation. He reportedly dispossessed locals from valuable properties using forged documents with gang assistance. Local citizens held a meeting and petitioned district administration, which referred the matter to the Bar Council.

Tribunal Finding: The Tribunal found the opposite party guilty of “other misconduct” within the meaning of Article 32(1) of the 1972 Order and suspended him from legal practice for 10 years, effective immediately.

Significance: This case demonstrates that conduct outside direct legal practice can constitute professional misconduct when it undermines public confidence in the legal profession and involves systematic abuse of legal processes.

Complaint Case No. 30 of 1990

Parties: Ahmed Ali and Others (Dinajpur Central Co-operative Bank) v. Md. Abdul Halim
Nature: Misappropriation of client funds
Disposal Time: Not mentioned
Outcome: Guilty – 10-year suspension

Facts: The bank obtained a decree in Money Suit No. 8/1976 and filed execution case No. 9/1986 through the opposite party advocate. The judgment debtor deposited the entire decretal amount (Tk. 33,537.26) in court. On February 11, 1988, the opposite party withdrew the entire amount from court and illegally retained it without informing the bank. Despite repeated requests from the bank and intervention attempts by Dinajpur District Bar Association, the advocate refused to deposit the money.

Tribunal Finding: The Tribunal found the opposite party guilty of gross professional misconduct and debarred him from practicing for 10 years.

Significance: This case illustrates serious breach of trust where an advocate misappropriated client funds obtained through court decree execution, demonstrating the most egregious form of professional misconduct.

Complaint Case No. 3 of 1985 (BLD 1994)

Parties: Mrs. Monowara Akmal Khan v. Mr. Majiruddin Ahmed
Nature: Taking money through false promises and deception
Disposal Time: 8 years (1985-1993)
Outcome: Guilty – 5-year suspension

Facts: The complainant, widow of a shaheed (martyr), was allocated an abandoned house in Mohammadpur. The opposite party informed her in 1980 that the house had been released to an ex-captain and offered to recover it for Tk. 350,000. The complainant paid Tk. 240,000 in installments, but the advocate did nothing. He took additional money under false pretexts. When the complainant requested refund, her requests were ignored.

Tribunal Finding: The Tribunal found the opposite party guilty of professional/other misconduct and debarred him from practice for 5 years.

Significance: This case highlights exploitation of vulnerable clients through deception and false promises, demonstrating abuse of professional position and client trust.

Complaint Case No. 42 of 1991 (BLD 1994)

Parties: Md. Abdul Mohsin v. Advocate Nirmal Chandra Shil
Nature: Forgery of documents, deception, unlawful gain
Disposal Time: 3 years (1991-1994)
Outcome: Guilty – 4-year suspension

Facts: The complainant alleged that the opposite party, not a survey-passed lawyer, fraudulently obtained listing as a civil court commissioner based on forged certificates. He was appointed commissioner in Title Suit No. 157/90 involving property worth Tk. 60,00,000. The Tribunal scrutinized exhibited documents and found the allegations proved.

Tribunal Finding: The Tribunal found the opposite party guilty of professional misconduct for obtaining commissioner listing through false certificates and debarred him from practice for 4 years.

Significance: This case demonstrates misconduct through fraudulent qualification claims for lucrative court appointments.

Complaint Case No. 29/1992 (BLD 1995)

Parties: Mohammad Idris v. Mohammad Emranul Hoque
Nature: Allegations of name change, employment suppression, false Sanad
Disposal Time: 3 years (1992-1995)
Outcome: Not Proved – Dismissed

Facts: The complainant alleged that Hoque changed his name via affidavit, suppressed information about employment and pending criminal cases, and falsely obtained his Sanad. Hoque denied allegations, stating he resigned before applying for Sanad and that his name change was legitimate. He claimed criminal cases were falsely instituted due to enmity with the complainant.

Tribunal Finding: The Tribunal found no proof that Hoque was employed or benefited from employment after his December 1990 resignation. No malicious intent was established. The complaint was dismissed.

Significance: This case demonstrates the importance of proving allegations with concrete evidence. Personal enmity cannot substitute for proof of professional misconduct.

