Find a Lawyer

RAZIA BEGUM versus MUHAMMAD ISHAQ, ADVOCATE

Pakistan Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Act 1973 Section 41 (4) Pakistan Legal Practitioners & Bar Councils Rules 1976, R145 Professional Dispensary Disciplinary Committee Respondent, (Advocate) supervised the marriage in the sense that it kept her Allowed The residence and its affiliation, should not have been presented as a lawyer by the male party before the marriage under the Enforcement of Adultery (Enforcement Hoodood) Ordinance, 1979, the respondent filed against the male party in the said marriage. Self-sued case At a point when the magistrate's respondents had filed the defendant's statement alleging withdrawal from the proceedings, the session judge (Hoodwood Court) recorded in his own words that I would withdraw my lawyer's name. Because the prosecutor presented me as a prosecutor. The witness, as I was not aware of it and besides that I was the lawyer of the accused from the very beginning and before he had examined the prosecution he had to go to the final challan submission completely and in this case. Held in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer, the conflict of interest as a witness in the case should have been clear to the defendant from the outset and should not be charged. The response presented by the fees or as a lawyer on behalf of the accused was not so cautious and constituted professional misconduct in connection with the conduct of clients under R 145, Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules 1976. Was. That the compensation is sufficient for mismanagement and the complainant will have to pay a cost of Rs 12,000, of which Rs 10,000 will be paid for the fee, which should not have been charged, however, top civil advocates from Tharparkar lawyer