The Seven Lamps of Advocacy

Courage

The willingness to present the client's case fully, whoever is displeased by it: the judge, the government, the newspapers, or the advocate's own community.

This is not bravado, and the distinction is examinable. Courage is not rudeness to the court. Rule 1 of the Bar Council rules requires an advocate to conduct himself with dignity and self-respect and says he shall not be servile, and in the same breath says that where there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer it is his right and duty to submit the grievance to the proper authorities. Both halves are in one rule, and the balance between them is what courage means professionally.

Where courage tips into contempt is Module IV. In Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 2275, an advocate's conduct towards a court was held contumacious and the Court held that an apology is not a weapon of defence to purge a guilty conscience and must be sincere and offered at the earliest opportunity.

Industry

Hard work, and specifically preparation. Reading the brief, reading the papers behind the brief, finding the law rather than remembering it, and being ready before the hearing rather than during it.

This is the lamp most closely tied to competence, and it is the one whose absence is most often invisible to the client. It is also the lamp behind the rule that an advocate shall not, after accepting a brief, be absent, and behind the reasoning in N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant S. Shivde, AIR 2001 SC 2028, where seeking adjournments to protract the cross-examination of a witness who was present was held capable of amounting to professional misconduct.

Wit

The lamp students find strangest, because in modern English "wit" suggests jokes.

Parry did not mean jokes. He meant quickness of mind: the ability to see the point at once, to answer a question from the Bench without losing the thread, to notice the flaw in the other side's argument while it is being made. It also carries the older sense of good sense, as in the phrase "to keep one's wits".

A secondary and genuine sense is relief. A courtroom is a tense place, and an advocate who can lighten a moment without disrespect to the court makes the work possible. But the line is the same as with courage: humour at the expense of the court, or of a witness, is not wit but a breach of rules 1 and 2.

Eloquence

The power to be understood and to persuade.

The examinable point is that eloquence is not ornament. Parry's own contrast is between eloquence and fluency: a fluent speaker produces words easily, an eloquent one produces the right words. In court the test is simple: at the end of the sentence, does the judge know what is being asked and why the law allows it.

Eloquence in writing matters as much as in speech, and more today than in 1923, because most of what an advocate produces is written: the plaint, the written statement, the affidavit, the synopsis, the written submission.

Judgment

The ability to decide what to do: which point to take and which to drop, whether to cross-examine at all, whether to advise a settlement, whether the case should be filed.

This is the lamp that distinguishes an experienced advocate from a well-prepared beginner, because it cannot be got from books. It is also the lamp that most directly serves the client, since the commonest professional failure is not losing an argument but taking a bad point at the cost of a good one.

Judgment includes judgment about oneself: knowing when a matter is beyond one's competence and saying so. That connects to rule 11 and its limits, which Module II takes up.

Fellowship

The relationship among advocates, who are opponents in a case and colleagues in a profession.

Fellowship is what makes it possible for two advocates to fight a case hard in the morning and consent to an adjournment for each other in the afternoon. It is the quality behind rules 34 and 35 on the duty to the opponent, and behind the whole of the duty to colleagues in rules 36 to 39.

Its institutional expression is the Bar Association and the Bar Council, and its practical expression is the convention that an advocate does not take a technical advantage of an opponent's mistake where no client's interest requires it.

The eighth lamp: tact

Later writers add an eighth, tact: dealing with people, whether the judge, the opponent, the witness or the client, in a way that gets the work done without needless friction.

The example usually given is cross-examination. A witness handled roughly closes up; a witness handled with tact answers. Tact is therefore not softness but effectiveness.

Say in an answer that this is an addition. MU's syllabus prints seven and names them. An answer that lists eight without saying which is Parry's and which is later is inaccurate.

A worked example

Aditya, two years at the Bar, is defending a tenant in an eviction suit. Four things happen on one day.