Complaint Case No. 23/1992 (BLD 1995)

Parties: Syed Mokaddes Ali (AAG on behalf of Attorney General) and District Judge, Comilla v. Md. Abdul Latif
Nature: Forged client signature, unethical behavior
Disposal Time: 3 years (1992-1995)
Outcome: Guilty – Strong Warning

Facts: The opposite party accepted a vakalatnama from a moharar (clerk) without direct client communication, and clients’ signatures were forged. The District Judge’s investigation confirmed the advocate had previously filed cases under similar dubious circumstances. Though not directly implicated in fabricating fake judgments, his actions were deemed unethical and undignified.

Tribunal Finding: The Tribunal found him guilty of professional misconduct and issued a strong warning for future conduct.

Significance: This case shows that accepting vakalatnamas without proper client verification and through intermediaries violates ethical standards, even without direct participation in forgery.

Complaint Case No. 14/1992 (BLD 1995)

Parties: Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Industries v. G. Rawshan Ali (Government Pleader)
Nature: Conflict of interest, ignoring instructions
Disposal Time: 2 years (1992-1994)
Outcome: Not Proved – Dismissed

Facts: A Government Pleader in Khulna was accused of filing a written statement in Civil Suit No. 179/91 contrary to Ministry of Industries instructions, instead supporting the Deputy Commissioner’s claim that property was khas land rather than abandoned property. The G.P. defended his actions based on conflicting instructions from different government authorities, following the D.C.’s earlier directive. He suggested appointing another lawyer for the Ministry due to conflict of interest.

Tribunal Finding: While the G.P. did not follow Ministry instructions, no fraudulent or grossly improper conduct was established. His actions were based on conflicting instructions and prior obligations. No loss was incurred as the suit remained pending. Complaint dismissed.

Significance: This case illustrates the complexities when government advocates receive conflicting instructions from different state entities. Absent fraud or gross impropriety, following one set of legitimate instructions does not constitute misconduct.

Complaint Case No. 43/1989 (BLD 1995)

Parties: A.Y. Mashihuzzaman v. Md. Habibur Rahman Mia
Nature: Alleged defamatory statements in court pleadings
Disposal Time: 6 years (1989-1995)
Outcome: Not Proved – Dismissed

Facts: Mashihuzzaman, representing plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 563/1985, alleged that Rahman Mia, representing defendants, included defamatory statements against him in a written objection, violating professional etiquette and harming his reputation.

Tribunal Finding: Rahman Mia included the statements based on clients’ direct instructions without evidence of personal malice. The defendants confirmed the statements and did not deny them, making them accountable for content. The offensive statements were later removed by the court at defendants’ request. No proof existed that Rahman Mia acted with malice or excessive zeal. The Tribunal emphasized that while advocates should avoid offensive language, they cannot be held responsible for defamation when acting in good faith on client instructions without malicious intent.

Significance: This case clarifies that advocates following legitimate client instructions without personal malice do not commit misconduct, even if the resulting pleadings contain objectionable content attributable to the client.

Complaint Case No. 17/93 (BLD 1996)

Parties: Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Malik Shawkat Ali
Nature: Fraud – false claim of Notary Public status
Disposal Time: 3 years (1993-1996)
Outcome: Guilty – 10-year suspension

Facts: The advocate, through fraud, created a false memo in the Ministry’s name falsely presenting himself as a Notary Public. He published an advertisement in the daily “Chadni Bazar” Bogura newspaper on October 11, 1992, featuring his photo, despite never being appointed Notary Public. The allegations were investigated and found true.

Tribunal Finding: The Tribunal found the opposite party guilty of professional misconduct and barred him from practicing for 10 years.

Significance: This case demonstrates that fraudulent misrepresentation of official status and deliberate public deception constitute serious professional misconduct warranting severe punishment.

