Written by Shaiwal Satyarthi and Pawan Kumar
On March 17, the Bar Council of India issued a comprehensive press release to address the surge of unethical practices within the legal profession. The BCI condemned “the increasingly prevalent and unethical practice of advocates advertising their legal services through social media, promotional videos, and influencer endorsements”, explicitly denouncing “the involvement of Bollywood actors, celebrities, and digital media platforms as promotional tools, which clearly violate Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules, 2008”.
This rule mandates that “an advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly”, a principle the BCI emphasised as distinguishing the legal profession, rooted in “public trust and ethical standards”, from “commercial business ventures”.
The statutory council found the use of Bollywood celebrities and actors to sell legal services particularly inappropriate and unethical.
Solicitation of work by advocates in a digital world
The BCI’s decision is based on the idea that the practice of law is not a commercial enterprise but a noble profession that serves the public good. Under the Advocates Act, 1961, a central law, Indian lawyers are prohibited from soliciting clients through advertisements or other promotional activities.
In today’s “almost” digitally equipped world, well-informed decision-making has become non-negotiable, more than ever before. Online content has equipped individuals with access to instant information, but it has also unleashed a wave of mis- and disinformation.
In the legal field, where precision is mandatory, such misrepresentations can have severe consequences. Misguided advice on issues like legal compliance, taxation, contracts, or financial transactions, like securing loans, can lead to confusion, costly errors, and irreversible consequences. The stakes are high, as these areas directly impact personal and economic well-being, making the BCI’s intervention both timely and necessary.
Bar Council of India’s stern action on advertising
The Bar Council’s directives include the “immediate withdrawal of the advertisements violating Rule 36” and a strict prohibition on “utilising Bollywood actors, celebrities, or influencers for legal practice promotions”. It also banned “banners, promotional materials, and digital ads for legal practice” and prohibited “solicitation of legal work via social media or digital platforms.” The BCI observed that “advocates are leveraging religious, cultural, or public events for self-promotion through banners, stalls, and digital advertisements”, deeming such actions “unethical canvassing” that infringes on professional dignity. To tackle misinformation, the BCI targeted “self-styled legal influencers”, mandating “stricter vetting mechanisms by digital platforms to remove misleading legal content” and prohibiting “non-enrolled individuals providing misleading legal advice”. The council warned that “in the age of internet and digital media, the rise of self-styled legal influencers has compounded these ethical concerns”.
Some precedents
Disciplinary measures are strict as per the rules of the BCI. Violations will lead to severe disciplinary measures, including the suspension or cancellation of enrolment and even referral to the Supreme Court for the initiation of contempt proceedings.
Citing the Madras High Court’s 2024 ruling in P N Vignesh vs Bar Council of India (2019), the BCI has directed “formal complaints to the digital platforms for the removal of unethical content” and urged state bar councils to take “immediate disciplinary action against advocates engaging in unethical advertising or solicitation of work via online portals like Quikr India, Sulekha.com, Just Dial Limited, and Grotal.com”.
These directives align with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bar Council of India vs A K Balaji (2018), which affirmed that individuals, “associations, firms, companies, juridical persons, and even BPO companies… are governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, and fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the BCI if, in pith and substance, they engage in the practice of law”. It held that such platforms violate ethical standards, denying them safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, due to their active role in prohibited practices.
In Indian Medical Association vs Union of India, 2024, the Supreme Court of India has observed that “it is the shared responsibility of advertisers and endorsers, including celebrities and influencers, to ensure the accuracy of advertisements”. As per justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, “endorsements by public figures, influencers, celebrities, etc., go a long way in promoting a product, and it is imperative for them to act with responsibility when endorsing any product in the course of advertisements”.
Way forward
The BCI’s decision is based on the idea that the practice of law is not a commercial enterprise but a noble profession that serves the public good. Time and again, Supreme Court judges have reiterated that lawyers are officers of the court and officers must refrain from social media advertisement.
Under the Advocates Act of 1961, Indian lawyers are prohibited from soliciting clients through advertisements or other promotional activities. The BCI has long held the opinion that such advertising would result in the commodification of legal practice, where firms compete not on their experience, skill, or reputation, but on marketing strength. According to the BCI, this threatens to demean the profession’s dignity and the trust the public has in lawyers.
Satyarthi and Kumar teach law at Delhi University and Amity Law School, Noida respectively.
