Conclusions regarding an advocate’s competence should be made by bar associations – SC of India

A client of legal services may evaluate the advocate’s performance and terminate the relationship. However, the client is not authorized to treat this evaluation as a determination of professional competence. Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the advocacy organizations.

This was the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court of India in its decision dated July 7, 2026, in the case of Ajay Vijh v. Indian Banks Association & Ors., No. 8751 (2026 INSC 670). The court considered the complaint of an advocate who had been placed on an interbank «blacklist» due to objections to a legal opinion he had provided.

Ajay Vijh had been working with Canara Bank and providing opinions on property offered as collateral for loans. In one case, while verifying ownership of a plot of land, he concluded that it belonged to the guarantor company. Subsequently, the bank determined that part of the land had previously been sold, but the advocate had not noted this in his opinion.

The lawyer explained that he had verified the information based on the documents provided and data from the registration authority, which did not reflect the relevant transactions. However, the bank deemed the verification inadequate, terminated its cooperation with the advocate, and forwarded his details to the Indian Banking Association.

Later, the advocate was added to the interbank «blacklist» of third parties involved in banking fraud. The note stated that he had provided an incorrect legal opinion and conducted a negligent review, thereby exposing the bank to the risk of losses. According to the advocate, other financial institutions subsequently stopped engaging him as well.

The Supreme Court ruled that the bank had the right to evaluate the quality of the legal services it received. If a client is dissatisfied with the result or has lost trust in the advocate, they may terminate the contractual relationship and refrain from engaging him in the future. Previous collaboration does not, in and of itself, oblige the bank to continue using this advocate’s services.

However, adding an advocate to a list used by other banks has a different legal nature. Such an entry effectively constitutes an industry-wide assessment of the advocate’s competence and professional qualities, affecting their reputation and ability to secure future engagements. The court referred to this as «negative industry accreditation».

Furthermore, the list itself was created to facilitate the exchange of information about third parties involved in fraud, dishonesty, criminal activity, or other serious violations in the banking sector. The advocate’s case did not involve conspiracy, intentional facilitation of an illegal transaction, or dishonest conduct. In the court’s view, an erroneous legal opinion or an oversight during document review in the absence of intent cannot be equated with fraud. Therefore, a mechanism designed to counter fraudulent transactions cannot be used to establish conclusions regarding an advocate’s professional incompetence or negligence.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the independence of the legal profession is ensured by its self-regulation. Matters of professional conduct and competence of advocates fall within the purview of bar councils established under the Indian Advocates Act, 1961. Allowing external bodies to issue negative findings regarding an advocate’s professional status would contradict this model and undermine the independence of advocacy.

If anyone believes that an advocate has been professionally negligent, they may submit the relevant materials to the competent bar council. However, a client is not authorized to independently deem a lawyer incompetent or to disseminate such an assessment to other institutions.

At the same time, the court also noted that clients’ concerns regarding the adequacy and reliability of legal assistance cannot be ignored. The solution to the problem should not lie in parallel evaluation structures, but rather in strengthening the mechanisms of professional regulation provided for by law.

Following its review of the case, the Supreme Court of India overturned the lower court’s decision, ruled that placing the advocate on the interbank «blacklist» was unlawful, and ordered that his name be immediately removed from the list.