Senior lawyer suspended

The Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the Rule against Attorney-at-Law Elmore Perera (President of the Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance) in respect of contempt of court, and suspended him from practising as an Attorney-at-Law for seven years.

The Supreme Court had already issued an interim order, suspending him from practising until the conclusion of the inquiry for purported contempt of Court.

President’s counsel H.L. de Silva and Maureen Seneviratne and Attorney-at-Law Aravinda Aturupana appeared for Mr. Elmore Perera. President’s counsel Daya Perera and Mohan Peiris appeared for the Bar Association of Sri Lanka. Deputy Solicitor General V.K. Malalgoda appeared for the Attorney General.

The notice of a Rule (charge) had been served on Attorney-at-Law Elmore Perera for the purported disobedience and defiance of a direction of the court.

It stated that Mr. Perera had filed SC application No: 108/2006 (F/R) describing himself as a practicing Attorney-at-Law and supported the application for leave to proceed on 31.03.2006.

The Rule stated that he continued to read each and every averment in the petition, despite a specific direction given that the Bench was possessed of the contents of the petition and that he should not unduly take the time of court by reading each and every paragraph, but should make his submissions relating to the specific matters of law and fact, relevant to the matters at issue. Despite the said direction, in disobedience and defiance of the said direction, he continued to read the said paragraphs in the petition.

It further stated that, in the course of the said proceedings, when the bench required him to address court on certain issues for the purpose of clarification of questions of law that arose for consideration, he rudely and insolently refused to answer any questions despite repeated requests and he contemptuously told their lordships that they could look it up themselves, if they so desired.

The Rule stated that he used intemperate language and gesticulated to bring the proceedings of court into ridicule and contempt and thereby engaged in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice; he failed to assist in the proper administration of justice and/or permitted his personal feelings to influence his conduct before court in breach of Rules 50 and 54 of the Supreme Court (Conduct and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) amounting to misconduct and malpractice as an Attorney-at-Law.

Such conduct on his part warrants proceedings against him for suspension or removal from the office of an Attorney-at-Law under the Judicature Act. Mr. Perera has been asked to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be suspended from practice or be removed from the office of an Attorney-at-Law.