Bar Council Must Pull Up Google And Stop The Commercialisation Of Law
The profession of law is built on nuanced expertise, rigorous training, and an unwavering commitment to ethical practice—attributes that are easily overshadowed in the digital review space, says Gajanan Khergamker
In a writ petition filed as a 'Pro Bono Publico' in the interest of legal profession, for directing the Chairman and Members of the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, to take appropriate action against quikr.in, sulekha.com, justdial.com and any other service provider, restraining them from carrying on the business of providing legal services on their web portal or Applications, the division bench of S.M. Subramaniam and C. Kumarappan, JJ. recently issued the following directions:
The BCI was directed to issue Circulars/Instructions/Guidelines to the State Bar Councils within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to initiate disciplinary proceedings for misconduct against the Advocates advertising, soliciting works directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, 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.
The BCI was directed to register complaints before the competent authorities under the relevant Act against online service providers/intermediaries conspiring or abetting or aiding or inducing whether by threats or promise or otherwise in the commission of unlawful act of publication of advertisement by lawyers as laid down under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
The BCI was directed to initiate all appropriate actions to remove the advertisements published by lawyers through online service providers/intermediaries and to issue advises to the intermediaries not to publish such advertisements barred under Rule 36 of BCI Rules.
The BCI was directed to secure the assistance of Government of India to prevent such unlawful acts by online service providers. The websites were directed to remove all the contents which are in violation of Rule 36 of BCI Rules within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.
The Court expressed profound dismay at the alarming trend among certain legal professionals who are attempting to reconfigure their practice into a business model. It emphatically underscored that legal service is fundamentally distinct from a job or a business. Unlike business enterprises that operate with a singular focus on profit, the practice of law is intrinsically a service to society. While lawyers do receive fees, these payments are tributes to their time and expertise rather than mere commercial transactions.
Rejecting the notion that a business-oriented framework could enhance the legal profession’s growth, the Court affirmed that although the tools and methodologies within the profession might evolve with changing times, its core essence and character—the Basic Structure—must remain unaltered.
Law, it observed, is not about the survival of the fittest but the upliftment of the distressed. The paramount duty of a lawyer is to uphold the law while zealously defending their client's rights, striving not merely for favourably verdicts but for the cause of justice. Thus, the legal profession is distinguished by its unique spirit and ethos.
The Court further delineated that the ultimate goal of any business is profit, but the sole objective of the legal profession is the pursuit of justice — values that are inherently non-negotiable and cannot be commodified.
Delving into the rationale behind the prohibition on advertising for lawyers, the Court articulated that marketing legal services undermines the profession's nobility and integrity. The justice delivery system, rooted in constitutional principles, necessitates that lawyers, as custodians of the law, refrain from treating their profession as a commercial venture. It lamented the commercialisation of legal services by certain websites that peddle these services at fixed prices, in blatant defiance of Bar Council of India Rules. These websites also independently rate lawyers without any legitimate basis or authority, thereby eroding the profession's dignity and nobility.
Such practices, the Court warned, degrade the ethical standards of the profession and mislead the public, creating a fertile ground for misinformation and exploitation by unscrupulous elements. Unregulated advertising can disseminate false information, as these platforms lack the authority to provide legal services or endorse lawyers for a commission. The Court noted the economic disparities inherent in the profession, cautioning that permitting advertisements would exacerbate these inequalities, advantaging those with financial means to afford such visibility.
Reiterating the stipulations of Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, the Court emphasised the prohibition on advocates from advertising or soliciting work directly or indirectly—through circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, or media engagements. The only exception allowed is for advocates to furnish specified website information with prior approval from the Bar Council of India. Violations of Rule 36 constitute misconduct under the Advocates Act, meriting disciplinary actions.
Further, the Court highlighted Rule 37, noting that online intermediaries facilitating platforms for lawyers to advertise and solicit work contravene the BCI Rules. Lawyers paying for such listings and soliciting work through these platforms engage in touting, explicitly prohibited by Rule 36.
Thus, the Court categorically barred these online websites and intermediaries from invoking Section 79 of the Information Technology Act as a defence. The matter has been scheduled for further review on 20-08-2024 to ensure compliance with these directives.
In a move resonating with the recent adjudication of the Madras High Court, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has mandated state bar councils and prominent online platforms to expunge advertisements wherein lawyers solicit work.
