On March 17, 2025, the Bar Council of India (BCI) issued a strong rebuke to what it called a disturbing rise in unethical legal advertising and social media promotion by law firms and self-styled legal influencers. The trigger was a now-notorious promotional video by a prominent Indian law firm, commemorating its 20th anniversary. The video, which featured Bollywood actor Rahul Bose and several actors portraying firm staff, used polished scripting and cinematic production to portray the firm’s breadth and culture. Lines such as “Not all our members crunch cases, some crunch numbers too” and “Some people are good in court, some in documentation, and some like me handle the entire backend” conveyed a corporate ethos that resonated more with marketing than professional conduct. The video concluded with Bose walking through the office, saying, “Guys, it’s 20 years,” followed by a voiceover on trust and commitment. For the BCI, this crossed a red line.
Rule 36 and the Ethics of Advocacy in India
In its official press release, the Council stated that such promotional content is in direct contravention of Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules, which prohibits advocates from soliciting work or advertising, either directly or indirectly, including through advertisements, personal communications, or the publication of photographs and endorsements related to cases. The BCI reiterated that legal practice in India is not a business but a noble profession—a service rooted in public interest, integrity, and trust. Commercializing it, the Council warned, risks eroding both ethical foundations and public confidence in the justice system.
The Council’s position was backed by prior judicial precedents. In July 2024, the Madras High Court had issued a strong ruling in Writ Petition Nos. 31281 and 31428 of 2019, cautioning against the commercialization of legal services. The court had emphasized that advocacy must remain distinct from commerce, and had firmly rejected the idea of digital platforms being used to canvas or attract clients. It supported the regulatory jurisdiction of the BCI and urged disciplinary action against lawyers or intermediaries violating these principles.
Legal Influencers and the Risk of Misinformation
The Council’s concern extends beyond large law firms. The press release also highlighted the exponential rise of self-styled legal influencers on platforms like Instagram, YouTube, and LinkedIn. These individuals, often lacking formal legal credentials or bar enrolment, offer opinions and simplified explanations on complex legal topics—ranging from matrimonial disputes to tax planning, from privacy and intellectual property rights to constitutional law. In doing so, they risk spreading misinformation, particularly when they interpret landmark rulings such as the Citizenship Amendment Act, Supreme Court’s Right to Privacy decision, or GST regulations. The BCI noted that such content has led to widespread public confusion and, in some cases, unnecessary litigation and judicial burden.
Safe Harbour Liability under Section 79 of the IT Act
Significantly, the BCI’s notice also touches on the liability of digital platforms that enable or amplify such advertising. Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000—which grants safe harbour to intermediaries—the Council warned that these protections may not apply if platforms are found actively facilitating unethical legal content. This marks an important shift. As established by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [1], intermediaries are expected to act only upon receiving actual knowledge through a court order or government directive. But the BCI now seems to signal that platforms hosting or promoting legal influencer content could face liability, especially when notified of professional misconduct.
BCI’s Directives to the State Bar Councils
In light of these developments, the BCI issued a list of directives to State Bar Councils, including the immediate withdrawal of any advertisements that violate Rule 36; a ban on the use of celebrities or influencers to promote legal services; the removal of all promotional banners, videos, and online content; and disciplinary action against advocates involved in such activities. It also warned digital platforms to act promptly or risk being drawn into formal complaints and legal proceedings. In serious cases, referral to the Supreme Court of India and cancellation of enrollment may follow.
Final Comments
Internationally, India’s stance on legal advertising is uniquely conservative. In jurisdictions like the United States, legal advertising is largely protected under the First Amendment. Law firms can run billboards, online campaigns, and video ads, provided they comply with professional conduct rules that prohibit false or misleading claims. In contrast, India takes a fundamentally different view—grounded not in speech rights, but in the ethical distinction between advocacy and commerce. Legal practice here is not a brand to be marketed but a trust to be earned. This is why, you may notice that most law firm websites in India have a disclaimer before their homepages, for example, see this.
The BCI’s press release makes clear that India’s legal ecosystem is at an inflection point. As lawyers and firms become more digitally visible, and as the public increasingly turns to online platforms for legal understanding, the line between education and solicitation becomes harder to define. Yet the message remains firm: the integrity of the legal profession in India cannot be compromised for visibility or branding. Whether this stance evolves over time—or sparks further debate on what modern legal engagement should look like—remains to be seen.
Sources
/Passle/5ca769f7abdfe80aa08edc04/SearchServiceImages/2025-03-25-13-45-14-601-67e2b36abb59d8f2d85ffb09.jpg)
/Passle/5ca769f7abdfe80aa08edc04/SearchServiceImages/2025-03-25-13-39-11-448-67e2b1ff3d7d30e02744d812.jpg)