Find a Lawyer

ALLAH WARRYO versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 Section 43 (6) (7) Professional Abuse First Complainant alleges that the Advocate recognized the allegations and told his client about the actual date of hearing of the case in the Supreme Court. Attempted to notify. Dismissing this responsibility and secondly, he neglected to appear or make appropriate arrangements in his presence, Advocate's defense was that he had to decide on the same date as the accused in the session case in Faisalabad where he appeared. And fully participated in the proceedings which kept him busy for the day, and he informed the Advocate on the record and directed that he should seek a postponement on this basis, record verification shows that the Advocate was in Faisalabad. Sessions participated in the trial, had a full day's engagement, and was likely to be charged with the default situation in this case. The postponement could not be requested or he could not be present. It did its best to instruct the Advocate on Record to give a thorough explanation of the type of professional engagement and the reason for not attending it so that they would not have to change their behavior. Do not abstain from it and not be mistaken in handling its brief. In the way the client has done this, there has been no case of such an advocate misconduct. female advocates from Nooriabad lawyer