Law firm to win, no matter who’s the loser

ISLAMABAD: As Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and PTI Chairman Imran Khan are in legal battle against each other, both of them have engaged lawyers of the same firm to combat this fateful fight over the issue of offshore companies.

Salman Aslam Butt is the counsel of Nawaz Sharif and his children whereas Imran Khan is represented by Hamid Khan. Both are senior partners in Cornelius, Lane & Mufti. This pairing of partners in the same case to represent opposite sides is a rare example and raises questions with regard to the conflict of interest.

Hamid, however, dismissed this impression and rather disclosed that one judge who is part of the five-member bench hearing the case under question, had also been part of his law firm. “We are advocates in the court. Even one of my former associates is a judge in this bench,” he said.

Ahsan Bhoon, former chairman, executive committee of Pakistan Bar Council, disputes this argument of Hamid Khan, declaring it a clear conflict of interest. “This is a barter system which is very unfortunate.”

Hamid, who does not see any conflict, nevertheless, argued that Nawaz Sharif should have taken this fact into account before engaging Salman Butt who has also served as PML-N government’s attorney general in 2014-15.

“Salman has been engaged by Nawaz Sharif. They know he is my partner. This is purely a client’s discretion,” he said. Asked whether a lawyer should not consider this aspect before giving consent, Hamid replied in negative. Salman didn’t attend calls when approached for his comment.

Lawyers of the same firm tend to divide profit among them they collectively earn and there could also be a possibility of the information sharing between them. When combined both, they can invoke the issue of conflict of interest.

Babar Sattar, a prominent lawyer, doesn’t see any conflict. Although he was unaware of the equity structure of Cornelius, Lane & Mufti law firm, he said the working arrangement of Pakistani law firms is more like a chamber where they share the expenses of office, not the profit.

Hamid however refused to answer the question relating the equity structure of their firm that could have explained whether the profit is shared or not. I can’t tell about the profit-sharing arrangement of our firm, he said, declaring it their private matter. He denied any information sharing mechanism, saying this is a privileged communication between the lawyer and his client and they don’t breach this trust.

Hamid said he is not the lawyer only but also the founding member of PTI. I was assigned this case by Imran well before Salman was engaged by Nawaz Sharif, he said.   A conflict of interest, he explained, is when I am watching two opposite parties of the same case. If there are two advocates of a law firm dealing with the same case, no matter from the opposite side, this does not fall in the conflict of interest category.

Justice (R) Nasir Aslam Zahid is opposed to this practice. He told The News that two partners of the same law firm must not represent opposite parties in the same case. “They can appear in a public interest litigation when invited by the court for legal interpretation; not in other cases,” he said. 

Former Chief Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui didn’t approve this practice either. “The law partners can’t appear in the same case,” he said. 

The News then asked Hamid that what the global  standards of ethics are. He said that a judge shouldn't hear such cases but this doesn't apply on lawyers.  When reminded of his own admission that a judge in this bench is his former law associate, Hamid said his relation with him has been purely the one that should be between a judge and a lawyer.

In the words of Ahsan Bhoon, the code of conduct commanding the working of judiciary doesn’t allow a judge to hear the cases of his relatives and friends lest it affect his judgment.   Hamid agreed and said it entirely depends on a judge whether to recuse or not from hearing a case being contested by his former associates.

About his colleague-turned-judge, he said wouldn’t take up his cases during his stint in Lahore High Court where the cases are also heard by one-member benches. The situation is different in Supreme Court. Even the smallest bench of the SC comprises of two judges, taking away the discretion of making arbitrary decisions.

Justice (R) Nasir Aslam said a judge must avoid sitting in a bench wherein the counsel is connected with him. Former Chief Justice Ajmal Mian, he explained, never heard the case of Karachi Port Trust only because he had served as legal adviser with KPT. “I won’t hear the case of my brother-in-law, Nizam Ahmed,” he further explained. 

Justice (R) Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui said although code of conduct discourages a judge but it is purely his discretion. “A judge has to decide himself. However, avoiding to sit in that bench is a better option,” he said.