New Delhi, Dec. 14: The Supreme Court has taken a dim view of a lawyer who tried to swindle a part of his client’s property, saying “the legal profession is not business or trade” and such acts “affected the faith of the people in the rule of law”.

But the court has reduced a one-year practice bar imposed on Dhanraj Singh Choudhary to three months after his plea that he was suffering from glaucoma.

The Jabalpur lawyer had inserted a clause in a sale deed saying a portion of the property had been sold off to him when it actually belonged to the client for whom the document had been drawn up.

“The legal profession is a noble profession. A person practising law has to practise in the spirit of honesty and not in the spirit of mischief-making or money-getting. An advocate’s attitude towards, and dealings with, his client has to be scrupulously honest and fair,” Justices R.M. Lodha and H.L. Gokhale said in their ruling last week.

“Any compromise with the law’s nobility as a profession is bound to affect the faith of the people in the rule of law and, therefore, unprofessional conduct by an advocate has to be viewed seriously,” the judges added.

The clause fraudulently inserted suggested Choudhary owned a shop within the property that Sardar Desh Singh Bakna and son Jitender were in the process of selling off.

The Baknas had already entered into an agreement to sell the property for Rs 2 lakh but were in the middle of a legal battle with one Nathulal Vishwakarma, who ran a hotel from the 200sqft shop.

Choudhary claimed he owned the shop and, on the basis of the spurious clause in the sale deed, argued it had already been transferred in his name. The lawyer claimed Vishwakarma was his tenant.

But Vishwakarma complained to the Madhya Pradesh Bar Council, which held the lawyer guilty of professional misconduct and reprimanded him in 2002 after considering rival submissions.

Choudhary then approached the Bar Council of India, which too upheld the indictment and suspended him from practice for a year.

In the apex court, the lawyer claimed he had attested the sale deed without reading it. The judges doubted the contention. “Can it be believed? We think not. It was not only undesirable but highly unethical on the part of the advocate to have created a title, or at least having attempted to create, a title for himself in respect of property for which litigation was pending in the court and he was representing one of the parties.”

The professional misconduct was quite grave and serious, the court said.

Choudhary’s lawyer argued that the lawyer had not benefited from the property and was suffering from glaucoma. He argued the practice bar was harsh and urged the court to reduce its duration.

The court rejected a compromise between the lawyer and the complainant, Vishwakarma, saying it wouldn’t mitigate or wipe out the misconduct. But his suspension was reduced to three months from November 8, the day of the judgment.