B. Sunitha v State of Telangana

• The advocate had acted for a widow in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal case. After she had paid Rs 10 lakh in fees, he made her sign a further cheque for Rs 3 lakh and claimed his fee as 16% of the compensation.
• When the cheque bounced he filed a complaint under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; the High Court refused to quash it.

1. Whether a fee claimed as a percentage of the decretal amount can be enforced.

• A claim for fees based on a percentage of the decretal amount is unethical and against Rule 20 of the BCI Rules.
• If the client disputes the fee, the advocate must independently prove the contract; a cheque alone does not settle liability. The relationship is fiduciary (citing V.C. Rangadurai), and a claim to a share in the subject matter is misconduct (citing In the matter of Mr. G, a Senior Advocate (1955) 1 SCR 490).
• The complaint was quashed as an abuse of process, and the question of misconduct was left to the appropriate forum. The Court refused to let him withdraw the complaint to escape that.
• The Court urged legislative change for effective regulation of professional ethics and fees, citing the Law Commission's 131st and 266th Reports.

A contingency or percentage fee is professional misconduct; the burden is on the advocate to show a fee was fair and freely agreed.