Lawyers using social media to seek clients? Bar Council of Delhi issues warning
'The Bar Council of Delhi has observed that many lawyers are indulging in posting content and videos to solicit work by way of advertisement either directly or indirectly through circulars advertising personal interactions, interviews, producing their photographs to publish in connection with the cases,' read the notice dated August 4.
The notice added that advertising to solicit work using social media constituted unethical canvassing and infringed upon professional ethics and the dignity of the legal practice.
'In the age of the internet and digital media, there has been a steep rise in self-styled legal influencers, which has, in fact, compounded the issue. The Bar Council of Delhi notes with serious concern the rapid growth of legal influencers who do not even possess appropriate credentials and are spreading misinformation on critical legal issues,' the notice stated.
The BCD also said that resorting to advertising in such a manner was prohibited as per Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules.
Rule 36 states: 'An Advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly, whether by circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments or producing his photographs to be published in connection with cases in which he has been engaged or concerned.'
'Any violation of the aforesaid Rule amounts to serious misconduct and an Advocate can be held guilty to be proceeded against under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, which can lead to suspension or cancellation of licence to practice as an Advocate,' the notice said.
It also warned advocates who were active on social media to remove their content or face action under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which is titled 'punishment of advocates for misconduct'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
17 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Bar council puts 16 lawyers on notice for bench hunting
The privilege committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has put on notice 16 lawyers, including two senior advocates, of the high court over alleged attempts of 'bench hunting' to obtain a favourable order in an alleged case of corruption involving a Gurugram-based realtor and former special CBI court judge in Haryana. The privilege committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has asked the 16 lawyers to respond by August 16. (Representational photo) The committee sought responses from senior advocate and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi and former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, stating their responses are necessary to 'fairly and comprehensively adjudicate the matter in hand'. The committee, chaired by Raj Kumar Chauhan, was constituted on August 4 by BCPH chairman Rakesh Gupta after members of the bar council pointed out that some advocates of the Punjab and Haryana high court were resorting to bench hunting to secure 'favourable orders' from a particular bench or avoiding to appear before another. Bench hunting or forum shopping refers to petitioners managing to get their cases heard by a particular judge or bench to ensure a favourable order. 'This committee is of the prima facie view that there appears to be foul play on the part of certain advocates who appeared on behalf of Roop Bansal, a real estate builder, and it appears these advocates may have manipulated procedural rules for convenience and gain,' the privilege committee observed after going through the record of the case. 'It is painful and disturbing for the committee to discuss here how tactfully, systematically and in an organised manner, some of the advocates made efforts to hunt the bench. From the records, prima facie it appears that JK Singla, advocate, orchestrated the game plan. But it is highly unbelievable, that this can be done singularly, rather it has been done in an organised manner and there might be some big ingenious minded advocates behind the curtains, which has to be unearthed,' it said. The council is the statutory body with 1.5 lakh members across two states and Chandigarh. It has regulatory control over the Bars and regulates entry into the legal profession and also adjudicates complaints against lawyers. It was established under the Advocates Act, 1961, and is headquartered at Chandigarh. The advocates, who have been served notice through Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, are JK Singla, Sidharth Bhardwaj, Aditya Aggarwal, Gagandeep Singh, Anmol Chandan, Baljeet Beniwal, Harsh Sharma, Sauhard Singh, Rupender Singh, Ankit Yadav, Ashim Singla, Aakash Sharma, Bindu, APS Shergil and two senior advocates Rakesh Nehra and Puneet Bali. All of them have been told to respond by August 16. The petition was filed by real estate firm M3M's director Roop Bansal seeking quashing of an FIR filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against himself and others, including former special CBI court judge Sudhir Parmar. The case stems from an April 2023 case, registered against Sudhir Parmar, Roop Bansal, and others under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC for offences relating to a public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage without consideration from person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by such public servant, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy. Sudhir Parmar, who was then special CBI judge, Panchkula, was accused of alleged favouritism towards Bansal and others who were accused in FIRs being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate, pending before his court. Bansal's case was withdrawn by chief justice Sheel Nagu through an administrative decision in May from a judge and assigned it to himself after some 'complaints'. While hearing this petition, the chief justice had orally hinted at possible cases of 'bench hunting' in these proceedings during an open court hearing. However, subsequently, the chief justice also recused from hearing the case. The case is now being heard by the bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. The committee asserted that 'legal ethics are not optional'. 'They are sacred. Upholding the dignity of this noble profession requires moral courage, compassion, and unwavering commitment to truth,' it said, adding to ascertain whether these advocates have indulged at any stage in bench hunting, the notices are being issued to these lawyers.
