MADRAS HIGH COURT DIRECTS BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST ADVOCATES AND WEBSITES ADVERTISING AND SOLICITING LEGAL SERVICES

A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Madras High Court comprising of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan in the matter of Mr. P.N. Vignesh vs The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council of India and Others, W.P. No. 31281 of 2019, passed a Judgment dated 03-07-2024 and directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to register complaints before the competent Authorities against intermediaries publishing advertisements by lawyers as well as to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such Advocates for their misconduct of advertising and soliciting work through advertisements, photographs, interviews, circulars etc through social media and other websites.

Facts

(i) That in the present case, the Petitioner filed a “Pro Bono Publico” case in a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Madras High Court for misconduct against various Online Service Providers / Intermediaries such as Quikr India Private Limited (quikr.in), Sulekha.com New Media Private Limited (sulekha.com) and Just Dial Limited (justdial.com), wherein Advocates are openly soliciting legal services.

(ii) That these Intermediaries had listed out various services that are required by general public on a day-to-day basis on their portal / App such as plumbing services, carpentry services, salon at home, driver, sofa cleaning, maid, cook, etc. Along with such services, the Respondent- Intermediaries were also offering lawyer services, as follows:

(A) That when a user clicks on the said tab, various options are offered such as Property/RERA lawyers, corporate lawyers, consumer lawyers, etc.

(B) On selection of the preferred field of lawyer, the user would provide his contact details and thereafter a verification PIN is sent to the mobile number, which is to be entered and immediately the next page provides a list of Advocates/Law Firms ranked as “Platinum, “Top Service Provider”, “Top Choice”, “Premium”.

(C) Thereafter, the Advocates/Law Firms make calls to user, soliciting their legal work.

(D) For instance, in quikr.com, they have set a tab for ‘Legal and Agent Services’ along with other services such as Home Services, B2B Suppliers, Financial Services, Repairs and Servicing, Astrology, Travel Services, Salon at Home etc.

(E) Once the user clicks on the tab for Legal Services, the search box shows a list of legal services like Child Adoption, Civil Lawyers, Consumer Court Lawyers, Corporate Lawyers, Divorce Lawyers, Marriage Lawyers etc.

(F) Furthermore, depending on the user’s preferred location, status of the case, type of issue, etc, after an OTP verification, the Intermediary lists out the details of relevant lawyers and law firms as top service providers.

(G) The professional misconduct does not end here, the Intermediaries even grade the enlisted lawyers into various categories such as Platinum, Top Provider etc in their website.

(H) Thereafter, the service provider sends messages to the user, suggesting names of legal service providers and also sends message / notification to the lawyers regarding the query received from the user. Subsequently, the lawyers send individual messages to the customers/clients, whereby they inform that they received a query from quikr.com and that they would be ready to discuss the matter.

(I) That in one of the other websites called sulekha.com, the legal services have been enlisted in a similar way as mentioned above and they go a step ahead by providing an offer price for legal services. The extract of an advertisement on sulekha.com is reproduced below for easy reference:

“Want calls/quotes from multiple service experts OR Avail expert services from

VAKILSEARCH at fixed price.

Apply for Mutual Divorce in Chennai

30% Offer*

Original Price Rs.19000

Offer Price Rs.16150

15% Discount

Additional 15% off as cash back*

Effective price Rs.13300

If you are experiencing marital trouble or are considering a divorce, it is important to understand the legal formalities involved.

Speak to a lawyer experienced in family issues and learn about the legal options available for you, clear your queries and understand the legal procedure involved.

Additional legal actions come with extra charges (Inclusive of GST) PAY Rs.19057”

High Court Observations

(1) That in the Indian Legal Profession, every lawyer is a contributor in the process of justice delivery system. Legal Profession cannot be treated as a business model, as business is purely driven by profit motive and in the Legal Profession, a large part is a service to the society. Though a service fee is paid to a lawyer, it is only paid as a respect for their time and knowledge. Thus, a third party cannot brand or rate the services of a lawyer, as such branding or rating degrades the professional dignity and integrity.

(2) That with growth in technology, the tools employed in the Legal Profession can be upgraded or changed with changing circumstances such as shift from physical to virtual / hybrid mode of court hearings. But the spirit and character of the Profession cannot be altered.

