Prepare me for exam:

Week 2: 
1.	M.B.E. Smith: Questions whether lawyers should take philosophers' critiques seriously, focusing on the practical knowledge gap philosophers have when commenting on legal practice. View: Philosophers often lack empirical knowledge necessary for informed judgments about legal ethics.
2.	Alice Woolley: Examines whether philosophical legal ethics provide meaningful guidance, emphasizing the differences between philosophical speculation and practical legal work. View: Legal ethics should be informed by the realities of legal practice rather than abstract philosophical principles.
3.	Aristotle: Rejects Plato's elitist view that philosophers possess special practical wisdom, arguing instead that virtue is gained through right action, not philosophy. View: Practical wisdom is essential, and philosophical ethics may not always translate into practical moral guidance.
4.	David Luban: Critiques the legal profession's adversarial nature and the disconnect between professional duties and moral obligations. Lawyers' role requirements have no inherent moral weight and are often outweighed by conflicting moral reasons.
5.	Ronald Dworkin: Highlights the prevalence of "hard cases" in law, where even expert lawyers may disagree on legal requirements, complicating ethical decision-making. View: Legal ethics is fraught with complexity, and philosophical education may not adequately prepare one for practical moral disputes.
Summary: The presentation debates whether lawyers should heed philosophers' advice on legal ethics. Key philosophers like M.B.E. Smith and Alice Woolley argue that philosophers often lack the practical knowledge needed for informed judgments on legal practice. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of practical wisdom over philosophical speculation. David Luban critiques the adversarial nature of legal practice and the conflict between professional duties and moral obligations, suggesting moral considerations should sometimes take precedence. Ronald Dworkin underscores the complexity of legal ethics, where even experts can disagree, indicating that philosophical education might not provide sufficient practical moral guidance. Overall, the presentation highlights the tension between theoretical ethics and the practical realities of legal work.
Week 3: 
1.	Legal Education and Hierarchy: Legal education indoctrinates students into a hierarchical system, shaping their professional identities to fit within this structure. Students accept and perpetuate the hierarchy, fulfilling the expectations set by the legal system. The hierarchical nature of legal education includes the demographic composition of teachers and the authoritative classroom environment.
2.	Impact on Students: Students often abandon initial idealistic goals and conform to the profession's expectations. They are trained to prioritize technical skills and success within the system over transformative social justice.
3.	Role of Legal Reasoning: Legal reasoning is taught as a rigorous, analytical process that validates the rules of the legal system. This teaching method emphasizes conformity and discourages critical examination of the law’s broader social impact.
4.	Clinical Education Critique: Clinical education often fails by teaching students to manipulate and dominate rather than fostering genuine moral development. Practical wisdom and ethical decision-making, as emphasized by philosophers like Aristotle, are often neglected.
Philosophers Mentioned:
1.	Aristotle: Virtue is achieved by integrating practical reason with action, not by theoretical knowledge alone. Phronesis: The fusion of intellectual and character virtues; the ability to make sound judgments in complex situations. Critique on Clinical Education: Many programs teach manipulation rather than ethical practice. Integration of Knowledge and Empathy: Essential for developing true professional excellence.
2.	Kantian Tradition: Emphasizes a priori principles as the foundation of moral action, which contrasts with practical, experience-based reasoning. A Priori Principles: Ethical actions are determined by adherence to universal moral laws, independent of empirical experiences.
3.	David Luban: Argues that the issue lies not with clinical education itself but with the legal practice as a whole, which often undermines ethical principles. Client Autonomy: Lawyers often face dilemmas between client wishes and justice. Ethical practice requires balancing these competing principles.Model Rules of Professional Conduct: In cases like client perjury, lawyers must take remedial actions.
Summary: discusses how legal education perpetuates hierarchical structures within the profession, shaping students to fit predefined roles rather than challenging the status quo. It critiques the emphasis on technical skills and conformity over moral development and transformative justice. Philosophers like Aristotle advocate for integrating practical reason with action to achieve true virtue, highlighting a gap in current legal training. The presentation also addresses the shortcomings of clinical education in fostering genuine ethical behavior.
