Introduction

This case deals with the question of equating files and copies of the records with goods.

Facts

• In this situation, the appellant was an advocate and also served as a legal advisor to the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd.
• The bank hired him to handle legal matters in which the bank was involved.
• However, the bank ended his position and asked him to give back the files related to the bank.
• Instead of returning the files, the lawyer refused and insisted that the bank first pay him his due remunerations for his legal services.
• The bank needed the files for ongoing legal cases, but they disagreed with the lawyer's demands, considering them unreasonable.
• As a result, the Managing Director of the Bank filed a complaint with the State Bar Council (Madhya Pradesh) on 3rd February 1994.
• The complaint accused the lawyer of professional misconduct for not returning the files.
• During the proceedings, the lawyer admitted to not returning the files but argued that he had the right to keep them using his right of lien.
• He offered to return the files once the bank paid him for his legal work.

Issue Involved

• Whether the advocate has a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by the client?

Observation

• The Supreme Court stated that files and records held by an advocate do not qualify as "goods" that can be withheld for unpaid fees.
• The term "goods" is defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and do not include legal records.
• The concept of bailment, defined in Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 involves delivering goods with an agreement for their return, which do not apply to legal files.
• The court emphasized that withholding records for unpaid fees could harm the client's case.
• Advocates should not have the right to withhold records due to unpaid fees; instead, they can pursue legal remedies for payment.
• If a client changes advocates, the former must return the case files, and disputes over fees should be resolved separately.
• The court stressed the social duty of the legal profession to support people, ensuring they are not deprived of their rights due to an advocate's position.
• While advocates can set fees by agreement, unpaid fees do not justify withholding client documents.

Conclusion

The Court held that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and denied any right to retain the record of the litigation entrusted by the Bank and also adjudged that legal records do not amount to goods under SOGA.