The Allahabad High Court has rejected four writ petitions filed by an advocate claiming recovery of ₹4.8 crore as pending professional fees from the Uttar Pradesh government for his services as special counsel in various appeals.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary noted at the outset that the State government’s conduct in compelling the advocate to approach the Court for payment of fees was regrettable. The Court emphasised that payment of professional fees ought to be a privileged and private matter between an advocate and a client, and such disputes should not be brought before the Court but resolved through mediation or conciliation.
The Bench observed that if a counsel drags a client to court over fee recovery, it undermines the trust and faith essential to the advocate-client relationship, which forms the bedrock of the justice delivery system. It stated that in such litigation, while a party may win, the trust and faith between the parties invariably suffer, which is detrimental to the dispensation of justice.
The advocate had contended that he had represented the State government for 16 years and was authorised to receive notices and appear in all special appeals involving the Basic Education Department. He relied on a 2011 government order that prescribed a fee range of ₹15,000 to ₹5 lakh per case for special counsel appointed by the government. Claiming entitlement to the maximum fee of ₹5 lakh per case for approximately 96 matters, he sought ₹4.8 crore in total.
The State government opposed the maintainability of the petitions, arguing that the advocate was engaged as a panel lawyer in 2008 and merely authorised to receive notices for special appeals filed against the Basic Shiksha Parishad in 2009. It stated that he was removed from the panel in 2011 and that the 2011 order on fees applied only to special counsel engaged outside the panel. The government further submitted that the fee for panel advocates was increased from ₹1,800 to ₹3,500 only in 2013, and thus the advocate was entitled to only ₹1,800 per case, not ₹5 lakh.
The Court found that the advocate had failed to produce any documents showing that he had submitted his bills to the government for payment. It also noted the absence of any admission or acknowledgment of dues by the government regarding the claimed amount.
Considering the submissions, the Court held that a writ petition filed by an advocate for recovery of professional fees is not maintainable when the engagement is contractual in nature and the monetary claim is disputed, unless it involves an undisputed statutory liability or an admitted obligation. The Bench observed that the present case involved a complex web of disputed facts concerning the nature of engagement, applicability of the 2011 order, and the quantum of fees due, which could not be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court further examined the 2011 government order and clarified that it merely provided a guideline that the fee for a special counsel would be in the range of ₹15,000 to ₹5 lakh per case. It noted that a facial reading of the order did not fix the maximum fee of ₹5 lakh in all cases allotted to a counsel, nor did it create an entitlement to that amount in every matter.
Since the government had not agreed to the fee of ₹5 lakh claimed by the advocate, a dispute existed between the parties on both the applicability of the order and the amount due. The Court concluded that such factual disputes could not be resolved in writ proceedings and must be left to a civil court or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
The Bench reiterated that advocates must exercise restraint in approaching courts for fee recovery from clients, as such actions risk eroding the foundational trust necessary for effective legal representation. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.