Week 5 
1.	Bar Council of India Rules: Duty Towards Clients: Accept briefs (Rule 11). Full and frank disclosure to clients (Rule 14). Uphold client interests (Rule 15). Maintain clear accounts and transparency with client funds (Rules 25-30). Avoid conflicts of interest, exploiting client confidence, or encouraging litigation (Rules 12, 13, 16-24, 33). Duty Towards Courts: Maintain decorum, respect, and honesty in court. Prevent client from engaging in unfair practices. Proper dress code and avoiding conflicts of interest (Rules 1-10). Duty Towards Opponents: Conduct with fairness and integrity. Avoid direct negotiation with opposing party and fulfill legitimate promises (Rules 34-35). Duty Towards Colleagues: Respect and cooperation. Avoid advertising or soliciting work, promoting unauthorized practice, and ensure consent of fellow advocates to appear (Rules 36-39).Duty in Imparting Training & Rendering Legal Aid: Provide legal training without demanding fees or premiums. Offer free legal assistance to the indigent and oppressed within economic limits.
2.	Professional Conduct and Ethics: Access to Justice: Highlighted the lack of funds for civil legal assistance and the need for effective defense in criminal cases. Technological innovations have somewhat increased access to justice.Accountability: Emphasized the need for structural checks and the interpretation of ethical standards in light of societal interest.Suggested improvements in law school curricula to enhance information dissemination and ethical practice.
3.	Key Case Examples: Deborah L. Rhode: Discussed client autonomy and the balance between client wishes and ethical obligations. Cited different jurisdictions' approaches to handling conflicts between client interests and justice. Monroe Freedman: Addressed the dilemma of maintaining client confidentiality versus duty to court and society. Analyzed ethical questions related to discrediting witnesses and cross-examinations.
4.	Important Legal Provisions: Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution: Right of the accused to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of their choice. Article 39-A of the Indian Constitution: Provision of free legal aid and promotion of justice based on equal opportunity. Advocates Act, 1961: Regulation of legal practice and professional standards in India.
Duty Towards Client
1.	Acceptance and Withdrawal of Briefs: Obligation to Accept Briefs: Advocates must accept any brief in courts/tribunals where they practice, charging fees comparable to their peers. Special circumstances may justify refusal (Rule 11). Withdrawal from Service: Advocates should not withdraw from serving a client once agreed, except for sufficient cause and with reasonable notice. Upon withdrawal, any unearned fees must be refunded (Rule 12).
2.	Conflict of Interest and Disclosures: Personal Witness: Advocates must not accept or continue with a case where they are likely to be a witness (Rule 13). Disclosure of Interests: Full and frank disclosures regarding any connections or interests that may affect the client’s judgment must be made at the start and throughout the engagement (Rule 14).
3.	Loyalty and Integrity: Client’s Interest: Advocates must fearlessly defend their client's interests by all fair and honorable means, regardless of personal consequences (Rule 15). Prosecution Conduct: Advocates must avoid leading to the conviction of an innocent person, ensuring no material evidence is suppressed (Rule 16).
4.	Fees and Client Funds: Fee Adjustments: Advocates cannot adjust their fees against personal liabilities owed to the client unrelated to their professional role (Rule 24). Confidence Abuse: Advocates must not abuse the confidence reposed in them by clients (Rule 24).
5.	Client Accounts: Advocates must maintain accurate accounts of client money, detailing all receipts, expenses, and necessary particulars (Rule 25). Expense Management: Client expenses must not be diverted towards fees without written consent, and clients must be informed promptly about any amounts received on their behalf (Rule 27).
6.	Opposite Party Representation: Prior Advice or Action: Advocates who have advised, drawn pleadings, or acted for a party in a matter must not represent the opposite party in the same case (Rule 33).
