The Madras High Court has issued directives to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take stringent action against advocates engaging in advertising and branding practices, citing violations of legal ethics.

The Division Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan directed the BCI to formulate guidelines compelling State bar councils to initiate disciplinary measures against lawyers who solicit or advertise their services through advertisements, messages, or intermediaries.

The Court emphasized that legal services are not to be treated as a business driven solely by profit but as a noble service to society.

"Unlike a few other countries, Indian legal profession is unique as we represent selfless courage by spearheading some of the rights based movements in our country. Our Indian freedom movement comprising of some of the best lawyers in the country stands testament to the same. Every lawyer in our country is a contributor in the process of delivery of justice. And it is not for any third party to brand or rate the services of a lawyer. Legal profession is not and can never be treated as a business," the Court said.

"The object of any business or trade is profit. It cannot be termed as a business, when it is not driven by profit. However legal profession cannot be treated as business. Legal profession can never be profit driven, or only for the rich and mighty. It serves to the needs of anyone and everyone who knock the doors of Justice. Law is not about the survival of the fittest but it is more about the survival of the distressed," the Court explained..

The Court underscored the importance of upholding professional dignity and integrity in the legal profession, condemning the "branding culture" among lawyers. It emphasized that the sanctity of the legal profession, rooted in truth and justice, must be preserved and not compromised by commercial interests

The Bench stated that branding culture in the legal profession is detrimental to the society. Ranking or providing customer ratings to lawyers is unheard of and demeans the ethos of the profession and the professional dignity and integrity must never be compromised especially in the legal profession.

"It is agonising that some of the legal professionals today are trying to adopt a business model. Legal service is neither a job nor a business. A business is driven purely by profit motive. But in law, larger part is a service to the society. Though a service fee is paid to a lawyer, it is paid out of respect for their time and knowledge," the Bench remarked.

The Bench further said, "The tools employed in the profession can be upgraded or changed based on changing circumstances, (A classic example of this is of our seamless shift from physical hearing to virtual hearing during the COVID-19 lockdown). But the spirit and character which is the Basic Structure of this profession can never be altered."

The Court's order stemmed from a petition filed by PN Vignesh, highlighting concerns over online platforms such as Quikr, Sulekha, and Justdial offering "online lawyer services." These platforms not only list lawyers but also assign ratings and designations like "Platinum" or "Premium" to them, potentially influencing clients seeking legal assistance.

While defending their services as mere directories, the websites argued that they were not actively soliciting legal work. However, the Court found that these platforms were effectively selling legal services, which contravenes Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules prohibiting touting. "Rule 36 of Bar Council of India Rules specifically prohibits touting. Therefore the online websites/intermediaries are estopped from taking shelter under section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The Advocates Act is an Act of Parliament," it said.

"By adopting such advertising strategies for lawyers, the websites end up publishing false and unverified information in their websites. And Internet being a virtual highway for accessing information, today the general public tend to get carried away by these advertisements and in turn end up accessing false information. They are prone to be misguided and without any authority to cross check such online information, the public ends up losing faith in the judicial process," the Bench said.

The Court clarified that lawyer profession is not a race to the top, it is about service to the downtrodden. "Today there are innumerable lawyers who are working pro bono for different public causes. Excellence is not an accident. It always result of sincere effort and intellect execution. In no way can their services be measured monetarily or otherwise. They pragmatically work towards progress of both the Judiciary and the society. Therefore the advertisements of lawyers in websites covertly and overtly stands against elements of fairness and Justice," it said.

The Court added, "Lawyers are defenders for the cause of the oppressed and they strive towards upholding equality under the law. The reason we wear Black robes holds testament to the fact that all are equal before law. It symbolises impartiality and equality. There are innumerable jobs where the sole object is money making but legal profession is not a commercial activity."

Accordingly, the Court issued the following directions to the BCI:

1. To issue Circulars/Instructions/Guidelines to the State Bar Councils to initiate Disciplinary proceedings for misconduct against the Advocates advertising, soliciting works directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communication, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with case where he is engaged or concerned. The Circulars / Instructions are directed to be issued within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

2. To register complaints before the competent authorities under the relevant Act against online service providers/intermediaries conspiring or abetting or aiding or inducing whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of unlawful act of publication of advertisement by lawyers as laid down under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

3. To initiate all appropriate actions to remove the advertisements published by lawyers through online service providers/intermediaries and to issue advises to the intermediaries not to publish such advertisements barred under Rule 36 of Bar Council of India Rules. The Bar Council of India is directed to secure the assistance of Government of India to prevent such unlawful acts by online service providers.

Furthermore, the Court directed, "The respondents 3, 4 and 5 are directed to remove all the contents which are in violation of Rule 36 of BCI Rules within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order."

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ petition.

Cause Title: Mr.P.N.Vignesh v. The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council [Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:2515]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Mohammed Fayaz Ali

Respondent: Advocates S.R.Raghunathan, E.K.Kumaresan, Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan,

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice SM SubramaniamJustice C. KumarappanMadras High CourtBar Council of IndiaAdvocates Act of 1961

Sukriti Mishra