It is a hotly contested matter today whether legal practitioners should be allowed to advertise their profession. While those who favour the proposition say that there is nothing wrong with displaying your achievements and employing creative ad agencies to boost your image in the media, many (including the custodian of legal practice in this country, the Bar Council of India) still believe that Law is a noble profession that must not be tainted by commercialisation.
The BCI regulations mandate that practitioners of law in India must not advertise or solicit either directly or indirectly through the media. There has been a recent amendment to these rules, wherein law firms are allowed to set up websites. However, these websites must only contain only “basic information about the names and number of lawyers in a law firm, the contact details and areas of practice”.
On visiting the websites of over 100 top law firms, I have found that unless the words ‘basic information’ is interpreted extremely liberally, several of the firms are in blatant violation of the law. The screen-shots of the violations are available with me.
Most law firms’ websites go beyond providing names and numbers of the lawyers, by including their CVs, complete with professionally-taken photographs. The websites mention the areas of practice of the firm, but go much further than that by using colourful wording to emphasise the skill, ability and efficiency of their lawyers in each area of law. Perhaps the forerunner in advertising its lawyers is top law firm ALMT, which apart from providing ‘basic’ information, has biographies of each of its partners, often running into hundreds of words. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan has a searchable database of all its lawyers, and also showcases elaborate biographies and professional photographs of them.
This is not limited to Nishith Desai alone. Firms like Fox Mandal and DSK Legal have downloadable PDF brochures available on the site, which squarely fall under the ambit of advertisements. The DSK Legal brochure uses phrases such as “when trouble arises, you will be glad to have us on your side”.
Fox Mandal, as well as some smaller firms such as Agnihotri & Jha, CL Gupta & Associates, Singhania & Partners among others, has also creatively added a ‘Client Testimonial’ section to its website. One of the Fox Mandal client statements is a glowing testimony that says that the firm must receive more awards for its excellent service. Singhania & Partners, strangely, also boasts of a ‘Gallery’ section which has pictures of its lawyers on office trips and vacations!
The BCI regulations mention how an advocate’s sign board or name plate must be of reasonable size. This rule is presumably so that lawyers do not use attractive signboards to solicit clients. However, websites, which can be considered to be online sign-boards, do not seem to show any semblance of austerity. There appears to be intense competition among law firms in creating aesthetically pleasing websites, as can be discerned from visiting the extremely well-designed websites for firms such as Fox Mandal, Luthra, J Sagar & Associates, H&B Law Offices, etc.
On opening the website of Anand & Anand, one can only view a high-resolution picture of its impressive head office. In order to open any of the other pages that contain information about the firm, the user has to register themselves with a user name and password. Perhaps the firm believes that complicating the process will make the information on the website seem less like an advertisement.
The website for Kochhar & Co. is not any different from the other heavily-advertised law firms, as it has client testimonials, lawyer biographies and a list of awards won. However, when one clicks on the ‘Practice Areas’ tab, the following message is displayed: Rules of the Bar Council of India preclude the Firm from providing information about its practice areas or expertise on the web. It appears as if the firm is selectively blind to the regulations. Some firms, big ones like DSK, as well as several others like CL Gupta, Daksh Associates, HK Legal, Global Juris, Advani & Co, Lexntech, etc. don’t have disclaimers.
The website of Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe also contains only a plain message on its website that it is not allowed to advertise. The message states: “While we may not be in agreement with this view, what we hold in high esteem, is to maintain discipline by following the Bar Council’s mandate”.
Also, some of the biggest firms like Amarchand & Mangaldas, AZB & Partners and Desai & Diwanji go on to prove that internet advertising isn’t a pre-requisite for success; they do not have websites at all.
In light of all the above discussion, there are some pressing questions that need be answered. By making visitors sign a disclaimer, are the law firms admitting to advertising on the sly? Can extravagant website designs, fancy wording and displays of accolades and testimonials be considered solicitation or influence on the consumer?
Either the Bar Council of India must open its eyes to this trend and clamp down on those who flout the regulations (who could make up nearly every note-worthy firm, apart from dozens of upcoming ones) or recognise the changing nature of the ‘noble’ legal profession and relax the rules against advertising.
A version of this article was first published on strippedlaw.blogspot.in by Raghul Sudheesh, who would like to thank Arpita Seth (NLIU, Bhopal) and Spadika Jayaraj (NLSIU, Bangalore) for their research on this post.