Week 6
1.	Self-Regulated Legal Profession: Concept of Self-Regulation: The legal profession traditionally views itself as self-regulated through peer pressure, standards, and discipline, minimizing the need for external regulation. Critique of Self-Regulation: The emphasis on self-regulation is criticized for misleading stakeholders about how rules are made and enforced, suggesting a need to update the Model Rules to reflect actual regulatory practices. Consequences of Misunderstanding: Misconceptions about self-regulation can lead to inadequate external oversight and confusion among lawyers about their professional responsibilities.
2.	Impact of Self-Regulation: External Regulation: The legal profession is now heavily regulated, with courts and various external regulators playing significant roles in rule enforcement, beyond just the profession’s internal mechanisms. Historical Context: Originally, law was self-regulated through informal norms and mutual courtesy among lawyers, but formal regulation has since taken precedence. ABA Code of Professional Responsibility: Established in 1969 to provide clear norms and disciplinary mechanisms, replacing the vague Canons of Ethics.
3.	Criticisms and Proposals: External Regulators’ Role: Courts and other regulators adjust and enforce professional rules, counteracting the notion of complete self-regulation by the bar. Lawyer Involvement: While lawyer-regulators bring expertise, it doesn’t inherently bias the regulation in favor of lawyers. Objective oversight remains crucial. Public Perception: Effective disciplinary actions and external regulations are essential to maintaining public trust and demonstrating that lawyers face consequences for wrongdoing.
4.	Professional Liability in Medicine: Medical services provided by practitioners, except those offered entirely free or under a personal contract, fall within the legal definition of service, making practitioners liable under consumer protection laws. Standard of Care: Professional liability requires demonstrating a minimum degree of competence and reasonable care in service delivery. This applies to both legal and medical professionals. Negligence: Both civil and criminal standards of negligence apply equally to doctors and other professionals, judged by the knowledge and standards at the time of the incident, not the trial.
5.	Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha: Clarified that medical services fall under the consumer protection act, establishing professional liability for medical practitioners. Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab: Emphasized that professional negligence must be assessed based on the standards and knowledge available at the time of the incident.
Week 7: 
Advocates Act, 1961 
1.	Objective: Consolidate and amend laws related to legal practitioners. Establish Bar Councils and an All-India Bar.
2.	Body Corporate: Bar Councils are corporate bodies with perpetual succession, common seal, and the ability to hold property and contract.
3.	Functions of Bar Councils: University Inspection: Inspect universities per directions, perform all functions under the Act. Financial Assistance: Create funds for welfare schemes for indigent or disabled advocates, legal aid, and law libraries.
4.	Functions of Bar Council of India (BCI): Professional Conduct: Set standards of conduct and etiquette, and procedures for disciplinary committees.Legal Education: Promote and set standards in consultation with universities and State Bar Councils, and recognize law degrees for advocate enrollment. Legal Aid and Seminars: Organize legal aid, conduct seminars, and publish legal journals.
5.	Admission and Disqualification of Advocates: Eligibility: Must be an Indian citizen, 21 years or older, with a law degree, meeting conditions specified by the State Bar Council. Disqualification: Conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude or under the Untouchability Act, or dismissal from service for moral turpitude.
6.	Rule-Making Authority: High Courts: Make rules for advocate practice conditions and fee regulations. State Bar Councils: Create rules for advocate enrollment and application processes. Central Government: Make rules for Bar Council membership qualifications and supervision.
7.	Disciplinary Committees: Composed of elected and co-opted members, with powers akin to civil courts (summoning, document production, evidence).
8.	Indemnity and Power of Revision: Bar Councils and members protected from legal proceedings for acts done in good faith. BCI can review proceedings to ensure fairness and legality.
9.	Review of Orders and Penalties: Disciplinary committees can review orders within 60 days, subject to BCI approval. Unauthorized practice can lead to imprisonment up to six months.
10.	Reciprocity and Directions: BCI can direct State Bar Councils to ensure compliance and efficiency.
11.	Appeal Process: Appeals against State Bar Council disciplinary orders can be made to BCI within 60 days.
Limitations on Attorneys' Fees in Criminal Cases
1.	Reasonable Fees: Ethical rules prevent lawyers from charging unconscionable, excessive, or unreasonable fees to protect clients from exploitation. ABA Model Rules require fees to be reasonable, considering factors such as time, labor, complexity, customary fees, and results obtained.
