The Kerala High Court has held that an advocate cannot stall or interfere with execution proceedings to recover professional fees from a former client. Dismissing a writ petition filed by two advocates, the Court emphasised that fee disputes must be pursued through proper legal remedies and not by obstructing the client’s case.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from execution proceedings linked to a land acquisition reference. The petitioners advocates who had previously represented the decree-holders claimed that they were entitled to professional fees. After the claimants engaged new lawyers for the execution petition, the petitioners challenged the change of counsel and sought to stall the proceedings until their fee claim was resolved.
The petitioners alleged that the new advocates had acted improperly by filing fresh vakalath without their consent. They also moved various forums, including the Bar Council and the District Court, and requested that execution proceedings be halted pending a decision on their grievance.
The respondents countered that the claimants had lost confidence in the petitioners and had a right to change counsel. They further submitted that fee disputes cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and must be pursued in a civil court. The claimants also asserted that substantial amounts had already been paid to the first petitioner and that further demands were excessive.
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Stays Consumer Proceedings Against Actor Salman Khan Over Pan Masala Advertisement Row
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that an advocate is free to recover unpaid fees through appropriate legal proceedings but has no right to obstruct the client’s case or retain control over litigation. The Court remarked:
“An Advocate cannot demand that he be permanently engaged in a litigation by the litigant till its culmination… An Advocate has no lien over the case bundles or the proceedings.”
The Court further noted that a client has the right to change counsel and that professional ethics require advocates to return case records when engagement is terminated. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that withholding files or stalling proceedings for unpaid fees is impermissible.
Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioners. The amount is to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within six weeks.
The Court made it clear that fee disputes must be addressed through proper legal channels and cannot justify obstructing execution proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: XXX & YYY Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.28533 of 2025
Judge: Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decision Date: 8 April 2026