Read more on:
Comments
While some of the rhetoric around the 'noble' legal profession is disconcerting, everyone who advises on Indian law is part of the justice system. Most seem to think that advertising is antithetical to a noble legal profession. That is wrong and harmful nonsense. The Bar Council needs to change these advertising restrictions to ensure that there is more transparency in the market. The folks who stand to gain the most from such transparency are students and litigating lawyers. That is what the Bar Council doesn't seem to understand.
This is an archaic law and a vestige of our "victorian hangover" which bigger firms and lawyers today are using for their own advantage.
I would suppose these are also archaic.
Frankly, this argument is a bit annoying. Instead of an analysis of the pros and cons of the issue, it seems more a diatribe on "snazzy" designs, which the author seems to find particularly offensive.
Recent (and past) experience should teach the BCI that a "noble" profession status is not achieved by banning trivialities such as advertising, but by the actual "nobility" of its constituents and also by how heavily it is willing to come down on moral turpitude and corruption. Sadly, that does not align with anyone's political positions.
Thats a fairly naive assessment - (i) Khaitan has over a 100 years of existence, and therefore immense contacts and institutional relationships; (ii) Khaitan has one of the strongest PR presences and ensures that every single one of their deals get reported (thats an advertisment gimmick); (iii) they regularly pay to be listed in international directories and publications; and (iv) actively lobby to be included in peer review journals.
They dont need direct advertisement. More skillful but younger firms do. It has nothing to do with confidence in quality.
And by the way, if you talk of the quality of some of the Khaitan offices, example, Kolkata, people will laugh at you.
Thats a fairly naive assessment - (i) Khaitan has over a 100 years of existence, and therefore immense contacts and institutional relationships; (ii) Khaitan has one of the strongest PR presences and ensures that every single one of their deals get reported (thats an advertisment gimmick); (iii) they regularly pay to be listed in international directories and publications; and (iv) actively lobby to be included in peer review journals.
They dont need direct advertisement. More skillful but younger firms do. It has nothing to do with confidence in quality.
And by the way, if you talk of the quality of some of the Khaitan offices, example, Kolkata, people will laugh at you.[/quote]
Agree!
Nice information. May i add that when you have done so much to point out the names of big firms, why were JSA, Poovayya, Dr. Kainth and Associates, Singhania and others ommitted?
LegalllyRight
Its Crawford Bayley and not Crawford Bailey and please enlighten me about its website, if at all it exists.
Best wishes,
Kian
Having a flashy website can also be considered equal to a law firm setting up a stall at a carnival. You can put up a sign saying that you don't intend to solicit, but what you are doing is essentially that.
If someone actively goes to find out about something by typing the name of the law firm into Google, and then hits their webpage where he finds more information, is that advertisement?
What is the difference between a brochure lying in an office and a webpage exactly?
I think the BCI does not understand the interwebs.
[...] ".... on to prove that internet advertising isn’t a pre-requisite for success; they do not have websites at al"... They do not have websites and neither do they want others to have websites so they can maintain their hegemony. This is precisely why they resist foreign firms from also coming in.
Imagine a young lawyer, with the best of degrees, and 8 years of experience starting off on his own. How should he let people know about his practice? By this logic, sending a brochure or brief description of his work over email would also violate Rule 36. Instead of subscribing to such an archaic view, the author would do well to read down Rule 36 and conclude that the disclaimer saves the website from falling foul. Alas, there is no attempt to even analyse this aspect in any detail.
Anyone who has worked with one of the big firms knows exactly how these things work. Big firms have "business development officers" - what do you think they do? The author could do well to gain some more practical insight and experience in the field before going on to make such harsh statements. His inexperience in practice shines through this article. If youngsters also go on to support the views of big firms, how will anything change?? The author would do better to study whether Rule 36 is constitutionally correct or the scope of someone filing a writ challenging this archaic rule.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCZ3tY-_Ljo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hEykO_gwHw&feature=endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSKe42bxMZ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8j9GHiKFF0&feature=endscreen&NR=1
For the avoidance of doubt, no, Raghul has not joined LI and there is nothing nefarious going on :)
Best regards
Kian
In any case, if lawyers want to make fools of themselves in their advertising why stop them?
Since when did advertising become moral terpitude? If building a website is immoral or against the notions of nobility (whatever they may be); then what does the BCI have to say about the Websites of the Holy See, or of various hospitals and medical research institutions (a profession which is WAY more 'noble' than Law for sure) - it is high time that Internet is supposed to ease the access to information that people have, not to take them further away from the firms or organizations which are best suited to cater to their needs.
nice article and nice research and good work.
all the best.
thanks and
regards.
anand.a