India has over 1.4 million practising lawyers, which easily renders it as one of the top contributors in the legal industry globally. However, commercialisation of legal professional has been discouraged by the legislature of India. Bar council of India has laid down strict standards and the code of conduct with respect legal community as law is considered highly noble profession and an individual approaches a lawyer when he is in dire need for protection from government machinery, in contrary to a businessman who advertises its product so large consumers are attracted towards the product, this is not in case of lawyers.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Mr. P.N. Vignesh, filed the writ petition as a “Pro Bono Publico” in the interest of the legal profession. He alleged that online service providers were offering lawyers services on their platforms, where advocates openly solicited legal work. The petitioner contented that such practices violated the BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA rules and amounted to misconduct under section 35 of the Advocates act.

 

LET’S KNOW WHAT IS SECTION 35 ABOUT?

SECTION 35 OF ADVOCATES ACT

Punishment of advocates for misconduct.

(1) Where on receipt of a complaint or otherwise a State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to its disciplinary committee.

1[(1A) The State Bar Council may, either of its own motion or on application made to it by any person interested, withdraw a proceeding pending before its disciplinary committee and direct the inquiry to be made by any other disciplinary committee of that State Bar Council.]

(2) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council 2*** shall fix a date for the hearing of the case and shall cause a notice thereof to be given to the advocate concerned and to the Advocate-General of the State.

(3) The disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council after giving the advocate concerned and the Advocate-General an opportunity of being heard, may make any of the following orders, namely:–

(a) dismiss the complaint or, where the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the State Bar Council, direct that the proceedings be filed;

(b) reprimand the advocate;

(c) suspend the advocate from practice for such period as it may deem fit;

(d) remove the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocates.

(4) Where an advocate is suspended from practice under clause (c) of sub-section (3), he shall, during the period of suspension, be debarred from practising in any court or before any authority or person in India.

(5) Where any notice is issued to the Advocate-General under sub-section (2), the Advocate-General may appear before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council either in person or through any advocate appearing on his behalf.

3[Explanation  – In this section, 1[section 37 and section 38], the expressions “Advocate-General” and “Advocate-General of the State” shall, in relation to the Union territory of Delhi, mean the Additional Solicitor General of India.]

 

 

ISSUES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

OBSERVATION BY COURT

                                                                       

DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE COURT

STATE BAR COUNCIL’S VIEW

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has directed all State Bar Councils to enforce stringent disciplinary measures against advocates who engage in advertising or soliciting work through online platforms, which directly contravenes the Bar Council of India Rules.

Following a July 3 judgment by the Madras High Court, this directive underscores that the legal profession serves society nobly and should not be driven by profit motives. The judgment scrutinized online platforms offering legal services and found them to violate BCI Rules. The High Court reaffirmed that Rule 36 of the BCI Rules prohibits advocates from advertising or soliciting work, whether directly or indirectly. The High Court emphasized that marketing lawyers “diminishes the nobility and integrity of the profession.“Furthermore, the court concluded that the participation of online intermediaries in facilitating lawyer services violates professional conduct standards. In response, the BCI has issued cease and desist notices to prominent online service providers, such as Quikr India, Sulekha.com, Just Dial Limited, and Grotal.com. These notices address the unlawful advertising and solicitation of legal services on these platforms. The online platforms have been instructed to promptly remove all listings, profiles, and advertisements related to legal practices by advocates, with a deadline of four weeks from the date of the notice. They have also been directed to cease any operations facilitating the advertisement or solicitation of legal practice by advocates. In a press release, the BCI warned, “Failure to comply with these directives will lead to the initiation of legal proceedings and imposition of appropriate penalties against non-compliant organizations.” The BCI further emphasized in its statement, “All portals, online platforms, and advocates must strictly adhere to Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. Any advertisements violating this Rule must be withdrawn immediately.”

 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

However, the BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (BCI) has not completely ignored the developments in the liberalised generation. The BCI recently decided to amend RULE 36 of BCI rules by adding a clause that allows advocates to maintain websites about themselves or their law firm to provide information about their business and help people to make more informed choices.

J. KRISHNA IYER once noted that “law is not a trade, not briefs, not merchandise, and so the heaven of commercial competition should not vulgarise the legal profession”. However over the years, courts have adopted the view that legal services form a part of services rendered to consumers.

In 2008, the complete ban on advertising by lawyers was lifted and relaxed to a certain extent. This amendment allowed advocates to mention their names, telephone numbers, email ID and professional and educational qualification on the website of their choice. In contrary, laws in USA and other nation are more developed in which attorneys are free to advertise o

 

REASON WHY ADVERTISING IS PROHIBITED BY ADVOCATES?

 

C.D. SEKKIZHAR VS. SECRETARY BAR COUNCIL 1967

In this case, court stated that it was improper for advocates to advertise their work as it can create jealousy and was unsuitable to the noble profession.

 

TATA YELLOW PAGES VS MTNL 1995

The supreme court in this case supported the validity of rule 36 of BCI rules. It held that right to advertise falls within the purview of commercial speech and is thus protected under ARTICLE 19(1) of the constitution which guaranteed right to speech and expression.

 

WRIT PETITON FILED BY V.B. JOSHI 2000

This writ petition challenged the restriction on advertising of legal work as imposed through rule 36 of BCI rules. The court relaxed the restriction  and bought an amendment to rule 36 by allowing the legal community and professionals to promote themselves and provide precise information about their field.

 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, regulated advertising can potentially contribute to maintaining the dignity of the legal profession, as long as it is carried out in accordance with the law. Rather than an outright ban or limiting it to certain websites, legitimate  advertising should be allowed across all platforms and media. There are many movies and T.V. programme which depicts how misleading advertisement leads to improper impression on general public..

 

All Rights Reserved (Soham Lakra Law Intern)