A couple of months ago, the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.
Sunitha v. State of Telangana created quite a flutter in the legal circles as
well as among the public at large. This was triggered by the media reporting
that the Supreme Court had expressed the need to “introduce legislative
changes for an effective regulatory mechanism to check violations of
professional ethics by lawyers and also ensure access to legal services by
regulating the astronomical fees charged by them”.
Fascinatingly, a reading of the judgment suggests a very different story. In
the concluding paragraph of the judgment, the Supreme Court expressed:
“hope that the authorities concerned in the Government will take cognizance
of the issue of introducing requisite legislative changes for an effective
regulatory mechanism to check violation of professional ethics and also to
ensure access to legal services which is major component of access to
justice mandated under Article 39-A of the Constitution.”
The above-mentioned conclusion clearly points to the position that the
Supreme Court did not make any specific reference to regulation of fees
charged by lawyers. It has been left to the wisdom of the legislature to
devise the measures to give effect to the broad mandate of Article 39-A viz.
for ensuring access to justice. It is evident that the Supreme Court took this
approach being conscious of the reality that regulation of fees of lawyers is
neither practical nor healthy.
Lawyers are professionals who provide legal services to their clients. As a
practice, the lawyer quotes a fee for his services which the client may
choose to pay or not. In case the client agrees to pay the fee quoted by the
lawyer, the lawyer proceeds to undertake the assignment on behalf of the
client. Alternatively, the client is free to reject/refuse the fee quotation and
not engage the lawyer. There are times when the client renegotiates the fee
and the lawyer agrees to charge the lower agreed fee. It can be seen that
the terms of engagement of a lawyer by a client is the subject-matter of a
private contract/arrangement between the lawyer and the client. As such,
lawyers should be entitled to charge fees as they feel appropriate and
commensurate with the services they render.
However, the above-mentioned judgment can certainly be the talking point
for the need to give impetus to the concept of access to justice and to
reorient the role of lawyers in India in ensuring its success. One of the
globally tried and test ways to do so is to encourage pro bono legal services
in India. Pro bono publico is a Latin phrase which means “for the good of the
people”. It is commonly used in its short form “pro bono”. In the legal
sphere, the term “pro bono” refers to legal services performed free of charge
or at reduced fees for the public good. Pro bono work is not to be confused
with the traditional legal aid services, which relate to services provided by
lawyers who are engaged by the legal services authority. Pro bono services
seek to leverage the skills of highly trained, successful and top legal
professionals to help those who are unable to afford lawyers.
