Lawyers Cannot Be Sued In Consumer Courts For Poor Service, Says Supreme Court
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court clarified the extent of lawyers’ liability under the Consumer Protection Act, and held that lawyers cannot be sued in consumer courts for poor service. The bench of justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal emphasised the unique nature of the legal profession, stating that legal representation for a fee cannot be classified as a “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The court’s verdict excludes lawyers from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The bench highlighted that the relationship between a client and a lawyer is akin to a “contract of personal service,” reinforcing the exemption of lawyers from consumer court jurisdiction over alleged deficiencies in service.
This ruling overturns a 2007 judgement by the National Consumer Commission, which had held that lawyers fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and can be brought before consumer courts by clients for service- issues. The commission’s judgement was stayed by the top court in April 2009.
The national consumer commission stated in its 2007 judgement, “Undisputedly, lawyers are rendering service. They are charging fees. It is not a contract of personal service. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that they are not covered by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”
The judgement acknowledges the ethical considerations inherent in the legal profession, where lawyers are bound by duties as officers of the court and operate within a framework shaped by judicial processes. Unlike other service providers such as doctors, lawyers must act as officers of the court and should require a degree of immunity and freedom to perform their duties effectively, stated several lawyers’ bodies, including the Bar Council of India, which had challenged the 2007 judgement.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) intervened in the case and said that it would not be fair to assess lawyers solely based on case outcomes as the framework within which they operate and the final product of their services (the judgement) are not entirely within their control.
Senior advocate V. Giri, assisting the bench as amicus curiae, argued that the relationship between a lawyer and a client evolves beyond a mere service provider and service user dynamic, particularly once legal representation is initiated in court.
