Lawyer Discharged with Warning After Admitting Professional Misconduct

The Supreme Court today discharged an Attorney-at-Law subject to a formal warning after he admitted to professional misconduct, cautioning him to exercise greater diligence in the future to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession and the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court ruled that an Attorney-at-Law who pleaded guilty to an act of professional misconduct would be discharged subject to a formal warning, determining that the circumstances did not warrant suspension or removal from practice.

The charges arose from proceedings before the Kaduwela District Court, where the Attorney-at-Law had filed a proxy on behalf of the first and second defendants in a case in which the plaintiff was challenging the validity of a Deed of Transfer attested by the same lawyer. This action was found to be in breach of Supreme Court Rule 12, which expressly prohibits an Attorney-at-Law from accepting professional work in any matter where he knows, or has reason to believe, that he may be required to give evidence as a witness.

The court noted that the respondent had acted in a dual capacity—as legal counsel and as a potential witness—thereby violating established professional ethics. When the matter was taken up, counsel for the respondent informed court that the Attorney-at-Law wished to withdraw his earlier plea of not guilty and instead plead guilty to the charges.

After considering submissions, a three-judge bench comprising Justice Shiran Gooneratne, Justice K. Priyantha Fernando and Justice Sampath Wijeratne held that while the misconduct was established, it did not justify suspension from practice or removal from the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law. Accordingly, the respondent was discharged subject to a formal warning.

The Supreme Court further directed the Registrar to make the relevant entry in the Roll of Attorneys-at-Law, stating that such a record would serve both as a deterrent to the respondent and as a reminder to the wider legal profession of the importance of strict adherence to ethical standards.

In delivering observations, Justice Shiran Gooneratne noted that the Attorney-at-Law had candidly admitted his lapse, withdrawn his initial plea of not guilty and tendered an unreserved apology to court—conduct which demonstrated remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

The proceedings followed a complaint made by the plaintiff in the Kaduwela District Court case to the Chief Justice, after which the Supreme Court issued a Rule calling upon the respondent to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978.

Kuvera De Zoysa, PC, with Sanjana De Zoysa appeared for the respondent, while Viveka Siriwardena, ASG, with Sabrina Ahmed, SSC appeared for the Attorney General. Harith De Mel appeared for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka.