Introduction
The legal profession, distinguished by its commitment to justice and ethical conduct, occupies a unique position within society. Unlike conventional businesses, where profit motives often prevail, the practice of law is governed by principles of service, dignity, and integrity. These core values are enshrined in regulatory frameworks such as the Bar Council of India Rules (‘BCI Rules’) and the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘Act’), which set strict guidelines to uphold the profession’s noble character.
In a recent judgement, P.N. Vignesh v. Chairman and Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, Bar Council of India and Others[i], the Madras High Court (‘MHC’) addressed the issue of professional misconduct under the Act. Mr. P. N. Vignesh (‘Petitioner’) filed a writ petition ('WP') under a. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to the Bar Council of India (‘BCI’) and the State Bar Councils to restrain the solicitation of legal services through online platforms, emphasising the incompatibility of such practices with the esteemed nature of the legal profession.
Brief Facts
The WP was filed as ‘pro bono publico’ to address alleged professional misconduct by online legal service providers.
The Petitioner alleged that respondents 3, 4, and 5 provided online lawyer services on their domains and applications, wherein advocates openly solicited legal work.
These platforms offered various services, including plumbing, salon services, and legal services. Users could select from various types of lawyers (e.g., Property, corporate, and consumer).
Users were required to provide contact details and receive a verification PIN. After verification, a list of advocates/law firms ranked by categories (e.g. Platinum, Top Service Provider) was provided. Advocates/law firms would then contact users to solicit legal work.
The Petitioner had sent representations to respondents 1 and 2 to curb the illegal activity, citing that online lawyer services are prohibited under the BCI Rules and amount to misconduct under s. 35 of the Act.
Respondent no. 5 claimed to provide only online directory services, which are permissible under the BCI Rules. The Petitioner disputed this, presenting documents indicating that the 5th respondent solicited legal work.
Held
The MHC allowed the WP with various directions to the Respondents and listed the matter before it for reporting compliance with its directions.
The MHC emphasised that the legal profession in India is unique and should not be treated as a business. It observed that branding or rating lawyers is detrimental to the profession and society.
The MHC examined the modus operandi of these platforms and found that their activities amounted to professional misconduct. The BCI Rules prohibit advocates from advertising or soliciting work. R. 36 of the BCI Rules specifically prohibits such activities, and non-compliance invites disciplinary action under s. 35 of the Act.
It further held that the online intermediaries cannot claim protection under s. 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, for activities that amount to soliciting legal work or providing ratings to lawyers, as this is against the professional conduct rules.
On the basis of the aforementioned observations, the MHC directed the BCI to issue guidelines to the State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against advocates involved in advertising or soliciting work. It also ordered the removal of such advertisements from online platforms and directed BCI to seek the assistance of the government to prevent such unlawful activities. The respondents were given four weeks to comply with these directives.
The BCI was also directed to register complaints before the competent authorities against online service providers/intermediaries conspiring or abetting or aiding or inducing, whether by threats or promise, in the commission of an unlawful act of publication of an advertisement by lawyers as laid down under r. 36 of the BCI Rules.
Our Analysis
This MHC’s judgment clearly highlights the importance of professional misconduct, which is reflected in the stringent rules governing the conduct of lawyers, particularly advertising and solicitation of work. It reaffirms that the legal profession fundamentally differs from business or trade, emphasising service to society and the pursuit of justice. By restraining the advertising and solicitation practices by online platforms, the MHC upheld the dignity and integrity of the legal profession, ensuring that it remains a noble calling dedicated to the cause of justice.
The decision has significant implications for online platforms offering legal services. It reminds us of the fundamental principles governing the legal profession and the role of lawyers in upholding justice rather than pursuing profit.
End Note
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 2770.
Authored by Jitin Bharadwaj, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
Comments