2.	Factors for Reasonableness: Time and labor required. Novelty and difficulty of legal questions. Skill required. Impact on lawyer’s other employment. Customary fees in locality. Amount involved and results obtained. Time limitations. Nature of professional relationship. Experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer. Fixed or contingent fees.
3.	Issues with Enforcement:Rules lack explicit requirement for client consultation on fees, potentially leaving clients unaware of financial commitments. In criminal cases, the enforcement of reasonable fees can limit client access to preferred legal representation, especially for those willing to pay higher fees for skilled lawyers.
4.	In re Fordham: A seasoned lawyer charged excessive fees for an OUI case due to lack of experience in criminal defense, illustrating issues with the reasonableness of fees despite the lawyer’s reputation.
5.	Balancing Act:Lawyers must balance their duty to clients with their role as officers of the court, ensuring they do not exploit clients while maintaining professional integrity.
Week 9
Adjournment
1.	Meaning: Adjournment refers to the suspension of court proceedings to a later date, at the court's discretion. Granted for "sufficient cause" but can be refused based on past conduct. Costs may be imposed on the requesting party, which must be reasonable.
2.	Order XVII Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Limits adjournments to three per hearing. Granted for "sufficient cause" or circumstances beyond control. Pleader's engagement in another court is not a valid reason; illness might be if no time to hire another pleader. Absence of parties after adjournment may lead to case disposal as the court sees fit. Repeated adjournments can incur heavy costs. Section 35-A CPC: Deals with compensatory costs for false and vexatious claims or defenses.
3.	Impact of Delay in Legal Process: Increases judiciary burden. Long delays degrade evidence. Financial strain and extended litigation costs.
4.	Law Commission of India - 240th Report on Adjournment: Causes of Delay: Overburdened judiciary. Complex legal procedures. Lack of mediation and ADR. Dilatory tactics by parties Proposed Solutions: Efficient case management. Use of technology (digital filings, virtual hearings). Judicial reforms (resource allocation, filling vacancies)
5.	Types of Costs: General Costs: Section 35 for litigation expenses. Miscellaneous Costs: Order 20-A for specific litigation expenses. Compensatory Costs: Section 35-A for false claims.
6.	Ram Siromani Tripathi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. Issue: Adjournment for "counsel out of station" is invalid. Significance: Highlights distinction between lawyer and party responsibilities; potential for suing lawyer for professional negligence.
7.	Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) Facts: Legal battle over family property from 1952 to 2011 with numerous appeals and delays. Supreme Court Holding: Dismissed appeal with Rs. 2 lakhs cost. Emphasized strict case management, prompt discovery, cautious ex parte orders, and heavy costs to deter frivolous litigation. Principles: Careful scrutiny of documents by trial judge. Fixed schedules and adherence to timelines. Severe penalties for misleading the court and wasting judicial time.
8.	President Ram Nath Kovind’s Speech Highlights: Backlog: 3.3 crore cases in various courts. Culture of Adjournments: Must be curbed except for unavoidable circumstances.
Week 10: Right to Strike
1.	Supreme Court Stance: No Right to Strike: Lawyers cannot go on strike or abstain from judicial work. Duties: Ensure smooth court proceedings and protect clients' interests.
2.	Alternative Protest Methods: Press statements. TV interviews. Peaceful marches outside court premises. Wearing armbands. Banners or placards. Dharnas or relay fasts
3.	Professional Misconduct: Abstaining from court duties due to a strike is a breach of professional duty, contract, and trust. No fundamental right under Articles 19 or 21 of the Constitution allows lawyers to strike. Litigants have a right to a speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, 1980).
4.	Common Cause vs Union of India (2005): Unprofessional to strike or boycott court. Bar associations should not permit strike meetings. Courts must continue hearings undeterred by boycotts. Lawyers need not follow any strike call from their association or Bar Council. Lawyers appearing in court despite a strike call should not face punishment. Peaceful protests in court (armbands, banners) are allowed if non-disruptive. Bar Association leaders should ensure strikes comply with these principles.
