On Wednesday, the Madras High Court instructed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to establish guidelines that encourage State bar councils to take disciplinary measures against advocates who engage in direct or indirect advertising, solicitation of work through advertisements, messages, or intermediaries.

A Bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan also instructed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to register complaints against online service providers or intermediaries who violate Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

“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,” the Court said.

Therefore, the Bench directed the Bar Council to remove any advertisements already published by lawyers through online service providers and to advise intermediaries against publishing such advertisements in the future.

The Bench also expressed disapproval of the "branding culture" prevalent among lawyers.

The Court was hearing a plea filed by PN Vignesh seeking action against websites such as Quikr, Sulekha, and Justdial for offering "online lawyer services" on their platforms.

The petitioner asserted that these websites not only list the names and contact details of lawyers but also facilitate user interaction by providing a PIN to connect with listed lawyers. Additionally, the websites categorize and rate lawyers or their services, labeling them under categories such as "Platinum," "Premium," and "Top Service Provider," as explained to the Court.

The counsel representing the websites argued that their clients were solely offering online directory services and not soliciting legal work for lawyers. They contended that providing directory services did not contravene any provisions of the Advocates Act.

However, the Court observed that the websites assign ratings without a clear basis and noted that they appear to be selling legal services of lawyers for a predetermined price, which contradicts the Bar Council of India Rules.

The Court further elaborated on why lawyers are prohibited from advertising their services. It emphasized that since lawyers uphold truth and justice, treating the profession as a business undermines its integrity. Therefore, any form of advertisement or solicitation is seen as detrimental to the profession's ethical standards.

"Firstly, marketing of lawyers brings down the nobility and integrity of the profession. The process of delivery of Justice is strongly based on the Constitution, and lawyers being the upholders of law cannot treat the profession as a business. It would be contradictory to say that a lawyer who fights for justice is doing so with a profit motive," the High Court said.

The Court also expressed the opinion that self-branding by lawyers and promotion through advertisements are likely to have a detrimental effect on the legal profession.

Advocate R Mohammed Fayaz Ali appeared for the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan and advocate Bharadwaja Ramasubramaniam appeared for Justdial.

Advocate SR Raghunathan appeared for the BCI.

Advocate EK Kumaresan represented the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.

Case Title: PN Vignesh vs The Chairman