The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a warning to advocates advertising their legal services through social media, promotional videos and legal influencers, while maintaining that the profession of law was distinct from commercial business ventures.
“The Supreme Court of India has consistently maintained this stance, emphasizing that legal practice is a noble service focused on justice, integrity, and fairness, and must not be commodified through commercial advertising or solicitation. Such unethical commercialization erodes public trust and demeans the sanctity of the legal profession,” it said on Monday.
BCI condemned the use of Bollywood actors and celebrities for promoting legal services, citing violations of Rule 36 of the BCI Rules. It also observed that the use of religious, cultural or public events for self-promotion through banners and digital platforms was unethical.
Platforms such as Just Dial, Sulekha, and Quikr, which facilitate legal service listings, now stand in direct contravention of professional norms and may face greater regulatory scrutiny, according to Tushar Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India.
BCI singled out legal influencers without appropriate credentials for spreading misinformation on critical legal issues such as matrimonial disputes, taxation, intellectual property rights, privacy rights and GST compliance.
BCI further said violation of these mandates will lead to severe disciplinary measures, including suspension or cancellation of enrollment and even referral to the Supreme Court for initiation of contempt proceedings and formal complaint to the digital platforms for removal of unethical content.
While Bar Councils have the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against erring lawyers, enforcement remains a challenge, said Chinmay Bhosale, Advocate, Bombay High Court.
The distinction between legal education and indirect solicitation, for instance, remains ambiguous, said Kumar, who feels that imposing restrictions on digital advocacy could hinder public access to legal insights. The jurisdictional reach of the BCI also remains a concern as foreign-based content creators remain outside its regulatory purview, he said.
Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules, states that: “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.”
In July last year, the BCI had outlined its directives to enforce disciplinary actions against advocates violating Rule 36 and had instructed all State Bar Councils to send cease and desist notices to online platforms.
