Landmark Judgment by Madras High Court: Online Solicitation of Legal Services Under Scrutiny
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to take disciplinary action against lawyers who solicit work through online service providers. The court emphasized that the legal profession should not be treated as a business.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition (W.PNo. 31281 of 2019) filed by Mr. PN. Vignesh, who sought to protect the integrity of the legal profession. The petition named the Bar Council of India, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, and online service providers like Quikr, Sulekha.com, and Justdial.com as respondents. Mr. Vignesh argued that these platforms were enabling lawyers to solicit work, which he claimed violated the Bar Council of India Rules and constituted misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
The court examined several pivotal issues, including:
1. Whether online platforms offering lawyer services breach the Bar Council of India Rules.
2. The legality of advertising and solicitation by lawyers.
3. The role of online intermediaries in providing lawyer services.
4. The applicability of safe harbor provisions under the Information Technology Act to these platforms.
Court’s Ruling and Observations
The division bench, comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan, issued several important directives and observations:
1. Legal Profession is Not a Business: The court underscored that the legal profession is fundamentally a service to society, not a profit-driven business. Justice Subramaniam stated, "Legal service is neither a job nor a business. A business is driven purely by profit motive. But in law, a larger part is a service to the society."
2. Prohibition on Advertising: Reinforcing Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, the court prohibited advocates from advertising or soliciting work in any form. The BCI was instructed to issue circulars to State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary actions against those violating this rule.
3. Action Against Online Platforms: The court ordered the BCI to file complaints against online service providers facilitating unlawful advertisements by lawyers. These platforms were given four weeks to remove such advertisements.
4. Ban on Ratings and Offers: Expressing concern over the practice of rating and pricing legal services online, Justice Subramaniam remarked, "Branding culture in the legal profession is detrimental to society. Ranking or providing customer ratings to lawyers is unheard of and demeans the ethos of the profession."
5. No Safe Harbor for Intermediaries: The court ruled that online platforms cannot claim protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act (safe harbor provision) as their activities contravene the Advocates Act and BCI Rules.
This landmark judgment by the Madras High Court highlights the importance of maintaining the ethical standards of the legal profession and draws a clear line against the commercialization of legal services.
To get free legal advice:https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
