Bar Council of India (BCI) chief Manan Kumar Mishra said in a conference hosted by the American Bar Association yesterday that the BCI, in the second week of March, would “pass a resolution to amend Rule 36 in Section IV of the BCI Rules to allow lawyers and law firms to have their own websites”, reported Bar & Bench.
In 2010 the Delhi bar council vowed to crack down on law firm websites but quickly backed down from the proposal. However, in 2008 the Delhi bar council had allowed law firms to have websites within the existing restrictions on advertising. The amendment stated that advocates would be allowed to furnish “website information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India”, which permits little more than publishing advocates’ contact details, qualifications and areas of specialisation.
Research and a column published on Legally India in 2012 pointed out most law firms and their websites were in “blatant violation” of the BCI’s advertising rules.
Comments
I think it's pretty much been sitting there without anyone bothering to take it up or push it forward...
I think it's pretty much been sitting there without anyone bothering to take it up or push it forward...[/quote]
According to the SC website the last hearing was 2 weeks ago.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%2017150-1715412p.txt
The order says: "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of taking several steps, the petitioner could not serve the respondents mentioned in the Office Report even though efforts were made to serve them through the Embassy... Accordingly, the names of respondent Nos. 9, 11, 12, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30 to 32, 34, 35 and 38 are directed to be deleted from the array of parties."
Please interview the lawyers and find out whether this is true or simply a delaying tactic. Also, can you please do a story on how many G20 countries allow foreign law firms? I think India is the only G20 country which does not.
Actually a number of hearings have taken place but Balaji has kept saying in each hearing that he has to serve the parties. I would like to know why the Hon'ble Court did not imposed a fine.