This directive stems from the judgment pronounced on July 3, wherein the Madras High Court instructed the BCI to formulate guidelines compelling state bar councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against advocates engaging in advertisements or solicitation through various mediums, including messages and intermediaries.
The Court emphatically reiterated that the legal profession is a noble vocation, not a profit-driven enterprise, and that the commercialization of legal services severely undermines the profession’s dignity and integrity, thereby posing a societal detriment.
Pursuant to the Court’s directions, the BCI has disseminated two critical communications: one to the state bar councils and another to key online service providers, including Quikr, Sulekha, Just Dial, and Grotal. The state bar councils have been instructed to enforce stringent disciplinary actions against advocates who contravene the Bar Council of India Rules by advertising or soliciting work via online portals.
The BCI has issued a stern warning, indicating that failure to comply with its directives will precipitate legal actions and penalties against the transgressing entities. The BCI underscored that all portals, online platforms, and advocates found infringing upon Rule-36 of the Bar Council of India Rules are hereby put on public notice to ensure immediate and strict adherence to these regulations. The BCI unequivocally stated that any advertisements in violation of the stated Rule must be withdrawn forthwith.
The Bar Council of India's action to issue notices to the online reviewing entities, demanding the removal of lawyer reviews and profiles, was a seminal and necessary intervention aimed at preserving the integrity of the legal profession in India.
The legal profession in India is governed by a stringent code of ethics that explicitly bans advertising in any form. This prohibition is not merely a relic of a bygone era but a deliberate construct designed to uphold the dignity and honor of the profession, ensuring that legal services are sought based on merit, reputation, and personal recommendations rather than commercial promotion. However, the advent of online review platforms has exposed a loophole, enabling a form of indirect advertising that fundamentally undermines these ethical standards.
By permitting reviews and ratings of lawyers, these platforms inadvertently skew the playing field, promoting certain individuals over others based not on their legal acumen or integrity, but on their prowess in generating positive feedback. This insidious dynamic compels lawyers to engage in practices that conflict with their professional ethos, such as encouraging satisfied clients to leave glowing reviews or, in more egregious instances, manipulating feedback to bolster their online profiles.The Bar Council of India's directive is thus a commendable step towards redressing this imbalance. It recognises that while online platforms can democratise information, they also possess an equally potent capacity to distort it, leading to potential misrepresentation of a lawyer's true capabilities and ethical standing.
The removal of these reviews is not merely a procedural necessity but a fundamental imperative to ensure that the legal profession remains anchored in its core values of integrity, competence, and impartiality.
From a broader perspective, this initiative by the Bar Council of India is also a protective measure for the public. Clients seeking legal services are often in precarious positions, requiring accurate and reliable information to make informed decisions. The presence of misleading reviews can precipitate poor choices, adversely impacting their legal outcomes and, ultimately, their lives. By excising these reviews, the Bar Council is discharging its duty to ensure that clients base their decisions on substantive, verifiable criteria rather than on the superficial allure of online ratings.
Moreover, this action addresses the broader issue of trust in the legal system. Trust is the cornerstone of the legal profession, and any erosion of this trust can have far-reaching and deleterious consequences. The Bar Council’s intervention is a bulwark against such erosion, helping to preserve the public's faith in the legal system by ensuring that the profession's reputation is not sullied by the manipulative practices engendered by online review platforms.
From a broader perspective, this initiative by the Bar Council of India is also a protective measure for the public. Clients seeking legal services are often in precarious positions, requiring accurate and reliable information to make informed decisions. The presence of misleading reviews can precipitate poor choices, adversely impacting their legal outcomes and, ultimately, their lives. By excising these reviews, the Bar Council is discharging its duty to ensure that clients base their decisions on substantive, verifiable criteria rather than on the superficial allure of online ratings.
Moreover, this action addresses the broader issue of trust in the legal system. Trust is the cornerstone of the legal profession, and any erosion of this trust can have far-reaching and deleterious consequences. The Bar Council’s intervention is a bulwark against such erosion, helping to preserve the public's faith in the legal system by ensuring that the profession's reputation is not sullied by the manipulative practices engendered by online review platforms.
The Bar Council of India’s issuance of notices to eliminate lawyer reviews from online platforms is a pivotal measure to safeguard the profession's integrity and to shield the public from misleading information. This move reaffirms the principle that the legal profession should be evaluated on the basis of merit and ethical practice, not on the capricious and often deceptive nature of online reviews. It is a decisive step towards ensuring that the digital age enhances rather than undermines the foundational pillars of trust and competence in the legal profession.