Indian Express
21 hours ago
- Indian Express
Bar Council issues notices to 16 lawyers over alleged bench-hunting in Roop Bansal case
The Privilege Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has initiated proceedings against 16 lawyers, including two senior advocates, over alleged attempts to manipulate the bench assignment process in a high-profile corruption case involving Gurugram-based real estate developer Roop Bansal. In an order dated August 7, 2025, the Committee directed the advocates to appear in person or through counsel on August 16 at 3 pm, along with their replies. The list includes Senior Advocates Rakesh Nehra and Puneet Bali, besides Advocates J.K. Singla, Sidharth Bhardwaj, Aditya Aggarwal, Gagandeep Singh, Anmol Chandan, Baljeet Beniwal, Harsh Sharma, Sauhard Singh, Rupender Singh, Ankit Yadav, Ashim Singla, Aakash Sharma, Ms. Bindu, and APS Shergil. The move follows observations made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M-19843-2025 (Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana), where Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, in the open court, flagged concerns over 'bench shopping' and warned that such conduct was 'destroying the Bar.' The Indian Express had reported that the Bench had asked Bansal's legal team to produce the advocate who filed a fresh plea in the matter 'just to get the case out of a particular Bench.' The Committee, chaired by Raj Kumar Chauhaan, said the matter was taken up suo motu to 'uphold the dignity of the legal profession, ensure the maintenance of legal ethics, and discharge the responsibilities entrusted under law.' It further wrote, 'In the battle of justice and injustice and in between the righteous and wrong, in Mahabharata, the silence of Bhishma and Drona in the Court of Hastinapur, during Draupadi's humiliation, reveals a timeless truth – when those trained in law and morality remain silent in the face of injustice, the law itself collapses.' Citing legal maxims and historical analogies, it likened any attempt to subvert judicial processes to an 'invasion of the Temple of Justice,' comparable to 'the desecration of the Somnath Temple in the 11th century.' From the records, the Committee said it appeared that Advocate J.K. Singla 'orchestrated the game plan' but that it was 'highly unbelievable' such an effort could be carried out alone. 'There might be some big ingenious mind advocates behind the curtains, which has to be unearthed,' it noted, terming the alleged conduct as 'tactful, systematic and in an organized manner.' The order invoked Section 6(c) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, empowering the Bar Council to take action in cases involving professional misconduct. It also acknowledged the 'complexity of tactics such as bench hunting, bar hunting or forum shopping' allegedly adopted by some lawyers and businessmen 'for ulterior motives.' The Committee said it would also seek responses from senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi 'to fairly and comprehensively adjudicate the matter.' Additionally, it invited information, complaints, or any material from advocates and affected persons via its official email and WhatsApp number. Emphasising that 'legal ethics are not optional, they are sacred,' the order warned that any lawyer who manipulates the judicial process 'for convenience and gain' is 'a menace to society.' Quoting Gandhi, Ambedkar, Roscoe Pound, Lord Denning and Justice Louis Brandeis, the Committee underlined that lawyers are 'custodians of justice' and 'guardians of constitutional morality.' 'The Bar Council cannot sit idle as a mere spectator. It is the duty of the Committee to trace out the rotten apple/apples from the basket, before all get rotten,' the order concluded. Bar Council Secretary Gagandeep Jammu, when contacted, said, 'As Secretary of the Bar Council, I will be forwarding these notices to the advocates concerned on the allegations of bar shopping. If the Bar Council is satisfied with their explanation, it will close the matter, if not, it has the power to suspend or even cancel their licences.' The notice further read, 'This Committee is also of the view that for the fair inquiry and to look into the unethical measures adopted by some of the advocates, let the information/complaints/any kind of material, if any, be taken from the advocates and the affected persons.' The matter will be heard at 3 pm on August 16, at the Bar Council's Chandigarh office.
Hans India
2 days ago
- Hans India
Bar body cautions against ads by lawyers on social media
New Delhi: The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) has issued a 'notice of caution' against lawyers advertising legal services on social media. 'Many lawyers are indulging in posting contents and videos to solicit work by way of advertisement either directly or indirectly through circulars advertising personal interactions, interviews, producing their photographs to publish in connection with the cases, etc.,' read the BCD notice issued on August 4. The council wants lawyers to refrain from unethical canvassing, infringing upon professional ethics and the dignity of legal practice. 'In the age of internet and digital media, there has been a steep rise in the self-styled legal influencers, which has in fact compounded the issue,' the notice signed by the council chairman Surya Prakash Khatri said. The BCD also expressed serious concerns about 'the rapid growth of legal influencers' who did not possess appropriate credentials and spread 'misinformation on critical legal issues'. The notice said such activities were prohibited under Section 36 of the Bar Council of India rules. The section titled 'Standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates', prohibits lawyers from soliciting work or advertising, directly or indirectly, to ensure that the legal profession remains an honourable service. 'Any violation of the aforesaid rule amounts to serious misconduct and an Advocate can be held guilty to be proceeded against under section 35 (disciplinary proceedings against advocates for professional or other misconduct) of the Advocates Act, which can lead to suspension or cancellation of the licence to practice as an Advocate. 'All such advocates who are active on social media in this regard, as mentioned above, may remove their contents, or otherwise action shall be initiated on individual cases under section 35 of the Advocates Act,' the notice added.
