Anjali Waghmare: Breach of professional ethics

It is elementary knowledge that an advocate cannot represent opposing parties in a court case. As an advocate handling a matter of national importance, Anjali Waghmare should have displayed a high degree of propriety and professional ethics. You cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds

M. Gautham Machaiah
Bangalore:

Even a novice in law is aware that representing opposite parties in a court case amounts to conflict of interest. But a seasoned advocate like Anjali Waghmare has done the unthinkable by accepting the brief of a witness and an accused in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case.

Waghmare who was appointed by the court to defend Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving accused has rightly been removed by the judge for professional misconduct.

It is beyond one’s comprehension how Waghmare would have argued the case of both, a witness and the accused, who essentially are opposing parties? Would she have defended the witness or the accused? On the one hand, she would be handling the prosecution’s case, while simultaneously representing the defendant.

Have we ever heard of an advocate representing both the accused and the victim in a murder case? Will an advocate appear on behalf of both the police and the thief?

As an advocate in a case of national importance, Waghmare should have displayed a high degree of propriety and professional ethics. Her misconduct besides delaying the case, will also give critics an opportunity to question the credibility of the trial.

After all, you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

(Pic sourced from: www.asianews.com)

COMMENTS

(This article was also posted on MSN. Some of the responses received are reproduced below)

Gautham, you have made a very valid point. It is very strange that a fact so obvious was over looked while appointing Waghmare as the counsel for defence. Moreover, looking at the hype created by the media, I feel that a trial of this nature should be kept completely 'in camera' and the media should not be allowed to waste reams of paper and ink in writing articles about the minutest things they happened to catch a glimpse of at the trial. It only sensationalises a trial of this degree of importance.
-Priyam, Mumbai

Possibly it was her way of getting out of the quagmire of the controversy generated by the case and pressure from various people and organisations regarding representing Kasab. By this breach of ethics (likely to be deliberate) she has created a situation for being withdrawn officially by law than on her own to let the world know that she was always willing to fight Kasab's case thereby killing two birds with one stone, ie., to appease all those who were opposing her and yet make a respectable withdrawal (though unprofessional) in the eyes of common people, media and society.
-Anil Tewari, Bellary

I agree with the article. A lawyer can not defend both the witness and the accused.
-Shailendra Sharma, Dehradun

Anjali made a technical error, a serious one at that. Kasab is an international criminal and she could not comprehend how to deal with the situation. Her mistake has delayed the trial by another month.
-Raoojee, Secunderabad

I think nothing has gone wrong at this initial stage of trial. It would have been more disastrous if this conflict of interest had come to light at a later stage.
-Dr.A.K.Tewari, Allahabad

It cannot be an oversight but a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the law for financial gain. If such experienced lawyers commit these so-called mistakes, then they should also be appropriately punished so that these deliberate mistakes are not committed by others.
-Surinder Pal Kanaujia, Faridabad

Did anyone of us know of Anjali Waghmare a few days ago? Did we know of Shilpa Shetty before the reality show? Well, they both played their publicity cards well and are now reaping the benefits of it.
It is people like us who spent our precious time watching them on TV and reading about them in newspapers. Do we honestly think that Anjali never knew what she was getting into? Well, a few positive things have occurred because of this episode. 1. Anjali is famous 2. She has saved her skin 3. People who wanted to delay the case have succeeded 4. Shiv Sena has scored a few brownie points 5. Media has got something to chew, bisect and dissect.
We have to pity the police who have to provide security to Ajmal. As someone pointed out if he were caught in the Gulf, he would have been hanged or shot dead by now. India is trying her best to be magnanimous.
-Lisa, Chennai

I strongly believe that the court must have found her incompetent to pursue the case and could not say that openly. It thus allowed her a graceful exit. She got the assignment on a first-come-first-served basis from a panel of lawyers. Anjali is also happy that she has been removed because she did not express any remorse or indignation at the court's decision.
-Bobby Sakariah, Jeddah

All these games are played by our stupid politicians. There is sufficient proof of Kasab’s involvement in the attack. Why can the court not straight away hang him? It is in the interest of the nation. I am scared that politicians are at work again. Only God can help India...
-Rajeeb Swain, Bhubaneswar

I am an Attorney and I completely agree with Gautham. This only shows the level of greed and corruption prevailing in the Indian Bar. This is MOST UNFORTUNATE for the country which is otherwise making good global progress. India can afford to have fewer Wagmares for sure!
-Tim Chollet, Calcutta

Why is no punishment imposed on the advocate like suspending or barring from practicing for her professional misconduct? Or is it not a professional misconduct? Will any court take up this issue suo moto?
-N Srinivasan, Chennai

I do not think any responsible advocate would ever do this. Is it possible that she is threatened by some parties/terror groups to quit from handling the matter, knowing that she is well experienced in handling such matters?
-R Marwah, Mumbai