By Adv. Vinayak D. Porob, Mapusa-Goa
The recent statement made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister that, in certain property and house disputes, the fees charged by lawyers sometimes exceed the value of the property itself, has understandably caused concern within the legal fraternity. Such a broad observation from a constitutional functionary has the potential to create a negative perception of advocates in the minds of the public. While every citizen has the right to express an opinion, those occupying high public office must exercise greater restraint, particularly when commenting on a profession that constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of the justice delivery system.
Advocates are not merely professionals who charge fees. They are officers of the court and indispensable participants in the administration of justice. Every case that reaches a courtroom represents hours, and often days, of meticulous preparation. Lawyers study facts, analyse statutes and judicial precedents, draft pleadings, prepare documents, examine witnesses, conduct legal research, attend repeated hearings, and present arguments with dedication and skill. The fee charged by an advocate is not for a few minutes of court appearance, but for years of education, professional expertise, intellectual labour, ethical responsibility, and continuous commitment to protecting clients’ rights.
What is often overlooked in public discourse is the immense amount of pro bono work undertaken by advocates. Across Goa and the country, lawyers regularly represent indigent litigants, victims of injustice, senior citizens, women, children, and financially distressed persons either free of cost or for a nominal fee. Many advocates quietly assist deserving litigants without seeking recognition or publicity. Unfortunately, these contributions seldom receive appreciation from those quick to criticise the legal profession.
Undoubtedly, there may be isolated instances where legal fees appear excessive. However, such exceptions cannot become the basis for condemning an entire profession. Every profession has a few individuals whose conduct may invite criticism, but fairness demands that an entire community not be judged by isolated cases. If such sweeping generalisations are accepted, no profession would remain beyond criticism. Responsible public discourse requires balance, nuance, and recognition of the invaluable service rendered by the overwhelming majority of advocates.
Equally disturbing is the silence that has followed the Hon’ble Chief Minister’s remarks. One would ordinarily expect Bar Associations, advocates’ forums, and other professional organisations to defend the dignity of the legal profession whenever public statements have the potential to undermine public confidence in advocates. These institutions are not merely social organisations; they exist to safeguard the independence, honour, and credibility of the Bar. Their foremost obligation is to protect the interests and dignity of the legal profession without fear or favour.
The continued silence has inevitably given rise to a perception among many members of the legal fraternity that some professional forums may be reluctant to publicly disagree with the government. Different reasons may be suggested for such reluctance, including perceived political proximity, institutional caution, or concern that taking a public stand against those in power could adversely affect personal or professional relationships. Whether any of these perceptions are justified is for the organisations concerned to clarify. However, the very existence of such perceptions is unfortunate, as it has the potential to erode confidence in the independence of bodies expected to speak fearlessly on behalf of advocates.
Leadership of a professional body demands independence and courage. Once elected, office-bearers owe their allegiance not to any political party, government, or individual, but to the profession they represent. Their duty is to defend the dignity of advocates irrespective of who makes the impugned statement. Condemning an unfair remark against the legal profession is not an act of political opposition; it is the discharge of a professional obligation.
Professional organisations derive their credibility from their independence. If they choose silence whenever the dignity of the legal profession is questioned, they risk creating an impression that political considerations have overshadowed their institutional responsibility. Whether such an impression is justified or not, it is in the interest of every professional body to dispel such perceptions by acting fearlessly, impartially, and consistently whenever the honour of the profession is at stake.
Criticising an inappropriate statement should never be misunderstood as opposing a government or a political party. In a healthy democracy, constructive criticism is not an act of disloyalty; it is an expression of institutional independence and democratic maturity. Every constitutional authority is accountable to public scrutiny, and every professional body has an equal responsibility to respond whenever the dignity of its members is unfairly questioned. Silence should never become a substitute for principle.
The legal profession has always stood at the forefront of defending constitutional values, civil liberties, and the rule of law. Throughout India’s history, advocates have fearlessly challenged arbitrary actions, defended the rights of ordinary citizens, and ensured that justice prevails over power. It would therefore be unfortunate if organisations created to represent advocates hesitate to defend the honour of the profession when it is publicly criticised.
The independence of the Bar is not a privilege enjoyed by lawyers; it is an essential safeguard for every citizen who seeks justice. A Bar perceived to be influenced by political considerations ultimately weakens public confidence in the justice delivery system. Professional organisations must therefore remain visibly independent, impartial, and fearless in discharging their responsibilities.
The legal profession deserves respect not because lawyers seek special treatment, but because justice cannot be administered without them. Judges, advocates, litigants, prosecutors, and investigators together constitute the machinery through which the rule of law functions. Weakening public confidence in any one of these institutions ultimately weakens the justice system itself.
If advocates themselves, and the organisations established to represent them, do not defend the dignity of their profession without fear or favour, it is unrealistic to expect others to do so. Respectfully disagreeing with an unfair statement is not an act of politics; it is an act of professional responsibility. The Bar has historically been the fearless voice of justice, and it must continue to remain so. The independence of the legal profession must always stand above politics, personal relationships, and individual interests. Only then can it continue to command the respect, confidence, and trust that society rightfully expects from one of the noblest professions.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely the personal opinion of the author and are intended as fair comment on a matter of public interest.
