Legal Service is neither a job nor a business.

“Every lawyer in our country is a contributor to the process of delivery of justice. And it is not for any third party to brand or rate the services of a lawyer.”

On July 3, 2024, a significant ruling was delivered by the Madras High Court in the case of Mr. P.N. Vignesh vs. The Bar Council of India and others, addressing the professional conduct of advocates in relation to advertisements. The judgment, pronounced by Honourable Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Honourable Mr. Justice C. Kumarappan, sheds light on the critical issue of online legal services and advertisements by advocates, reaffirming the nobility and ethical standards of the legal profession in India.

The Core Issue

Three advocates were accused of openly soliciting legal works on their respective domains and applications, quickr.com, sulekha.com and justdial.com. The websites follow a process where a search is made for a lawyer, various options are offered such as Property lawyers, corporate lawyers, consumer lawyers etc. On selection of the preferred subject, the user is required to provide his contact details. Thereafter a verification PIN is sent to the mobile number, which is to be entered. Immediately the next page provides a list of Advocates/Law Firms ranked as “Platinum. Top service provider”, “Premium”, and simultaneously calls are made by the Advocates/Law Firms to the user soliciting their Legal work.

The petitioner, Mr. P.N. Vignesh, filed a writ petition against various online service providers like Quikr, Sulekha, and Just Dial, alleging that these platforms facilitated the solicitation of legal services by advocates, which is in direct contravention of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. The petitioner argued that these activities amount to professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Court’s Observations and Rationale

The Court made several pivotal observations in its detailed judgment:

1. Integrity and Nobility of the Legal Profession: The legal profession is not a business driven by profit motives. It is a noble profession dedicated to the service of society and justice. The Court emphasized that the commercialization of legal services undermines the dignity and integrity of the profession.
2. Prohibition of Advertisements: The BCI Rules explicitly prohibit advocates from advertising their services. The rationale behind this prohibition is to maintain the ethical standards and nobility of the profession. Advertising legal services can mislead the public and degrade the professional ethics upheld by the Bar Council.
3. Role of Online Platforms: The Court noted that online platforms like Quikr, Sulekha, and Just Dial are listing legal services alongside other commercial services, which is inappropriate. The platforms were found to be providing ratings and rankings for lawyers, akin to customer reviews for commercial services, which is unacceptable in the context of the legal profession.
4. Legal Framework and Enforcement: The BCI, as the regulatory authority, is tasked with maintaining the standards of professional conduct for advocates. The Court highlighted the necessity for the BCI to enforce these standards rigorously and take appropriate action against violators, including online platforms that facilitate such activities.

The Verdict

The Court directed the BCI and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take stringent action against online platforms that list legal services and against advocates who advertise their services through these platforms. The judgment also called for increased vigilance and proactive measures by the Bar Councils to prevent the commercialization of legal services.

Implications for the Legal Profession

This landmark ruling has several implications for the legal profession in India:

1. Reaffirmation of Ethical Standards: The judgment reinforces the ethical standards that advocates must adhere to, ensuring that the legal profession remains a service-oriented field rather than a commercial enterprise.
2. Regulation of Online Legal Services: Online platforms must now exercise caution and refrain from listing legal services in a manner that contravenes BCI rules. This ruling necessitates a review and possible overhaul of how legal services are presented and offered online.
3. Professional Conduct and Discipline: Advocates must be vigilant about their conduct, ensuring they do not indulge in activities that could be construed as advertising or soliciting legal work, thereby upholding the profession’s dignity.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s ruling is a crucial step in preserving the sanctity of the legal profession in India. By addressing the issue of online advertisements and legal services, the Court has underscored the importance of maintaining high ethical standards and the noble character of the legal profession. This judgment serves as a reminder to advocates and regulatory bodies alike to stay true to the principles of justice and service that form the bedrock of the legal profession.

References:

Madras High Court. (2024). Mr. P.N. Vignesh vs. The Bar Council of India and others. W.P.No.31281 of 2019.

Authored by: Gaury Tewari, law student at The City Law School, London.