The Supreme Court of India has finally set the record straight: The services of lawyers do not fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and any claim of deficiency in service against advocates is not admissible in a court of law.
So, how did this complex and multifaceted issue start and how did it take a two-judge bench (Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal) to lay the issue at rest?
On August 6, 2007, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that if there was any deficiency in service rendered by advocates, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be maintainable. As a result, the aggrieved advocate filed a civil appeal in the Supreme Court against the order passed by NCDRC.
What followed was a flurry of other civil appeals by the Bar of Indian Lawyers, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India and others, which were clubbed together and finally disposed of by the Supreme Court.
In the legal system, the role of lawyers stands as a cornerstone, facilitating access to justice and safeguarding individual rights. However, like any profession, legal services are not immune to lapses or disputes. The issue of whether legal services should be brought under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act has sparked considerable debate. While advocates argue for enhanced consumer rights and accountability, opponents highlight potential complexities and implications for the legal profession.
Legal services have traditionally been exempt from CPA, primarily due to the unique nature of attorney-client relationships and the complexities inherent in legal proceedings.
However, those opposing this leeway provided to advocates argue that subjecting the legal profession to consumer rights protections would empower clients and enhance accountability within the legal profession.
Clients often invest significant trust and resources in legal representation, and ensuring avenues for recourse in case of malpractice or negligence is crucial. By extending the reach of consumer protection laws to legal services, clients would have clearer mechanisms for addressing issues such as professional misconduct, over-billing or inadequate representation. Apart from encouraging transparency and ethical conduct among lawyers, it could serve as a deterrent against unscrupulous practices and incentivise legal practitioners to prioritise client interests.
However, the lawyers argued in the Supreme Court that the Advocates Act, 1961 provided for a robust mechanism laying down professional standards for compliance and for determining professional misconduct. Moreover, the Advocates Act being a special law prevailed over CPA regarding the conduct of advocates. Also, the legal profession was a noble profession and not a business or trade.
It was also argued that the legal profession was inherently different from other service industries due to its fiduciary nature. Advocates owe a duty of loyalty, confidentiality and competence to their clients, which may not neatly align with the framework of consumer transactions. Introducing consumer protection laws could lead to conflicts with existing regulatory frameworks governing legal ethics and standards of professional conduct.
Legal matters often involve intricate legal principles and subjective judgments, making it challenging to apply standard consumer protection metrics. If permitted, it could become an easy tool for disgruntled litigants to knock at the doors of consumer forums against advocates. It would lead to speculative or vexatious claims, rather than seeking relief in respect of bona fide grievances against professional misconduct.
Another concern is the potential chilling effect on legal innovation and access to justice. Subjecting legal services to consumer protection laws may increase the liability risks for lawyers, leading to higher insurance costs and reluctance to take on certain cases, particularly those with uncertain outcomes. This could ultimately restrict access to legal representation, particularly for marginalised or underprivileged individuals who rely on pro bono or low-cost legal services.
The judges rightly reached the conclusion that “the very purpose and object of the CP Act 1986, as re-enacted in 2019, was to provide protection to consumers from unfair trade practices and unethical business practices only. There is nothing on record to suggest that the legislature ever intended to include professions or professionals within the purview of the Act”.