The BCI strongly condemned and warned against the increasingly prevalent and unethical practice of advocates advertising their legal services through social media, promotional videos, and influencer endorsements. It also expressly denounced the involvement of Bollywood actors, celebrities, and digital media platforms as promotional tools, which clearly violated Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules, 2009.
The BCI stated, “The profession of law, deeply rooted in public trust and ethical standards, is fundamentally 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.”
Furthermore, the Council stated that pursuant to the judgment pronounced in P.N. Vignesh v. Bar Council of India 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2770, it had issued stringent directives dated 08-07-2024 to all State Bar Councils (‘STBC’), mandating immediate disciplinary action against advocates engaging in unethical advertising or solicitation of work via online portals such as Quikr India Pvt. Ltd., Sulekha.com New Media Pvt. Ltd., Just Dial Limited and Grotal.com. the Court in the aforesaid judgment had specifically highlighted that many online platforms are violating the BCI Rules, the Advocates Act, 1961, and the ethical standards of the legal profession. Furthermore, the judgment categorically denied these online platforms any protection under the safe harbour provisions outlined in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, considering their involvement in facilitating practices expressly prohibited by law.
In consonance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji, (2018) 5 SCC 379, the BCI reiterated that individuals, associations, firms, companies, juridical persons, and even BPO companies, irrespective of their nomenclature and how they labelled their operations, were governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, and fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the BCI if, in pith and substance, they engaged in the practice of law. This judgment firmly established the broad regulatory authority of the BCI, reinforcing its mandate to enforce ethical practices universally within the profession.
Further, the press release stated that the Council had observed advocates leveraging religious, cultural, or public events for self-promotion through banners, stalls, and digital advertisements. Such methods clearly constituted unethical canvassing, infringing upon professional ethics and the dignity of legal practice. It stated, “Lawyers must uphold justice and public service, refraining entirely from commercialising their roles or services through distasteful or misleading advertisements. In the age of internet and digital media, the rise of self-styled legal influencers has compounded these ethical concerns.”
The BCI expressed serious concern regarding the rapid growth of legal influencers, many of whom, without possessing appropriate credentials, spread misinformation on critical legal issues such as matrimonial disputes, taxation, intellectual property rights, citizenship laws, privacy rights, and GST compliance. Incorrect or misleading interpretations of landmark judgments like the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the Right to Privacy ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhar-5J.) v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 809, and GST regulations have resulted in widespread confusion, misguided legal decisions, and undue judicial burden.
Noting the aforesaid, the BCI provided the following mandates for comprehensively addressing these ethical breaches and misinformation:
-
Immediate withdrawal of advertisements violating Rule 36
-
Prohibition against utilizing Bollywood actors, celebrities, or influencers for legal practice promotions.
-
Swift removal of banners, promotional materials, and digital advertisements related to legal practices.
-
Mandatory cessation of misleading and unauthorized legal advice dissemination by non-enrolled individuals.
-
Absolute prohibition on the use of social media or digital platforms to directly or indirectly solicit legal work.
-
Digital platforms must establish stringent vetting mechanisms for legal content and swift removal of misleading information.
-
Ethical practices related to online conduct should be followed.
-
-
Prompt action will be initiated against unethical online practices.
The BCI stated that any deviation from these mandates would attract severe disciplinary measures, including suspension or cancellation of enrollment, referral to the Supreme Court for contempt proceedings, and formal complaints to digital platforms for the removal of unethical content.
Lastly, the Council appealed to all legal practitioners and digital, advertising platforms to comply diligently with these directives to uphold the esteemed tradition and integrity of the legal profession.