Plyadasa v. Kurukulasuriya, Attorney-At-Law – sllr 1997 volume 2 page 410

In the case between Piyadasa (plaintiff) and Kurukulasuriya, Attorney-at-Law (defendant), the court addressed the issue of professional malpractice by an attorney involving failure to diligently represent a client in legal proceedings and to return critical documents. The holding established that the respondent’s repeated neglect, including non-appearance on scheduled court dates and failure to return the client’s documents, constituted actionable malpractice under the Judicature Act and the Supreme Court (Conduct of and Etiquette for Attorneys-at-Law) Rules. This principle reaffirms the duty of attorneys to exercise reasonable care, diligence, and communication with clients. The decision ordered suspension of the respondent’s practice rights, emphasizing that attorneys must adhere strictl