5.	Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003): Lawyers should only strike in rare cases affecting Bar or judiciary integrity. Protests should be non-disruptive. Lawyers must attend court if they have a client's case, even during strikes. Bar associations cannot punish lawyers working during a strike. Strike meetings only for serious issues.
6.	Law Commission of India - Advocates Act (Report 266): Supreme Court consistently deems lawyer strikes illegal. Courts should proceed with cases despite lawyer strikes. The right to speedy justice (Article 21) should not be impeded by lawyer strikes.Lawyers striking should bear the pecuniary loss incurred by their clients.
Week 11
1.	Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.C. Dabholkar: Facts: Lawyers were charged with professional misconduct under Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. They engaged in aggressive solicitation of clients at court entrances, leading to physical altercations and unprofessional behavior. Disciplinary Committee Ruling: To be disciplined, the advocate must have: Solicited work, From a specific person, Regarding a particular case. Without these three elements, the advocate's conduct was not deemed professional misconduct.
2.	Why Lawyers Should Be Allowed to Advertise: 
3.	Improves Access to Legal Services: Advertising makes legal services more accessible to lower and middle-income clients. It can lead to lower prices and more standardized services.
4.	Standardizable vs. Individualized Services: Standardizable Services: Routine legal matters like uncontested divorces and simple wills can benefit from advertising, as these services can be delivered through a routinized system. Individualized Services: Complex cases require personalized attention and are less impacted by advertising.
5.	Information Dissemination: Advertising provides consumers with valuable information, helping them make informed decisions about legal services. It can enhance public knowledge about legal service providers beyond personal reputation.
6.	Market Segmentation: Different client needs and preferences can be addressed through targeted advertising. Firms offering a mix of services or standard services can attract clients with smaller legal issues.
7.	Improving Service Quality: Advertising can improve the quality of legal services by familiarizing consumers with firm names and reputations.
Counterarguments Against Advertising:
1.	Professional Integrity Concerns: Opponents fear advertising could degrade the profession's integrity and public respect. Concerns include the portrayal of legal services as a business rather than a profession.
2.	Supporters' Counterpoints: Advertising does not diminish public esteem and can enhance it by providing accurate information. Price competition fostered by advertising can lower costs without reducing quality.
3.	Examples of Bad Lawyer Advertising: Highlighted through YouTube examples (e.g., "PAY ME NOW," "CALL FLINT," "PAIN INTO RAIN," "JAMIE CASINO").
Supreme Court Judgments: Repeatedly declare lawyer strikes illegal, emphasizing the duty to provide speedy justice (Article 21). Law Commission Report: Advocates for stopping lawyer strikes to ensure citizens' right to speedy justice.
Week 12 Bar-Bench Relations
1.	Definition: Cordial relationship between Advocates and Judges. Functions: Judiciary administers justice; Bar and Bench roles are supplementary and complementary. Importance: Mutual respect is crucial for harmony and effective justice administration.
2.	P.D. Gupta v. Ram Murti & Others: Observation: Lawyers owe a duty of fairness to clients, the court, and the opposite party. Significance: Advocates and judges must maintain a pure and clean stream of justice. Role of Lawyers: Inform court of law and facts, aid in justice, maintain strong advocacy.
3.	Mahant Hakumat Rai v. Emperor (Lahore): Observation: Advocates must assert their rights fearlessly and independently. Significance: Advocates justified in protesting irregular procedures, insist on proper hearings, objecting to disruptive interruptions.
4.	Advocate's Role: Judge’s Expectations: Respect for Judges: Avoid criticizing judges; handle improper verdicts via appeal. Assistance in Proceedings: Present law clearly, avoid pressuring judges for favorable orders. Handling Misconduct: Report judge's improper behavior to Bar Association, not confrontationally.
