The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court had to deal with a question of professional ethics in this case.  One of the parties before the trial court was an Advocate.  He conducted the proceedings in person without discharging the Advocate on record. The Hon’ble Court referred to the following passage from the “Barrister at Law” by Mr. James Robert Merchant ‘Counsel cannot share the conduct of a case with his client; if counsel is instructed, he ought to be at the head of the case and conduct it throughout.  It is not becoming for counsel to submit to any limitation of the ordinary authority of counsel in this respect or to take a subordinate position in the conduct of a case.  If a litigant conducts his case in person and examines and cross examines witness, counsel will not be allowed to suggest questions and argue points of law.  It is further observed that ‘the same rule applies if the litigant is himself a barrister; a barrister who is litigant cannot appear both as counsel and as litigant; he must elect either to conduct the case entirely as litigant in person or to abandon the case entirely to his counsel; he cannot be head to address the Court either after or before his counsel’. 

Sir William Boulton on ‘Conduct and Etiquette at the Bar’ observes “whilst a member of the Bar is entitled, like any other member of the public, to appear in person, it is improper for him whether instructed professionally or not, to appear also as counsel in a case in which he himself is a party i.e. to wear robes or to sit in counsel’s seats”. 

Thus the Hon’ble Court held that the vexed question is whether legal and professional ethics and conduct and etiquette at the Bar would permit the party to appear in person and conduct the proceedings without discharging the counsel.  The answer will have to be ‘No’ as he cannot appear without discharging the counsel on record.