Complaint Case No. 19 of 1989 (BLD 1997)

Parties: Bangladesh Bar Council v. Md. Rafiqul Islam Chowdhury
Nature: Forgery and fabrication to obtain Bar Council certificate through fraud
Disposal Time: 8 years (1989-1997)
Outcome: Guilty – Certificate Cancelled

Facts: Information was received that the advocate obtained enrollment by filing forged B.A. and LL.B. degree certificates. The Controller of Examinations, University of Chittagong, confirmed that although the advocate appeared in B.A. Pass Examination (1986) and LL.B. Final Examination (1990), he failed both. Through forgery and fabrication, he managed false mark sheets. Despite several notices to all known addresses, the advocate did not respond.

Tribunal Finding: The Tribunal found that the advocate obtained his Sanad on April 19, 1993, by practicing fraud and deception upon the Bar Council. His certificate of enrollment was cancelled and recalled.

Significance: This case represents the most fundamental form of professional misconduct—obtaining qualification to practice through fraudulent academic credentials. Cancellation of enrollment is appropriate for such foundational deception.

Complaint Case No. 50/1995 (BLD 1997)

Parties: Vice-President, Uttara Bank Limited v. A.K.M. Towfiqul Islam
Nature: Failure to deposit court fees, failure to honor agreements, lack of tribunal compliance
Disposal Time: 2 years (1995-1997)
Outcome: Guilty – 1-year suspension

Facts: The opposite party was engaged as bank lawyer to file numerous suits. He received substantial amounts as court fees but did not deposit them or take proper prosecution steps. Suits were dismissed for non-payment of deficit court fees, causing heavy losses. The advocate filed many suits with deficit court fees, and approximately 60 plaints were in the process of rejection. He accepted vakalatnamas through intermediaries without client verification.

Proceedings: The advocate initially denied allegations but later acknowledged liability and made partial payments. He sought opportunity to compromise with the bank. The Tribunal allowed him to pay Tk. 20,000 as a gesture, but he paid only Tk. 15,000. Despite repeated adjournments and undertakings to settle, no resolution occurred. When recalled for cross-examination, he failed to appear. The matter was finally heard on merits in 1997.

Tribunal Finding: The advocate was guilty of professional misconduct. Considering his old age (71 years) and retirement from practice due to ailments, the Tribunal took a lenient view but found that receiving court fees without proper action constituted professional misconduct. The opposite party was debarred from legal practice for 1 year.

Significance: This case demonstrates that even elderly advocates nearing retirement are held accountable for professional misconduct, though age and circumstances may warrant leniency in sentencing. The systematic failure to deposit court fees and prosecute suits constitutes serious breach of professional duty.

[Remaining case summaries follow similar pattern – full details available in complete analysis]

9. THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT PATTERNS (1991-2000)

9.1 Prevalence of Forgery and Fraud

The decade from 1991 to 2000 demonstrates a significant prevalence of document forgery and fraudulent activities. Six cases (37.5%) involved forgery of educational certificates, court documents, or misrepresentation of professional qualifications. This pattern suggests systemic vulnerabilities in verification procedures during this period.

9.2 Misuse of Professional Position

Most cases reveal elements of influential social position and misuse of such influence. Advocates, occupying high social positions and being well-versed in law, could more easily manipulate the general public. The combination of public trust in the legal profession with inadequate public awareness of legal rights and procedures created opportunities for exploitation.

9.3 Qualification-Based Misconduct

One of the primary forms of misconduct involved advocates falsifying degrees or practicing without proper enrollment while presenting themselves as legitimate legal practitioners. This fundamental deception undermined the entire regulatory framework and public confidence in professional qualifications.

9.4 Public Vulnerability

During this period, the general public demonstrated limited knowledge about laws, rules, regulations, and procedural requirements. This information asymmetry, combined with high levels of trust in legal professionals, made citizens particularly vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous advocates.

9.5 Systemic Exploitation of Legal Loopholes

The cases reveal systematic exploitation of loopholes in existing laws and regulations. Advocates used their specialized knowledge to circumvent regulatory mechanisms and evade accountability for extended periods.

9.6 Delayed Justice

A significant finding is the substantial gap between case institution and disposal. Disposal times ranged from 2 to 8 years, with an average of approximately 4 years. None of the cases were resolved quickly, causing considerable hardship to complainants and undermining the deterrent effect of disciplinary proceedings.

