The BCI on finding DSK Legal engaged in advertising by featuring Bollywood actor Rahul Bose in a promotional video advertisement, directed them to immediately remove the unlawful advertisement from all digital platforms, including social media and video-sharing websites and to provide documentary proof confirming the removal of the advertisement.
DSK Legal was also called upon to submit a detailed written explanation within 10 days explaining why the disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against the firm, including its partners, for professional misconduct and violation of Rule 36 of the BCI Rules.
The Council emphasised on the importance of Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI, of BCI Rules, which strictly prohibited advocates from soliciting work or advertising, directly or indirectly, through any form of promotion, media, or personal outreach. The Council further stated that the Preamble of Chapter II (Part VI) of the BCI Rules, under Section 49(1)(c) of the Act, mandated that advocates uphold the dignity of the profession and maintain conduct befitting their role as officers of the court. Advertising legal practice undermines this standard by introducing commercial competition, which is contrary to the profession’s ethical foundation of trust, integrity, and merit.
The BCI referred to its press release dated 17-03-2025 wherein it had reiterated its strict stance against unethical legal advertising, misleading promotional activities, and professional misconduct by advocates. It further 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.
The Council stated, “The legal profession is fundamentally distinct from commercial business ventures and is deeply rooted in public trust and ethical standards. Such unethical commercialization erodes public trust and demeans the sanctity of the legal profession.”
After perusing the manuscript of the said advertisement, the BCI stated that the script clearly conveyed an implication that clients should place “blind faith” in DSK Legal to its longevity in the profession. The profession demands that legal practitioners maintain integrity, ensuring that clients rely on their competence rather than promotional tactics.
P.N. Vignesh v. Bar Council of India 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2770 reinforced that advocacy was a noble profession, primarily driven by societal service rather than commercial motives. The judgment also emphasised that promotional activities through online platforms severely compromised ethical standards and professional integrity.
The BCI reiterated that all legal practitioners, firms, and associations engaging in legal practice, irrespective of their structure or nomenclature, were subject to the Act. In this regard, the Council placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018) 5 SCC 379, wherein the Court reinforced that the practice of law in any form, whether consultancy or representation, fell under the regulatory purview of the Bar Council of India.
The BCI emphasised that such advertising practices, and celebrity endorsements, undermined the dignity and independence of the legal profession. The role of an advocate is not that of a tradesman seeking clientele through promotional campaigns but rather that of a responsible officer of the court, bound by a solemn duty to uphold justice and the rule of law. The Council remarked that, “the use of a Bollywood celebrity in the video reinforces an illusion of guaranteed legal success based on the firm’s longevity rather than the individual competence of its members, which is a direct affront to the principles of legal ethics”. The Council further directed DSK Legal to provide an undertaking that no further advertisements or promotional activities in violation of Rule 36 would be carried out. Failure to comply with this directive would invite severe disciplinary proceedings under the Act, which might include suspension or cancellation of license to practice law.
