Supreme Court to Define Standards for Online Listings of Advocates; Notice Issued to Bar Council of India

~ Case Poised to Clarify Digital Presence and Advertising Limits for Legal Professionals ~

Date: 13^th November 2024

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Sulekha.com, New Media Private Limited, dealing with the scope of permissible online listings for advocates. The case, *Sulekha.com, New Media Private Limited vs. Mr. P.N. Vignesh & Ors.* [SLP (Civil) No. 25794/2024], examines the compliance of third-party website listings with regulations governing the professional conduct of advocates in India.

The SLP challenges a recent Madras High Court judgment dated 3rd July 2024, which mandated that search engines and third-party platforms remove content potentially construed as advertisements for legal professionals. This order referenced Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 (BCI Rules), which prohibits advocates from promoting their services through advertisements while allowing limited public disclosure of professional information. However, the High Court’s directive has raised essential questions about the boundaries of professional conduct, particularly in the context of an advocate’s online presence on third-party sites.

This case brings critical issues to light, including the interpretation of Rule 36 in an increasingly digital age where search engines routinely generate lists of professionals based on search queries such as “lawyers near me.” The resulting listings often display ratings, reviews, and other information that may influence the public’s selection of legal professionals. Sulekha.com’s petition deals with the question on whether such third-party platforms, which aggregate and display lawyer profiles, constitute a violation of Rule 36, particularly if they do not publish any information other than as permitted under Rule 36.

Representing Sulekha.com, Mr. Ankur Khandelwal, Advocate, along with Mr. Utkarsh Sharma and Mr. Sahil Siddiqui, argued that the Madras High Court’s interpretation could have far-reaching implications for advocates, especially regarding litigants identify and reach out to advocates in an information-driven digital landscape. The Supreme Court’s consideration is expected to provide essential guidance on permissible online practices for advocates, and may also address the legality of search engine results that list advocates without direct solicitation.

The SLP is a pivotal development, as it raises the question of the extent of regulatory control over the professional conduct of advocates in the context of evolving online practices. Notably, an earlier petition filed by JustDial.com, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Ritin Rai, also raised similar issues before the High Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter is likely to set an important precedent on the boundaries of professional conduct for advocates, balancing their ethical obligations under the BCI Rules with the realities of modern, technology-driven client engagement.