New Delhi: The Bar Council of India (BCI) Saturday issued directives to state bar councils in light of the Madras High Court’s verdict last week demanding action against lawyers for advertising and soliciting work online.
In a press release issued Monday, the BCI asserted that the directives have been issued “in a significant move to preserve the integrity and noble service ethos of the legal profession”.
On Wednesday, a Madras High Court bench comprising justices S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan had directed the BCI to issue circulars or guidelines to state bar councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against lawyers “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 a case where he is engaged or concerned”.
ThePrint had first reported that the BCI was going to issue directives acting on this judgment.
The BCI has now asked all state bar councils to “initiate disciplinary proceedings against advocates found advertising or seeking work through online portals”. It has also directed that disciplinary actions may include suspension or removal from the roll of advocates.
It has further issued cease-and-desist notices to major online service providers, including Quikr India Pvt Ltd., Sulekha.com, New Media Pvt Ltd, Just Dial Ltd, and Grotal.com.
The press release says the notices address the “illegal advertising and solicitation of legal services on these platforms”, highlighting violations including illegal solicitation of work and the practice of providing ratings and offer prices for lawyers’ services.
The high court judgment had taken objection to the ranking of lawyers on these websites, and asserted that providing customer ratings or rankings for lawyers “demeans the ethos of the profession”. This was after the court noted that these websites provide a list of lawyers or law firms ranked as “platinum”, “top service provider”, “top choice” and “premium”.
The BCI has further directed state bar councils to initiate disciplinary action against advocates advertising or seeking work through online portals, to file complaints against online service providers “facilitating illegal advertisement of lawyers” and to ensure the removal of all illegal advertisements related to legal services on online platforms within four weeks.
It has asked the bar councils to submit a report on the actions taken by them by 10 August, since the high court is going to hear the case on whether its directions have been complied with on 20 August.
Also Read: SC/ST sub-division, AMU status — 6 key matters CJI-led Constitution benches have to decide this year
‘Upholding dignity of legal profession’
In the cease-and-desist notices to these platforms, the BCI writes: “It has been informed to us that your organisations collect data by unauthorised means even from those advocates who do not approach your organisations and you place their names and other details on your platform even without their knowledge”.
It has therefore told the online platforms to remove all listings, and profiles, advertisements related to legal services by advocates within four weeks.
“Failure to comply with these directives will result in the BCI initiating legal proceedings and seeking appropriate penalties against the non-compliant organisations,” the BCI states.
“The Bar Council of India reiterates its commitment to upholding the dignity and integrity of the legal profession and urges all parties concerned to comply with these directives promptly and rigorously,” it adds.
What does the law say?
Under Section 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI has the authority to establish rules and regulations for lawyers across the country. Accordingly, it has framed the Bar Council of India Rules.
Rule 36 of the BCI Rules prohibits an advocate from soliciting work or advertising, either directly or indirectly, “whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned”.
The rules, therefore, bar lawyers from soliciting work or advertising themselves, either directly or through intermediaries. Violation of Rule 36 can invite repercussions under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, dealing with misconduct.
Rule 36 was amended in 2008 to liberalise the strict ban on lawyer advertising. The rule now permits lawyers to showcase their basic information such as their name, contact details, qualifications and areas of practice on their websites.
‘Neither job, nor business’
The judgment was passed on a PIL filed by one P.N. Vignesh against the chairman of the Bar Council of India, the chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, as well as websites like quikr.in, sulekha.com and justdial.com as respondents.
The petition demanded a direction to the two bar councils to take appropriate action against these websites as well as any other service providers, restraining them from carrying on the business of providing legal services on their portals or apps.
Ruling on this petition, the court said that unlike other countries, the legal profession in India “is unique as we represent selfless courage by spearheading some of the rights-based movements in our country”.
Explaining the character of the legal profession, the court observed: “The object of any business is profit but the sole object of the legal profession is justice. Truth and justice can never be traded. And lawyers being important elements in this fight for truth and justice can never be equated with businessmen or traders.”
The bench called it “agonising” that legal professionals today were 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, a larger part is service to the society. Though a service fee is paid to a lawyer, it is paid out of respect for their time and knowledge,” it observed.
It had then directed the BCI to register complaints against these online service providers or intermediaries who are “conspiring or abetting or aiding or inducing whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of unlawful act of publication of advertisement[s] by lawyers”.
The BCI was further directed to initiate all appropriate actions to remove the advertisements published by lawyers and to issue advisories to intermediaries not to publish such ads.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: ‘Wants to solve it all’ — cricketer & singer HC judge who is breaking ‘preconceived notions’