5.	Judge's Role: Advocate’s Expectations Respect for Advocates: Hear proceedings without bias, allow full presentation of cases. Impartiality: No favoritism, reasonable adjournments to prevent case backlogs. Timely Justice: Dispose of cases promptly to avoid justice delays.
6.	Duties of the Bar: Respect for Court: Maintain respectful attitude to uphold the court's importance. Punctuality: Be timely for court appearances; notify in case of tardiness or absence. Fairness: Advocate for client and court, maintain clean justice administration. Advocacy Skills: Present cases effectively, minimize judge interruptions.
7.	Duties of the Bench: Judicial Independence: Uphold independence, promote public confidence in judiciary integrity. Compliance with Law: Respect and comply with laws, interpret statutes fairly. Behavior: Avoid harsh comments, maintain personal and intellectual integrity, stay updated with legal developments.
8.	Contemporary Issues: Bar-Bench Relationship: Ongoing debate on legal talent recruitment, judicial independence, and case handling. Diversity and Inclusion: Ensure judiciary reflects population diversity for fairness and equal justice.
9.	Senior Counsels in India: Section 16, Advocates Act: Two classes - Senior Advocates and other Advocates. Designation: Senior advocates designated by SC or HC based on ability, standing, or special knowledge.
10.	Responsibilities and Expectations of Senior Counsels: Excel in courtroom advocacy. Guide and nurture younger lawyers. Uphold professional conduct and integrity.
11.	Judiciary's Handling of Sexual Harassment Cases: Crisis: Growing challenges in handling allegations, leading to public trust issues. Challenges: Lack of specialized training, procedural obstacles.
12.	BCI v. A.K. Balaji: Ruling: Foreign law firms/lawyers can't practice in India, except for temporary advisory roles. Reciprocity: BCI's response to UK's allowance for Indian lawyers.
Week 13
1.	R.K. Anand vs. Registrar: Facts: R.K. Anand's conviction was justified based on sting recordings. Legal Findings: No specific proof required for sting recordings. Validity of sting recordings upheld by the court. NDTV should have been considered a contemnor, indicating potential bias and influence in proceedings.
2.	An Advocate vs. Bar Council of India (1989): Remitted case to Bar Council of India for appropriate handling. Barred complainant from amending the complaint or adding allegations. Evidence already recorded to be part of the record for fresh hearing. Directed anonymity for the appellant in legal journals due to ongoing sub judice status.
3.	Salil Dutta vs. T.M. and M.C. Pvt. Ltd. (1993) Facts: Ejectment suit against respondent company. Findings: Advocate as an agent of the client, acts within authority considered acts of the client. Court may set aside decrees due to advocate's negligence if the client is innocent. Distinguished from Rafiq precedent due to ongoing suit, involvement of educated businessmen, and alleged delaying tactics.
4.	State of Maharashtra vs. Budhikota Subbarao (1993): Facts: Charges under Official Secrets Act and Atomic Energy Act against an ex-Naval Captain. Legal Issues: Violations involving communication with foreign agents and handling classified documents. Requirement of sanction under Section 197 of CrPC for prosecuting public servants. Outcome: Lack of required sanction led to discharge of the accused. Emphasized mandatory nature of protections under Section 197.
5.	C. Ravichandran Iyer vs. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee (1995): Principles: Judicial independence is fundamental to democracy and the rule of law. Judges must maintain high standards of conduct to ensure public trust. Bar plays a crucial role in upholding judicial integrity. Actions against judges should be constitutional and not coercive.
6.	T.C. Mathai vs. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (1999): Facts: Power of attorney holder sought to represent a couple in court. Findings: Right to representation includes both advocates and court-permitted individuals. Power of attorney does not automatically confer the right to represent in court. Court’s discretion to allow non-advocates to represent must ensure integrity of the judicial process. Personal appearance of the accused generally required by CrPC, power of attorney holders cannot substitute this.
7.	Contemporary Issues: Judicial Diversity: Importance of judiciary reflecting population diversity for fairness. Recruitment of Legal Talent: Debate on enhancing the recruitment process for judicial independence and efficiency.