Highly respected lawyer Abhishek Singhvi wrote in The Hindustan Times, October 5, 2005, that he said at a seminar on business ethics that it has become an oxymoron. This article is a shining example of how it is accepted practice that one’s actions need not have even a distant connection with one’s words. He lectures at great length about the lack of ethics in business houses and about “the numerous corporate scams and scandals litter the moral landscape.” Singhvi gives the examples of Enron and Tyco. But he forgot the biggest recent one: Escorts, who he represented in the Delhi High Court. Since the case is sub judice, not much can be said, but it can be said safely that the legality of the conversion of a charitable institution into a profit making company and then its sale has been brought into question. The strong interim order passed by the judge Anil Kumar, showed that not only did he quickly grasp the matter but actually wrote: “The acts committed by the defendants in creation of another society, merger of two societies and thereafter floating a company with limited liability and the new company giving loans to defendant no.1 and pledging its assets for the loans given to defendant no.1 and thereafter transfer of shareholding and assets to third parties, require adjudication and investigation.”
Instead of writing about the ethics of business, it would have been more appropriate for Singhvi to address the ethics of lawyers. Yes, every citizen has a right to defence. And many lawyers justify accepting any brief with that reference. But, there are multitude cases where lawyers refuse a brief on one pretext or another. Can we forget that when Kiran Bedi stood by the principled belief of standing by her constable who hand cuffed a lawyer in 1988, there was no lawyer willing to represent her? The same lawyer who gave legal opinions to a businessman and told him what he wanted to hear: that it is legal to convert a charitable institution into a profit making company, knowing full well that it is questionable, also ensures a steady income when he represents that client to defend that doubtful legal opinion. We now learn that wily, slimy businessmen often shop for a lawyer who will give them the twisted legal opinion that they need, to do what they want to do, rather than what is strictly the law.
Get this. Singhvi writes: “We have also avoided addressing unpleasant issues like the role of professionals (especially accountants and legal advisors). Ancient jurisprudence described them as ‘bloodhounds’. Slowly, case law started using the milder term ‘watchdogs’. Recent corporate scams have led them to being described as ‘lapdogs’. Enron and Tyco could not have occurred unless these professionals “cooked the books with a flair and a zest which would put the chefs at Taj Hotel to shame”.” Right. Do we have to wait for the press to inform the distinguished lawyer where all these facts also apply?
No doubt, this will make many a lawyer squirm at the unfairness of judging a lawyer for accepting a brief that contains illegal actions. Isn’t that what lawyers are suppose to do? But is it? It is debatable, at least. The Bar Council of India, states in it Rules, Preamble, Chapter II, Standards of Professional Conduct, Section I - Duty to the Court:
“An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth-piece of the client…………….” A lawyer cannot absolve himself of endorsing illegal acts of the client. Okay, he can, but should he then virtually in the same breath write and lecture on “declining morality”? He should have added: “and increasing hypocrisy”.
Every lawyer’s first and foremost loyalty is to uphold the law of the land. That is his stated dharma. There are lawyers and there are lawyers. There is a large section of senior lawyers who are honest and are known to refuse cases that hit against their conscience. Examples of many such cases have been reported, where briefs have been refused even when they come from the government in power. And there are those lawyers in a minority, whose doors are the first ones knocked at when you have run over and killed seven people, who can turn witnesses hostile and then morph a BMW into a truck. The actions of such lawyers attack and destroy the basis of Indian law.
Singhvi wrote: “Unlike the US, we forget the mandate of the ‘Doubter’s dictionary’, which defines ethics as ‘a matter of daily practical concern, described glowingly in commercial terms by those who intend to ignore it.’” Exactly. Daily, practical concern. One presumes Singhvi is attempting to use a quotation from The Doubter’s Companion (1994), known as the devil’s dictionary, written by Canadian philosopher and writer, John Raulson Saul. So, let me continue to quote Saul: "So much credence has been given to essentially silly ideas, such as we are driven by self-interest, which would really make us hardly human at all, but mammals and nothing more. Obviously, what makes us most interesting is our ability to live with uncertainty and our ability not to slip into either/or views of the world. You cannot help but debunk a lot of the theories that have developed over the last 20 to 25 years. They are dependent upon us accepting the idea we are a frightened people driven by self-interest."
Saul says citizens have more choice than they are led to believe and the aim of his book is to demonstrate this. "People feel they only have two choices," he says, "the head and the heart. One is the instrumental, hard-nosed thing, and the other is the marginal, romantic, idealist thing. Well, that is not a choice. The point is to show people they have these qualities they can use. For example, ethics is really very practical, but it isn't good enough to be right. It also has to work; otherwise, it is just good intentions, and then it is romantic. That doesn't mean it's easy and pretty.” A lawyer can act as an officer of the court, that is, choose to stand up and protect the Law or he can be a taxi for hire.
Singhvi ends his article reminding us of Mahatma Gandhi’s demands for public character. While invoking Gandhi, it might serve him well to remember that it was Gandhi who defined his job as a lawyer in South Africa, when he refused to defend a client who turned out to be a liar and told the judge so. Gandhi was also brilliant enough to realise a mistake and was intelligently flexible enough to change track as he evolved. Singhvi ends his article with a plea to reconstruct our morality and reminds us of Gandhi’s itemized seven deadly sins: “He listed them as politics without principles, wealth without work, business without morality, education without character, pleasure without conscience, science without humanity and worship without sacrifice. We have covered some parts of the journey but many miles remain.” There are millions of lawyers who take that journey every day by working on cases that support their conscience.
Gandhi always led by example and action. Now it is time for Abhishek Singhvi to walk his talk and cover the miles that remain.
1225 words