9.7 Enforcement Challenges

The language of the Canons, employing terms such as “shall” and “may,” proved less binding than statutory language. Unlike other laws with dedicated enforcement mechanisms, orders under the Bangladesh Bar Council Order, 1972 often lacked serious execution, weakening the regulatory framework’s effectiveness.

9.8 Individual versus Systemic Issues

While these misconducts were perpetrated by specific individuals driven by greed, envy, or personal gain, they reflect broader systemic weaknesses in oversight, enforcement, and professional culture. It is important to recognize that the majority of legal professionals do not engage in such conduct and maintain high ethical standards. Like every profession, the legal field has both exemplary practitioners and bad actors.

10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTING PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

10.1 Enhanced Monitoring and Auditing

Regular Behavior Audits: Implement systematic auditing of advocate conduct to ensure compliance with rules and regulations. This should include periodic reviews of case management, client fund handling, and adherence to Canon requirements.

Complaint Tracking Systems: Establish digital systems to track complaints from filing through resolution, ensuring transparency and preventing cases from languishing without action.

10.2 Transparency and Public Awareness

Publicize Tribunal Decisions: All Bar Council Tribunal decisions should be widely publicized through each Bar Association’s notice boards, websites, and periodic bulletins. This increases deterrence and informs the legal community of ethical standards.

Accessible Complaint Procedures: Streamline and publicize the complaint filing process, making it accessible to all segments of society regardless of education or economic status. Provide complaint forms and information in Bengali and English at all bar associations and courts.

Public Education Campaigns: Conduct regular public awareness campaigns about client rights, proper advocate conduct, and complaint mechanisms. This reduces information asymmetry and empowers clients to identify misconduct.

10.3 Strengthened Penalties and Enforcement

Financial Penalties: In addition to suspension or disbarment, impose substantial financial penalties on advocates found guilty of misconduct. These penalties should be proportionate to the harm caused and the financial benefit obtained through misconduct.

Victim Compensation: Establish mechanisms for compensating clients who suffered financial losses due to advocate misconduct, funded through penalties imposed on guilty advocates.

Prompt Response Systems: Ensure the Bar Council responds promptly to complaints, with clear timelines for each stage of investigation and adjudication. Target maximum disposal time of 12 months for misconduct cases.

10.4 International Standards and Best Practices

Comparative Analysis: Regularly compare Bangladesh’s professional conduct framework with international standards and best practices from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, India, Australia, and Canada. Adopt effective strategies from other regions to enhance local regulatory frameworks.

Continuous Reform: Frequently review and update laws concerning professional misconduct to address emerging challenges, including technology-related issues, and align with current best practices.

10.5 Empowered Local Associations

District Bar Association Authority: Enable District Bar Associations to actively monitor their members’ conduct, investigate complaints at the local level, and impose preliminary sanctions subject to Bar Council review. This decentralization can improve response times and local accountability.

Resource Provision: Provide Bar Associations with resources for ethical guidance, including ethics officers, hotlines for ethical questions, and regular training programs.

Standard Promotion: Encourage Bar Associations to promote high ethical standards through peer mentoring, recognition programs for ethical excellence, and ethics committees.

10.6 Enhanced Verification and Qualification Systems

Robust Credentialing: Implement sophisticated verification systems for educational qualifications, including direct communication with universities and secure digital verification protocols. Maintain updated databases of verified credentials.

Periodic Re-verification: Conduct periodic re-verification of credentials, particularly for advocates seeking specialized designations or senior positions.

Secure Documentation: Issue tamper-proof certificates and maintain blockchain or similar secure digital records of enrollment and credentials.

10.7 Technology and Digital Security

Cybersecurity Measures: Establish strong cybersecurity measures to safeguard client confidentiality and prevent data breaches. Hold advocates accountable for maintaining digital security in their practices.

Digital Complaint Systems: Develop online portals for complaint filing, case tracking, and accessing Tribunal decisions, improving accessibility and transparency.

Electronic Case Management: Encourage or mandate electronic case management systems that create audit trails of advocate activities and client fund handling.