(3) That a business model is driven by a profit motive, but the sole object of the Legal Profession is justice and truth. In the event that the Legal Profession turns into a business model, only the rich and mighty would be able to afford such business models. But “Law is not about the survival of the fittest but it is more about the survival of the distressed.”

(4) That lawyers serve as the bridge between the general public / litigants and the Court. The lawyers play a major role in this justice delivery process. The fundamental duty of a lawyer is to uphold the law whilst fighting for his client’s rights and not just aim to obtain a favourable order for their client but also fight for justice. This is because “The lawyers not only owe a duty towards the client but they also have a duty towards the Court.”

(5) Therefore, there is a strict ‘no advertising policy’ for lawyers, for the following reasons:

(i) Firstly, self-branding of lawyers, customer ratings for legal services, unverified claims of expertise in specific areas of law and enlisting lawyers / law firms along with the offer prices for the legal services, will bring down the nobility and integrity of the Legal Profession.

(ii) Secondly, there is no law that gives these Intermediaries, the authority to enlist lawyers on their website or advertise a few selected lawyers by receiving a commission from them. Further, by publishing such advertisements, the websites may spread misinformation or false and unverified information amongst the public regarding the legal services about which they do not have any knowledge.

(iii) Thirdly, such advertisements widen the inequality in the Legal Profession. This is because only a few lawyers / law firms can afford to place an advertisement and thereby, gain advantage over the others.

“It is noteworthy that since law cannot be treated as a business, economic factors cannot be used as grading mechanism to decide on categorising a lawyer. Every lawyer has his/her own skill sets and are all contributors in this Justice delivery system. Mere ranking or grading of lawyers based on economic factors or otherwise degrades the virtues of the profession.”

“Moreover a lawyer profession is not a race to the top, it is about service to the downtrodden.”

“The reason we wear Black robes holds testament to the fact that all are equal before law. It symbolises impartiality and equality.”

(iv) Lastly, Rule 36 of the BCI Rules[1] expressly prohibits advocates from soliciting work or advertising, directly or indirectly, through advertisement, circulars, etc. At the most, the directory services provided by BCI can be utilised by lawyers to publish their names along with contact details, enrolment number, areas of practice etc. Any deviation from the said Rule and creation of a parallel platform of connection for soliciting work between lawyers and litigants in exchange for commission from both parties, would be unlawful and such non-compliance would amount to “tout” and misconduct, which is punishable under Section 35 of the Advocates Act 1961 (Punishment of advocates for misconduct).

(v) Further, Rules 37 of the BCI Rules states that “An advocate shall not permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible, the unauthorised practice of law by any law agency.”

(6) Thus, the High Court held that the intermediaries engaged in the act of providing a platform for lawyers to publish their information to connect with litigants and to solicit work from them is clearly against principles of professional conduct mentioned under BCI Rules.

(7) The Intermediaries shall also be liable under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Due diligence by an intermediary) for hosting, storing or publishing any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the aforesaid observations, the Madras High Court directed BCI (a) to register complaints before the competent Authorities against the Intermediaries publishing advertisements, circulars etc by lawyers explicitly soliciting work from public, (b) to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such Advocates for their professional misconduct of advertising and soliciting work through advertisements, photographs, interviews, circulars etc through social media and other websites, (c) further, to direct the Intermediaries to bring down such advertisements within four weeks of the Order and (d) to issue advisory to the intermediaries that such publications are barred under Rule 36 of the BCI Rules. As a result, the Writ Petition was allowed.

 

Harini Daliparthy

Lead Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer

[1] Rule 36 of the BCI Rules.

An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned. His sign-board or name-plate should be of a reasonable size. The sign-board or name-plate or stationery should not indicate that he is or has been President or Member of a Bar Council or of any Association or that he has been associated with any person or organisation or with any particular cause or matter or that he specialises in any particular type of worker or that he has been a Judge or an Advocate General.

That this Rule will not stand in the way of advocates furnishing website information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India. Any additional other input in the particulars than approved by the Bar Council of India will be deemed to be violation of Rule 36 and such advocates are liable to be proceeded with misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.