From PNI News Desk
Every person who approaches a lawyer does so from a position of vulnerability. They seek protection of their rights, liberty, property or family, and place their trust in the person wearing the black coat. That trust rests on the assumption that the advocate has earned the right to practise through genuine educational qualifications. When this assumption proves false, the client becomes the primary victim.
The Chairperson of the Bar Council of India has publicly stated that a significant proportion of those practising as advocates — estimated by him at 35 to 40 per cent — may be operating with fake or unverified degrees. This assessment was made after large numbers of advocates failed to submit verification forms when the process was initiated. In several states, FIRs have been registered and names have been removed from the rolls after degrees were found to be forged. Cases have also come to light in Kerala in which advocates were found to have enrolled on the strength of fabricated certificates. These developments point to a serious risk for ordinary litigants who depend on the legal profession.
The most fundamental right of a litigant is the right to competent legal representation. When a person who lacks genuine qualifications appears as counsel, that right is placed in jeopardy. Clients may receive advice based on incomplete knowledge of law or procedure. Pleadings may be defective and deadlines may be missed. In criminal cases the consequence can be loss of liberty; in civil, matrimonial or property disputes the damage can be permanent. Fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be fully secured when a party is represented by someone whose eligibility to practise is itself in question.
Clients are rarely in a position to verify an advocate’s credentials on their own. Most lack the means to check an enrolment number or confirm a degree with a university. They rely on visible signs of legitimacy — the black coat, the enrolment details, and the name board outside the office. In this context, a practice that risks misleading clients has been observed: the display of postgraduate degrees such as LL.M, Ph.D or M.Phil, or degrees from reputed institutions, that the advocate does not hold. When such titles appear on name boards, visiting cards or letterheads, ordinary citizens may form the impression that they are engaging a highly qualified professional. The professional relationship then begins on incomplete information.
Once fees are paid and documents are handed over, the client is already exposed to risk. If the advocate is later found to lack genuine qualifications and is removed from the rolls, the litigant may be left with a compromised case, possible limitation difficulties, and limited practical remedy. Recovering fees or seeking damages is often difficult. The original problem — being induced to engage a person whose qualifications were not genuine — rarely receives adequate redress.
The display of academic titles that an advocate does not possess is not a minor matter. It can exploit the client’s lack of information and turn the name board into a source of misunderstanding. Clients are entitled to accurate information about the qualifications of the person they trust with their most important affairs. When those qualifications are misrepresented, the client’s right to make an informed choice is undermined.
The response must centre on protecting litigants. A thorough and continuous scrutiny of advocates on the rolls of the Bar Council of Kerala is necessary — not as a routine administrative exercise, but as a safeguard for the public. Verification should cover the full educational record: the qualifying degree required for entry into the law course, the law degree itself, the university and college concerned, and the authenticity of any postgraduate degrees that are claimed. Where eligibility norms have been violated or forged certificates have been used, removal from the roll and further action, where warranted, should follow.
Attention must also be paid to the public face of practice. Where name boards, letterheads or online profiles display academic titles that the advocate does not hold, the matter should be treated as professional misconduct. Such displays can mislead clients and damage public confidence in the profession. Proportionate disciplinary action is required to discourage the practice.
Technology can strengthen protection for litigants. A national digital registry of advocates, linked to verified university records and accessible to the public, would allow any person to confirm credentials before engagement. Until such a system is fully in place, the Bar Council of Kerala should treat verification as an ongoing responsibility. Advocates who do not cooperate should not be permitted to appear until their status is clarified.
The legal profession exists to serve the public. Its authority depends on the trust of those who seek its help. When questions arise about the genuineness of degrees or about the accuracy of qualifications displayed to the public, that trust is placed under strain — and the litigant bears the cost. Protecting clients requires consistent and transparent examination of educational credentials and of the claims made on the boards that face the public.
Only then can ordinary citizens approach a lawyer with reasonable assurance that the person offering to protect their rights is genuinely qualified to do so. Addressing the problem of bogus degrees is not merely a matter of professional discipline; it is an essential measure for the protection of litigants seeking justice.
