>John Vithayathi John Vithayathi, who is currently pursuing his LLM degree from NUALS, Kochi, analyses the role of unwritten Constitutional principles in Indian Jurisprudence, vis-à-vis the Canadian Position. Introduction The Canadian Supreme Court passed a historic yet highly controversial judgement [Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 S.C.C. 34 (Can)] recently. ‘Unwritten Constitutional Principles cannot be used as a device for invalidating legislation, that does not otherwise infringe the written constitutional provisions’. Supreme Court of Canada in Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General) Paradoxical as it may seem, this very same judgement that negates the value of unwritten constitutional principles also opens up an avenue for contemplating the nature and, more importantly, the function performed by such principles in the modern constitutional setup. This blog seeks to evaluate the status of unwritten constitutional principles in the Indian constitutional jurisprudence and explains how they might, quite ironically, be more deeply entrenched in the Constitution than a few written ones. Dichotomy of Opinions A constitution bench of the Canadian Supreme Court was considering the validity of a provincial legislation that redrew ward boundaries and reduced the number of wards while campaigns were underway for municipal elections in the city of Toronto. The question before the court was whether the legislation could be struck down if found contravening an unwritten constitutional principle such as democracy.  The majority bench answered the question in the negative, thereby effectively relegating unwritten constitutional principles to merely interpretative tools ‘that may aid in the purposive interpretation of the expressly mentioned provisions.’ The majority gave a very interesting justification for its decision by opining that a legislation that does not infringe the express provisions of the Constitution cannot be considered as being repugnant to the basic constitutional structure.  In an equally vociferous albeit minority opinion, Justice R.S. Abella endorsed

In most practice areas, a lawyer’s marketing efforts should focus on generating a strong referral pipeline — from both business colleagues and other lawyers alike. If those efforts are successful, you’ll probably need some guidance on attorney referral fees. Here it is. There are Clear Guidelines—Mostly No referral fees permitted for non-lawyers Can lawyers pay referral fees to non-lawyers? Most attorneys know they cannot share fees with non-lawyers. The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by most states, are quite clear. Rule 5.4 (a) states that “a lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non-lawyer.” Rule 7.2 (b) states that “a lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer’s services.” A referral fee is certainly something of value. (See Michael Downey’s article in the ABA Litigation Journal, here, explaining the nuances of Rule 7.2(b) and the “nominal” gifts of gratitude allowed.) Referral fees permitted for lawyers Attorneys can share referral fees with other attorneys, as long as they comply with the governing ethics rules. Under Rule 1.1 of the Model Rules, for example, “lawyers” can only refer to competent lawyers. Rule 1.5 (e) specifically governs referral fees between attorneys, and spells out certain requirements, including these three: The division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation;The client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; andThe total fee is reasonable. While the last two clauses are self-explanatory, many lawyers have questions about the meaning of the first clause. Some mistakenly believe that all fee division arrangements must be proportional. The rule is clear that this is not the only option. Non-proportional arrangements are allowed if “each lawyer assumes joint responsibility.”