Legal profession not a business: Madras High Court calls for removal of online ads by lawyers

The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to issue guidelines urging State bar councils to initiate disciplinary action against advocates who advertise or solicit work directly or indirectly through ads, messages and touts..A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan also directed the BCI to register complaints against online service “providers/ intermediaries,” who act in breach of 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.It thus directed the Bar Council to remove such advertisements that have already been published by lawyers through online service providers and to issue advice to intermediaries to not publish such advertisements in future..The Bench also took a dim view of "branding culture" among lawyers."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," the Court said..The Court was hearing a plea filed by one PN Vignesh seeking action against websites such as Quikr, Sulekha and Justdial that provide “online lawyer services” on their websites.The petitioner claimed that these websites not just list out the names and numbers of lawyers, but also have a system where a user looking for legal assistance is given a PIN to connect to lawyers on such lists. The websites also have a system of grading these lawyers or their services and list their details under heads such as “Platinum,” “Premium”, “Top Service Provider,” the petitioner told the Court..The Counsel for the websites argued that their clients were only providing online directory services and not soliciting work for lawyers. They argued that directory services were not prohibited under the Advocates Act..The Court, however, noted that the websites give ratings without any basis and that it was apparent that they were selling legal services of lawyers for a fixed price, which goes against the Bar Council of India Rules.“Rule 36 of Bar Council of India Rules specifically prohibits touting. Therefore the online websites/intermediaries are estopped from taking shelter under section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The Advocates Act is an Act of Parliament. In exercise of the powers conferred under the Advocates Act, the Bar Council of India has notified the Rules. Since soliciting, advertising directly or indirectly whether by circular, advertisements, touts, personal communication, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with case where he is engaged or concerned are unlawful activities excluded from the safe harbour clause of section 79 of Information Technology Act. Thus, the online website companies are also liable under the relevant Act and Rules,” the order stated..The Court also explained why lawyers were not permitted to advertise their services. It said that besides the fact that a lawyer stood for the truth and justice and thus, there was no way that the profession can be treated as a business, making any advertisements or solicitation brings down the integrity of the profession."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 opined such self branding by lawyers, promotion through advertisements etc were bound to have a detrimental effect on the profession.."The legal profession cannot be viewed with a shallow lens. Some may try to find merit in the argument that with the growing need for professional services, a business model can help in its growth further. But this Court does not affirm this view. The tools employed in the profession can be upgraded or changed based on changing circumstances, (A classic example of this is of our seamless shift from physical hearing to virtual hearing during the COVID-19 lockdown). But the spirit and character which is the Basic Structure of this profession can never be altered," the High Court said..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..[Read Order]