He has found a Supreme Court judgment that is against his client and that the other side has missed. Honesty requires him to bring it to the court's attention and then to argue why it is distinguishable. Concealing it would be a breach of the duty to the court, and if it were later discovered his case and his standing would both be gone. Judgment tells him how to present it: not apologetically, but with the distinction ready.

The judge makes a remark suggesting the tenant is a habitual defaulter, before the evidence is in. Courage requires him to say, respectfully, that no such finding is on the record and to ask that the matter be decided on the evidence. Rule 1 gives him both the right to say it and the manner in which to say it.

The landlord's advocate asks for a short adjournment because his mother is ill. Fellowship, and rule 35, mean he consents unless his client is genuinely prejudiced. He tells his client why.

The tenant asks him to say the rent was paid, which it was not. Every lamp points the same way and so does the law. He refuses. Rule 4 requires him to use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to unfair practices, and on the authority of Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan, AIR 1983 SC 1012, procuring false material is grave professional misconduct.

Change one fact. Suppose Aditya complies with the client and leads false evidence. He has not merely fallen short of a Victorian ideal. He has broken rule 4, and he is exposed to a proceeding under section 35 of the Advocates Act and, if it was done in the face of the court, to criminal contempt under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 as well. That is the point of teaching this topic beside the rules rather than instead of them.

What beginners get wrong

These are not statutory duties and breaching a lamp is not misconduct. Misconduct is breach of the Act or of the Bar Council rules. An advocate who is dull rather than eloquent commits no offence.

"Wit" does not mean humour in the modern sense. It means quickness of mind and good sense.

"Eloquence" does not mean flowery language. It means saying the right thing so that it is understood.

There are seven on MU's syllabus. Tact is an addition by later writers and should be identified as such.

The lamps are not a substitute for the rules. They describe character; the rules impose obligations. An answer that gives only the lamps when asked about an advocate's duties has answered the wrong question.

Quick revision

• Source: Edward Abbott Parry, The Seven Lamps of Advocacy (1923). Not law, not in the Act, not in the Bar Council rules.
• The seven, in MU's order: Honesty, Courage, Industry, Wit, Eloquence, Judgment, Fellowship.
• Honesty: not misleading the court, the client or the opponent. Carried in law by rules 1 to 10 and 25 to 32.
• Courage: presenting the case whoever is displeased. Rule 1 gives both the duty not to be servile and the right and duty to complain properly about a judicial officer.
• Industry: preparation. Its absence appears in the adjournment cases.
• Wit: quickness of mind, not jokes.
• Eloquence: being understood and persuading, not ornament.
• Judgment: choosing which points to take, and knowing one's own limits.
• Fellowship: opponents in a case, colleagues in a profession. Carried by rules 34 to 39.
• The eighth lamp, tact, is a later addition and should be identified as one.

Test yourself

1. Who enumerated the seven lamps, and in what work? Edward Abbott Parry, an English county court judge, in The Seven Lamps of Advocacy, published in 1923.

2. Is breach of a lamp professional misconduct? No. The lamps are qualities of character, not legal duties. Professional misconduct is breach of the Advocates Act or of the Bar Council of India Rules, punishable under section 35.

3. What does "wit" mean in this list? Quickness of mind and good sense, the ability to see the point and to answer at once, rather than humour in the modern sense.

4. Distinguish courage from discourtesy to the court. Courage is presenting the client's case fully whoever is displeased by it. Rule 1 of the Bar Council rules requires an advocate to conduct himself with dignity and self-respect and not to be servile, while also requiring a respectful attitude towards the court; a grievance against a judicial officer is to be taken to the proper authorities, not made in the courtroom.

5. How many lamps does MU's syllabus print, and what is the eighth? Seven. Tact is added by later writers and should be identified as an addition rather than presented as one of Parry's seven.

6. Why is a topic with no statutory basis on a syllabus about the Advocates Act? Because the rules of professional conduct are almost all negative and can only catch bad conduct. They assume a person who already wishes to behave properly, and the lamps describe that person, which is why they are taught beside the rules rather than instead of them.