Find a Lawyer

SARWAT versus AURANGZEB KHAN AURAKZAI, ADVOCATE, PESHAWAR

Section 41 and 44 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 and complaints of professional misconduct against the legal practitioners and the Bar Counsel Rules 1976, the relevant Advocate received substantial amounts of money from the complainants, according to the reasons of their own complaints and Were unsuccessful. As a result of his professional duties, the Advocate Advocate of Advocate considered his profession a good one, which, according to the record, had to be tarnished, even on two occasions by his clients. Received money and at the same time avoided his professional duties. Mucklin's duties as an Advocate Money are always a sacred trust with his lawyer, and any such trust would be for professional misconduct, but the Council Council acknowledged receiving money from the complainant but Despite his promise before the Bar Council Tribunal, he failed to return it. If the Advocate is found to be a professional offender, he will pay the same amount due on the due date for cancellation of his license to practice in the legal profession and prompt removal of the legal profession to the complainant. To a great extent, there was considerable damage to the court premises, due to both complaints, substantial costs (Rs. 34,000 and Rs. 40,000, respectively) were levied on the Advocate. Under the Senior Civil Judge, expenses under Section 44, Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973 will be brought to the Secretary, the Bar Council, upon receipt of which will be payable to the complainant respectively. top civil advocates from Matli lawyer