Question

In the following question, a Statement is followed by two Conclusions, I and II.
Statement: The Bar Council of India derives its rule-making power from Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which authorises it to frame rules governing professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates. Rule 20 framed thereunder categorically bars an advocate from stipulating for, or receiving, any fee whose quantum is dependent upon the outcome of litigation, or from entering into any arrangement to share in its proceeds. An advocate who contravenes this Rule is liable to be proceeded against under Section 35 of the Act.
Conclusion I: An advocate may lawfully enter into an outcome-linked fee arrangement so long as the client's written consent is obtained prior to the engagement.
Conclusion II: An advocate who violates the prohibition on contingency-based fees may face disciplinary action under the Advocates Act, 1961.
In the context of the above Statement and Conclusions, which one of the following is correct?

• A. Only Conclusion I follows
• B. Only Conclusion II follows
• C. Both Conclusions I and II follow
• D. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows

Hint:

In legal logic questions, always stick strictly to the facts provided in the statement. Do not import external knowledge or assume exceptions that are not explicitly stated.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This problem requires logical deduction based on provided legal rules.
We analyze whether the conclusions logically flow from the stated premises.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Conclusion I suggests that written consent can override the ban on outcome-linked fees.
However, the statement categorically bars such arrangements without mentioning any exceptions for consent.
Therefore, Conclusion I is not supported by the text.
Conclusion II states that violating this prohibition leads to disciplinary action.
The statement confirms that contravening Rule 20 makes an advocate liable to be proceeded against under Section 35.
This clearly supports the validity of Conclusion II.

Step 3: Final Answer:
Since Conclusion II follows but Conclusion I does not, option (B) is the correct choice.

Answer 2

This question tests whether two proposed conclusions can be logically derived from the given statement about advocates' fee arrangements under the Advocates Act, 1961. Each option must be checked against what the statement actually says, not against what seems reasonable.

1. Only Conclusion I follows: This choice would be correct only if the statement permitted a contingency fee once the client agreed to it in writing. The statement does no such thing. Rule 20, framed under Section 49(1)(c), bars an advocate from stipulating for or receiving a fee dependent on the outcome of the case, and it states this bar without carving out any exception for prior client consent. A private agreement between advocate and client cannot lift a prohibition imposed by a professional conduct rule, so this option is not supported by the text and must be rejected.
2. Only Conclusion II follows: Conclusion II simply restates what the statement already tells us in plain terms, that an advocate who breaches Rule 20 is liable to be proceeded against under Section 35 of the Advocates Act. Since Section 35 deals with punishing professional misconduct, and the statement expressly ties a Rule 20 violation to Section 35 liability, this conclusion is a direct and necessary inference from the premises. No additional assumption is needed to reach it.
3. Both Conclusions I and II follow: This can only be right if both individual conclusions independently hold up, but Conclusion I has already been shown to contradict the statement's flat prohibition. Because one of the two conclusions fails, the option claiming both follow cannot be correct.
4. Neither Conclusion I nor II follows: This would require that even Conclusion II lacks support, which is not the case. The statement directly links violation of Rule 20 to disciplinary proceedings under Section 35, so Conclusion II clearly follows, ruling out this option as well.

Working through both conclusions against the statement shows that Conclusion I introduces a consent-based exception the statement never allows, while Conclusion II merely restates the disciplinary consequence the statement already spells out.

Therefore, the correct answer is Only Conclusion II follows.