Islamabad: The Pakistan Bar Council (PBC) has dismissed a disciplinary complaint against an advocate and allowed an appeal restoring a lawyer's licence, with Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar underscoring key principles governing professional ethics, client conduct, and the administration of justice in two detailed orders published on April 29, 2026.
In one order arising out of Disciplinary Complaint No.1204 of 2025, the committee dismissed allegations against a Bahawalpur-based Advocate Abid Khurshid accused of failing to secure an injunctive order and allegedly not arguing a case. Writing the opinion, Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar observed that the legal profession is not a 'mere money-making trade' and rejected the notion of cases being conducted on a 'done basis' or 'no win, no fee' arrangement.
He emphasised that a lawyer's duty is to represent a client competently and honestly, but without guaranteeing success. 'There is no concept of done basis or refund of professional fee upon failure in our judicial system,' he noted, adding that any promise of guaranteed results would amount to professional misconduct and tarnish the dignity of the legal profession.
In a separate order in Disciplinary Appeal No.76 of 2016, the committee allowed an appeal against the removal of Advocate Hayatullah Khan Niazi's name from the roll, setting aside earlier orders of the Punjab Bar Council tribunal. The appellant had been accused of misconduct, including appearing in court during a strike and allegedly possessing fake academic credentials.
Justice Mazhar, however, noted that verification from relevant universities conclusively established the authenticity of the appellant's degrees, rendering the allegations baseless. Invoking the legal maxim that if the foundation falls, the entire structure collapses, he observed that disciplinary action premised on incorrect assumptions could not be sustained.
On the issue of strikes, the order reaffirmed that lawyers are not bound to follow strike calls and that their foremost duty is to their clients and the court. Justice Mazhar observed that strikes impede the administration of justice and infringe upon litigants' fundamental rights, including access to justice and fair trial.
He further held that bar associations have no lawful authority to penalise or suspend a lawyer merely for appearing in court during a strike, and that any coercion or obstruction in this regard is inconsistent with the rule of law.
Citing various judicial precedents, the committee stressed that the independence of the legal profession is integral to maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned orders removing the advocate's name from the roll were set aside.
Both orders collectively underscore the ethical boundaries of legal practice, reaffirm the independence of advocates, and call for stricter regulatory measures to curb unprofessional practices while safeguarding the dignity of the legal profession and the sanctity of judicial institutions.