Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
Mr.P.N.Vignesh - Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, The Bar Council of India, 21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.31281 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.31428 of 2019
Decided On : 03-07-2024
Legal Profession - Writ Petition - Advocates Act, 1961; Bar Council of India Rules - Sections 35, 49; Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 79 - The court emphasized that the legal profession cannot be treated as a business, prohibiting advertising and solicitation of legal services, and directed disciplinary actions against violators.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that certain online service providers were unlawfully soliciting legal services, violating the Bar Council of India Rules and the Advocates Act. The petitioner sought action against these providers for professional misconduct.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the online service providers were indeed soliciting legal work and advertising lawyers, which is prohibited under the Bar Council of India Rules. The court emphasized the need to uphold the dignity and integrity of the legal profession.
Issues: Whether the online service providers were violating the Bar Council of India Rules and the Advocates Act by soliciting legal services and advertising lawyers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the legal profession is not a business and cannot be treated as such. Advertising and solicitation of legal services undermine the integrity of the profession and violate established rules.
Result: The writ petition was allowed, directing the Bar Council of India to take disciplinary action against violators and remove unlawful advertisements.
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, consumer lawyers, etc. On selection of the preferred subject, the user is required to 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”, and simultaneously calls are made by the Advocates/Law Firms to the user soliciting their Legal work.
5. The petitioner sent representations to the respondents 1 and 2 to initiate appropriate actions to curb the illegal activity of online service providers. Online lawyer services are prohibited under the Bar Council of India Rules and amounts to misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates' Act. Since no action has been taken by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner is constrained to initiate the present writ petition.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent would submit that the 5th respondent is providing only online directory services. The 5th respondent is not soliciting works for lawyers. Providing directorate services are permissible under the Rules. Therefore, the 5th respondent is unnecessarily implicated in the present case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same by producing documents, which would reveal that the 5th respondent is also soliciting legal works through various methods. The modus operandi of these service providers are also placed before this Court thorough documents. This Court carefully considered those documents.
7. Unlike a few other countries, Indian legal profession is unique as we represent selfless courage by spearheading some of the rights based movements in our country. Our Indian freedom movement comprising of some of the best lawyers in the country stands testament to the same. Every lawyer in our country is a contributor in the process of delivery of justice. And it is not for any third party to brand or rate the services of a lawyer. Legal profession is not and can never be treated as a business.
8. Branding culture in the legal profession is detrimental to the society. Ranking or providing customer ratings to lawyers is unheard of and demeans the ethos of the profession. Professional dignity and integrity must never be compromised especially in the legal profession.
9. It is agonising that some of the legal professionals today are trying to adopt a business model. Legal service is neither a job nor a business. A business is driven purely by profit motive. But in law, larger part is a service to the society. Though a service fee is paid to a lawyer, it is paid out of respect for their time and knowledge.
10. The legal profession cannot be viewed with a shallow lens. Some may try to find merit in the argument that with the growing nee
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
