Sibling rivalry in the legal profession

I am not a lawyer; indeed the distance between the legal profession and me is longer than the distance to the remotest galaxy in the universe. Yet, a short – only about four column inches long – news item in The Hindu of December 21, 2012 entitled “Desist from appearing for gang-rape accused” (the quotation marks as in the title) caught me unawares and strangled me till I sat down to pen this. It appears that neither the writer nor the paper deemed this news item worthy of a byline. This must be why it was given the generic staff reporter byline, I surmise.

The news item must be seen for what it is – sibling rivalry. One of the two competing outfits coordinating Delhi Bar Associations appealed “to all lawyers and members of all bar associations to not appear in courts on behalf of any of the accused involved in heinous gang-rape of a 23-year-old girl.” The appeal is by the break-away faction, Coordination Council of All Bar Associations of Delhi (the Council, for short). The original outfit, Coordination Committee of Delhi Bar Associations (the Committee), desisted from issuing any such pleas/appeals. This small, which is bound to be transient, skirmish as reported in the paper forced me to dwell on its sibling rivalry aspect.

The spokesperson for the Council said that the appeal is directed at “only private lawyers.” The validity of this appeal lies in what happened in the Kasab case: “no private lawyer appeared for him.” What is good for Kasab is good for the gang-rape accused.

But, the chairman of the Committee would not let it go that easily. He said that “his organization could not issue a similar appeal to lawyers as it was mindful of Supreme Court orders.” One can take this as a direct accusation of contempt of court by the Council, but from outside the court!

There is another implied attack on the statement of the upstart. The Committee points out that the Supreme Court has mandated that “every accused is entitled to a free and fair trial with the best legal aid possible.” This appears to be in response to the Council’s assertion that its appeal is not directed at the lawyers under the ambit of Delhi Legal Services Authority – the Council had “no objection to legal aid being accorded to the accused by the Delhi Legal Services Authority.” Oh, so magnanimous of the Council! Then, the implication is that the “best legal aid“ is available from the public authority, needing no augmentation from private lawyers. While we do know that this is not a tenable position, let me elide.

But hear what the Council says further: “A private lawyer has to collect professional fees for their (sic) services.” Yes, a professional does collect fees for his services, but there is no compulsion! Indeed, it is the lawyerdom that makes a big thing out of pro bono services! Then, why no pro bono services for the gang-rape accused?

This leads you to another statement by the Council spokesperson: A private lawyer “must also send message that such brutal acts are not condoned.” Additionally, layers are “also part of this society and we are horrified by this crime.” Hence, do not even mention pro bono services for the gang-rape accused. Oops, the lawyers under the Delhi Legal Services Authority are not part of this society and they condone such brutal acts, or at the very least they do not send the message across that they do not condone such acts!

Any way I look at this almost trivial issue – who defends the accused, private or public lawyers – the only conclusion I am driven to is that the Council wanted to upstage the Committee and in the process, it may have undermined itself. This is what sibling rivalry leads to.

Raghuram Ekambaram