Legal Profession is a Service, Not a Business: Madras High Court Orders Removal of Online Lawyer Ads

by News

The Madras High Court recently addressed the issue of lawyers advertising their services online, emphasizing that the legal profession should not be treated as a business. The court was hearing a plea against websites like Quikr, Sulekha, and Justdial, which offer “online lawyer services.” The court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to create guidelines for state bar councils to take disciplinary actions against advocates who advertise or solicit work, whether directly or indirectly.

A bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan also instructed the BCI to file complaints against online service providers or intermediaries that violate Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules. This rule strictly prohibits touting and soliciting work through advertisements, messages, or any form of marketing. The court expressed concern over some legal professionals adopting a business model, emphasizing that legal services are fundamentally a service to society, not a business driven by profit.

The court underscored that while lawyers are paid a service fee, it is in respect for their time and knowledge, not as a commercial transaction. The BCI was directed to remove any advertisements that have already been published by lawyers through these online service providers and to advise these intermediaries not to publish such advertisements in the future.

The court criticized the trend of “branding culture” among lawyers, stating that it is harmful to society. According to the court, ranking or providing customer ratings to lawyers is not appropriate and undermines the dignity and integrity of the profession. The court highlighted that professional dignity and integrity should never be compromised, especially in the legal profession.

The plea was filed by PN Vignesh, who sought action against websites that provide online lawyer services. He argued that these websites not only list the names and numbers of lawyers but also offer a system where users looking for legal assistance are given a PIN to connect with listed lawyers. Additionally, these websites have a grading system that categorizes lawyers under titles such as “Platinum,” “Premium,” and “Top Service Provider.”

The counsel for these websites contended that they were merely providing online directory services and not soliciting work for lawyers. They argued that directory services are not prohibited under the Advocates Act. However, the court noted that these websites give ratings without any basis and appear to be selling legal services of lawyers for a fixed price, which contravenes the Bar Council of India Rules.

The court elaborated on why lawyers are not permitted to advertise their services. It explained that a lawyer stands for truth and justice, and thus, the profession cannot be treated as a business. Advertising or solicitation would diminish the integrity of the profession. The court asserted that marketing of lawyers undermines the nobility and integrity of the profession. The justice delivery process is strongly based on the Constitution, and lawyers, as upholders of law, cannot treat the profession as a business. It would be contradictory for a lawyer who fights for justice to do so with a profit motive.

Furthermore, the court opined that self-branding by lawyers and promotion through advertisements would negatively impact the profession. The legal profession should not be viewed superficially. While some may argue that a business model could help meet the growing demand for professional services, the court did not agree with this view. The court acknowledged that the tools used in the profession could be updated or changed based on evolving circumstances, such as the shift from physical hearings to virtual hearings during the COVID-19 lockdown. However, the spirit and character, which form the fundamental structure of the profession, should never be altered.

In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that the legal profession is a noble service, not a commercial enterprise. The court’s directives aim to preserve the integrity and dignity of the profession by preventing advertising and solicitation by lawyers. This decision upholds the traditional values of the legal profession while recognizing the need for adaptation to changing circumstances without compromising its core principles.

Madras High Court: Senior Lawyers Not Paying Juniors is Exploitation and Violates Fundamental Rights

by News

The Madras High Court recently addressed the issue of senior lawyers not paying junior lawyers, calling it a form of exploitation that violates fundamental rights. This decision came from a bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan, who emphasized that the practice of not paying junior lawyers even a minimum stipend is unfair and exploitative. The court pointed out that young lawyers, despite their talent and hard work, struggle to make a living because senior lawyers do not compensate them adequately.

The bench referred to Section 6 of the Advocates Act of 1961, which mandates that Bar Councils must ensure the welfare of all lawyers registered with them. The court directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to come up with guidelines to set a minimum amount that must be paid to junior lawyers by their seniors. The court insisted that it is the responsibility of the Bar Council to protect the interests of junior lawyers and ensure their livelihood.

This issue was highlighted during the hearing of a petition by Farida Begum, who raised concerns about the delay in processing around 200 applications for benefits under the Tamil Nadu Advocate’s Welfare Fund. Advocate CK Chandrasekar, representing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, explained that the payments were delayed because the Tamil Nadu government had not yet released the necessary funds. Furthermore, he noted that the Welfare Scheme had not been approved by the Puducherry government, resulting in no benefits being disbursed to lawyers in Puducherry.

In response, the bench directed the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry governments to provide details on the number of lawyers eligible for the benefits, the funds allocated and released, and other relevant information. The court expressed concern over the practice of senior lawyers not paying juniors, stating that it is an unacceptable form of exploitation. The bench stressed that the Bar Council must take steps to ensure that junior lawyers receive a minimum stipend when they work for senior lawyers.

The court emphasized that extracting work from junior lawyers without paying them is a violation of their fundamental rights under the Constitution. Young lawyers, who start their careers with hope and enthusiasm, must be supported by senior lawyers and the legal community to ensure their survival and growth in the profession. The court noted that it is essential to fix a minimum stipend to protect the livelihood of junior lawyers.

The Madras High Court’s decision underscores the importance of fair compensation for junior lawyers and the responsibility of senior lawyers and Bar Councils to support the welfare of all lawyers. This move aims to address the exploitation of junior lawyers and ensure that they are adequately compensated for their work, thereby upholding their fundamental rights and promoting a fair and just legal profession.

Advocate C Elangovan represented the petitioner Farida Begum in this case, while Additional Government Pleader A Tamilvanan appeared for the Puducherry government. Advocate CK Chandrasekar appeared for the TN Bar Council, and Advocate S John J Raja Singh represented the Tamil Nadu government. The court has asked the TN Bar Council to provide instructions on the issue by June 12.

Madras High Court’s Interim Order: BJP MLAs Directed to Return Allegedly Illegally Acquired Temple Land

by News

The Madras High Court has issued an interim order instructing two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLAs from Puducherry and their family members to return a temple property that they were accused of obtaining illegally. The BJP legislators, A John Kumar and his son Vivilian Richards John Kumar, were alleged to have secured ownership of land belonging to the Kamatchiamman Temple in Puducherry through fraudulent means. The temple trust claimed ownership of the land dating back to 1935 and had been in continuous possession for over 80 years.

The court, while hearing the case, directed the MLAs and their family members to return the land until the investigation is completed to determine the rightful owners. It was alleged that government officials in the Puducherry administration were involved in the land-grabbing scheme.

The court found “shocking revelations” in the investigation reports regarding the fraudulent documents and the actions of government officials. The accused MLAs asserted their innocence and stated they were willing to return the land if the temple authorities could prove ownership. However, the court ordered the Puducherry administration to take possession of the temple land and return it to the temple administration.

Justice SM Subramaniam emphasized that public representatives, such as the accused MLAs, should be truthful and trustworthy servants of the people. They are constitutionally obligated to represent the interests of their constituents and uphold the principles of law. Therefore, the court directed the MLAs to cooperate with the ongoing probe conducted by the Puducherry CB-CID. The case will be listed for further proceedings after six weeks following the completion of the investigation.