In an era where digital platforms wield immense power, the disservice done to professionals like lawyers by Google’s review system is not merely a matter of ethics but of existential significance. The Bar Council of India must intervene decisively.
Imagine the plight of a seasoned lawyer, whose reputation, built over decades of meticulous work, can be tarnished by a single, possibly misguided, review. Unlike businesses that can flaunt their services through advertising, these professionals are bound by stringent regulations. The noble intent behind these bans is to preserve the sanctity and dignity of their practice, to ensure that the focus remains on merit and service rather than on who can shout the loudest.
However, Google's platform, under the guise of democratising information, subverts this principle. It coerces professionals into the unseemly race for positive reviews. The astute lawyer, instead of focusing solely on his practice, now has to navigate the murky waters of online reputation management. This often means subtly encouraging clients to leave favorable feedback or, worse, resorting to fabricating reviews. The very essence of professionalism is compromised.
This engineered feedback does not merely distort the public’s perception; it creates an uneven playing field. The ethical practitioner, who refrains from such dubious tactics, is overshadowed by peers who are willing to bend the rules. The outcome is a marketplace of trust, marred by inauthentic reviews, where the uninformed public may base critical decisions on skewed realities.
The Bar Council of India must step in with unyielding resolve. By banning Google from hosting reviews for these professionals, they would not be stifling free speech but rather safeguarding the sanctity of the profession.
This ban would reinforce the principle that the trust between a professional and their client should be built on direct, personal experience and proven competence, not on the unreliable whims of an online platform.
In essence, it's time to remind digital giants that not all information can or should be crowdsourced, especially when the stakes are as high as a person’s legal standing. The Bar Council of India, and its counterparts, must act to protect the integrity of the venerable profession.
The encroachment of Google’s review system into the professional domains of lawyers is a clear and present danger to the sanctity of these fields. At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental contradiction: the legal and ethical frameworks that restrict these professionals from advertising were instituted to uphold the highest standards of integrity and trust. Yet, the very absence of traditional advertising channels leaves a void that platforms like Google exploit, albeit indirectly.
Imagine a scenario where a client, in dire need of legal intervention, chooses a lawyer based on the glowing reviews they find online. These reviews, while ostensibly a democratic way for consumers to share experiences, can be deeply flawed.
They often reflect transient emotions rather than an accurate assessment of professional competence. A single negative review, fueled perhaps by a misunderstanding or unrealistic expectations, can unfairly tarnish a lawyer's reputation. Conversely, a slew of positive reviews might not be the product of genuine client satisfaction but rather a result of orchestrated efforts by the lawyer or their staff.
This creates a distortion field where the true measure of a professional’s capability is obscured by the superficial layer of online feedback. The diligent lawyer, who spends countless hours poring over case files, who approaches each case with meticulous care, finds himself in an unequal battle against peers who may prioritise their online image over their actual practice. The result is a deficit of trust—both in the profession and in the review systems that purport to offer transparency.
The Bar Council of India, therefore, must recognise that the integrity of the legal profession is at stake. By permitting Google to host reviews of this nature, it inadvertently allows a form of indirect advertising that can be as manipulative and misleading as any overt commercial. A decisive ban on these reviews would be a step towards reclaiming the ground lost to the digital marketplace.
Moreover, it’s essential to consider the broader societal implications. The reliance on online reviews is symptomatic of a larger shift towards instant gratification and superficial judgments.
The depth of trust and the quality of service that are hallmarks of the legal profession cannot be adequately captured through a star rating or a brief comment. The profession of law is built on nuanced expertise, rigorous training, and an unwavering commitment to ethical practice—attributes that are easily overshadowed in the digital review space.
In advocating for a ban on Google reviews for lawyers, the Bar Council of India would send a powerful message: that the true value of this profession lies in the adherence to the highest standards of practice, not in an ability to manipulate online perception. This would not only protect the professional but also safeguard the public from the potential harms of making critical decisions based on unreliable information.
It’s about reaffirming the principle that some aspects of life—particularly those as vital as legal counsel—deserve to be insulated from the vagaries of the digital age.
The integrity of the legal profession must be preserved, and the Bar Council of India has a pivotal role in ensuring that the digital revolution does not undermine the foundational pillars of trust and competence.
To receive regular updates and notifications, follow The Draft News:
