Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN
P. N. Vignesh – Appellant
Versus
Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, The Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, New Delhi – Respondent
The provided legal document is a judgment of the Madras High Court (not the Supreme Court) emphasizing the prohibition on advertising, solicitation, and commercialization of legal services by advocates and online intermediaries, as governed by the Advocates Act, 1961 (Sections 35 and 49), Bar Council of India Rules (Rules 36 and 37), and provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (including Section 79 and related intermediary guidelines). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
No Supreme Court judgments are referenced or discussed in the document. (!) [p_judgement_act_referred]
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to take appropriate action against respondents 3, 4 and 5 and any other service provider, restraining them from carrying on the business of providing legal services on their web portal or Applications.
The writ on hand has been filed as a “Pro Bono Publico” in the interest of legal profession. Certain professional misconducts are alleged in the writ petition against the “Online Service Providers”.
2. The core contention of the petitioner is that the respondents 3, 4 and 5 are providing online lawyer services on their respective Domains and Applications, wherein Advocates openly solicit Legal works.
3. Online Service Providers are providing various day to day needs and requirements of general public. Among other requirements such as plumbing services, carpentry services, salon at home, driver, sofa cleaning, maid, baby sitter, cook, the respondents 3, 4 and 5 also offering lawyer services.
4. Upon a search being made for a lawyer, various options are offered such as Property/RERA lawyers, corporate lawyers, consume
The legal profession must maintain its integrity and cannot be commercialized; advertising and solicitation of legal services are strictly prohibited.
The impugned rule restricting enrolment of advocates engaging in other professions is a reasonable restriction under the Advocates Act and Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring ....
Rule 7 of the Bar Council, prohibiting former judicial officers from practicing for two years in prior jurisdiction, is a reasonable restriction in public interest under Article 19(1)(g) of the Const....
(1) Complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession, would not be maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as re-enacted in 2019.(2) Legal Profession ....
An external member of an Internal Complaints Committee does not constitute a client-advocate relationship; therefore, allegations of professional misconduct under the Advocates Act are unfounded.
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
