Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973): ----Ss. 41 & 44---Professional misconduct---Jurisdiction of Bar Council---Scope---Respondent advocate, under the guise of legal practice, executed an agreement concerning landed property and later refused to return the complainant's funds---Complainant alleged intimidation and unauthorized sale of property by the respondent, constituting misconduct unbecoming of an advocate---Respondent contended that no lawyer-client relationship existed, thus negating professional misconduct and Bar Council jurisdiction---Held, that under S.41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, the Disciplinary Committee and Tribunal were empowered to investigate not only professional misconduct but also other conduct reflecting on an advocate’s professional integrity---Any act committed under the pretense of advocacy that undermines trust reposed in an advocate amounts to misconduct, even in the absence of a direct client-counsel relationship---Reliance placed on In re Barrister/Advocate AIR 1934 Lahore 251(G). (b) Professional misconduct---Withdrawal of complaint---Effect: ----Whether a complaint of professional misconduct can be withdrawn by the complainant---Held, that withdrawal of a complaint does not absolve an advocate of misconduct nor nullify disciplinary proceedings---Even where parties settle the dispute and money is returned, the stigma of misconduct persists and must be addressed by the Tribunal---Withdrawal may be considered a mitigating factor when determining the quantum of punishment but does not exonerate the respondent---Precedents followed: Muhammad Amin v. M. Asghar Kokar Advocate 1992 CLC 1556, Irshad Khan v. Gohar Rahman Khatak Advocate 2000 MLD 1264, Wajid v. Zafar Khalid Advocate 2000 MLD 1275, Ali Rehman v. Zaheer ud Din Baber Advocate 2001 MLD 895, Mst. Surraya Begum v. M. Aslam Advocate 2002 CLC 1931. (c) Disciplinary proceedings---Final adjudication and penalty: ----Ex parte proceedings initiated due to the respondent’s absence before the Disciplinary Committee---Complainant later sought withdrawal of the complaint, citing reconciliation and restitution of funds by the respondent---Tribunal, while acknowledging the settlement, held the respondent guilty of professional misconduct---Taking a lenient view in light of the compromise, the Tribunal reprimanded the respondent and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000 as costs of proceedings, payable to the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council within 30 days---Failure to pay would result in recovery through execution by the District and Sessions Judge, Buner, under S.44(3)(B) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. ----Disposition: Complaint for professional misconduct not withdrawn; respondent found guilty but reprimanded with costs imposed.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.