10.8 Continuing Legal Education

Mandatory Ethics Training: Require all advocates to complete regular continuing legal education in professional ethics, with updated content addressing contemporary challenges.

Practical Ethics Workshops: Conduct interactive workshops presenting real-world ethical dilemmas and appropriate resolution strategies.

10.9 Whistleblower Protection

Safe Reporting Channels: Establish confidential channels for reporting misconduct, protecting whistleblowers from retaliation while ensuring accountability for false accusations.

Anonymous Reporting Options: Allow anonymous complaint filing where appropriate, with protections against abuse of the system.

11. CONCLUSION

Professional misconduct among lawyers in Bangladesh during 1991-2000 reveals significant challenges facing the legal profession and its regulatory mechanisms. Analysis of 16 reported Bar Council Tribunal cases demonstrates that forgery, fraud, and misappropriation of client funds constituted the primary forms of misconduct during this period, with an 81.25% success rate for complaints filed.

The data reveals troubling patterns: disposal times averaged 4 years (ranging from 2-8 years), indicating serious delays in adjudication that undermined the deterrent effect of disciplinary proceedings. The prevalence of qualification fraud (advocates practicing with forged degrees) and systematic misappropriation of client funds demonstrates fundamental failures in verification and oversight mechanisms.

These findings reflect broader systemic weaknesses beyond individual misconduct. Limited public awareness of legal rights, inadequate enforcement of disciplinary orders, and delayed justice created an environment conducive to exploitation. The linguistic ambiguity in the Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, combined with weak enforcement mechanisms, further compromised accountability.

However, the research also demonstrates that the Bangladesh Bar Council Tribunal system, despite its limitations, successfully adjudicated complaints and imposed meaningful sanctions in the vast majority of cases where misconduct was alleged. The regulatory framework exists; its effectiveness depends on strengthening implementation, accelerating adjudication, and enhancing public awareness.

Resolving professional misconduct is essential to maintaining public confidence in the legal system and ensuring fair administration of justice. The legal community can effectively deter wrongdoing and cultivate ethical practice by: fortifying regulatory structures, improving monitoring and accountability mechanisms, encouraging continuous education and training, providing stronger whistleblower protection, making complaint procedures more accessible, and increasing public awareness.

Moreover, leveraging technology for verification, complaint processing, and case management, while implementing global best practices adapted to Bangladesh’s context, can address contemporary challenges. International trends toward transparency, client-centered service, and robust accountability mechanisms provide valuable models for reform.

The findings from 1991-2000 establish a historical baseline for understanding professional misconduct patterns. Contemporary research should examine whether subsequent reforms have reduced misconduct prevalence, improved adjudication speed, or enhanced public confidence. Comparative analysis across decades would illuminate the effectiveness of regulatory evolution and identify persistent challenges requiring targeted intervention.

Ultimately, the goal extends beyond punishment to creating a legal profession where ethical practice is the norm, supported by effective oversight, meaningful sanctions, and a culture of professionalism. By working collaboratively, the legal community in Bangladesh can elevate professional standards, contributing to a more just and equitable society where citizens trust their legal representatives and access to justice is both available and reliable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Bangladesh Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Order, 1972 (Presidential Order No. 46 of 1972).

Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, 1969 (Adopted by Bangladesh Bar Council Resolution, January 5, 1969).

Bangladesh Legal Decisions (BLD), Volumes 1993-2000 (Bar Council Tribunal Decisions).

Secondary Sources

Dr. Abdullah Al Faroque, “An Empirical Study on Unethical Legal Practices in Bangladesh and Suggested Remedial Measures” (2022) Dhaka University Law Journal.

Web Resources

Bangladesh Bar Council, https://www.barcouncil.gov.bd/

Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST), https://blast.org.bd/

Bangladesh National Women Lawyers’ Association (BNWLA), https://bnwla-bd.org/

Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), https://belabangla.org/

Supreme Court Bar Association, https://scba.org.bd/

Dhaka Bar Association, https://dhakabarassociation.com/

Legal Counsel Bangladesh, https://legalcounselbd.com/