Attorney-at-Law Removed for Deceit and Malpractice: A Supreme Court Ruling
The case of SC Rule No. 16/2023 before the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka represents a significant disciplinary proceeding against Attorney-at-Law Wickramage Don Dharmasiri Karunaratne, arising under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act No. 2 of 1978. The complaint originated from the Registrar of the Court of Appeal and concerned allegations of deceit, malpractice, and conduct unworthy of the legal profession.
The allegations were grave. It was asserted that the respondent had applied to peruse the record of case No. COC/11/2022 at the Court of Appeal Registry under a false identity, signing as “Chandrasiri Fernando.” While doing so, he proceeded to tear out two pages of the case file—specifically the caption and notice containing charges—before inserting them into his personal file. When questioned, he falsely claimed to be related to a party in the case. The misconduct was discovered by record room staff, and the matter was reported to the Deputy Registrar, leading to the respondent’s arrest by the Maradana Police and subsequent release on bail. A criminal case, B/3285/23, remains pending in the Magistrate’s Court of Maligakanda.
The Rule alleged breaches of several provisions of the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules of 1988, particularly Rules 11, 60, and 61. These rules require attorneys to avoid deceit, dishonourable conduct, or any acts unworthy of the profession. The Court accordingly called upon the respondent to show cause why he should not be suspended or removed from practice.
During the inquiry, the prosecution led evidence from three key witnesses: Sumedha Priyadarshana Perera, a binder in the record room; Jude Dhanushka Perera, another staff member; and Deputy Registrar Maheshi Welagedara. Their testimony was consistent and corroborated, clearly establishing that the respondent had torn and attempted to remove the pages. Cross-examination by the defence failed to discredit their evidence. Notably, the Deputy Registrar confirmed that the register entry falsely bore the name “Chandrasiri Fernando,” showing deliberate concealment of identity.
In his defence, the respondent admitted being present in the record room and inspecting the file but denied tearing pages. He claimed his purpose was merely to study the drafting of a petition. However, the Court found this explanation implausible, as he could not demonstrate how he had located the case through a “Google search” or why he concealed his identity. Furthermore, he himself acknowledged that Deputy Registrar Welagedara was an honest and efficient officer with no motive to fabricate evidence. This undermined his denial and reinforced the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
The Court concluded that the charges were proved beyond doubt. It held that the respondent’s actions amounted to deceit, malpractice, and conduct disgraceful to the legal profession. His behaviour, the Court reasoned, not only violated professional rules but also damaged public confidence in the integrity of the legal system. Moreover, his lack of remorse during the proceedings underscored his unfitness to remain an Attorney-at-Law.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Section 42 of the Judicature Act, ordered the immediate removal of Wickramage Don Dharmasiri Karunaratne from the office of Attorney-at-Law. The judgment stressed that only persons of good repute and competence may serve as officers of the Court, and misconduct of this nature cannot be tolerated if the dignity and credibility of the profession are to be preserved.
Thus, this case stands as a stern reminder of the ethical obligations of attorneys and the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the standards of the profession in Sri Lanka
