Advertising by Advocates in India: Can Advocates Have Their Own Websites?

In the contemporary digital era, the importance of an online presence cannot be overstated. Websites function as virtual addresses, serving as comprehensive platforms where individuals and businesses can showcase information, stay updated on activities, and engage with customers or clients. However, when it comes to the legal profession, the rules surrounding advertisements are often stringent and vary significantly across different countries. This article delves into the regulations governing lawyer advertisements in India and compares them with those in other parts of the world.

Why this Question Now?

On Monday the Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued strict directives prohibiting the advertisement or solicitation of legal services by lawyers, following a recent Madras High Court judgment. This step of BCI is in the light of the Judgment of Madras High Court, Which criticized lawyers for soliciting work through online websites, which violates BCI Rules. Consequently, the Court ordered the BCI to issue guidelines to State Bar Councils to initiate disciplinary actions against such practices.

BCI’s Directives to State Bar Councils

In compliance with the Court’s directive, the BCI instructed State Bar Councils to take stringent actions against advocates who advertise or seek work online. 

Key directives include:

  1. State Bar Councils must initiate disciplinary actions against advocates violating Rule 36 of the BCI Rules, which could result in suspension or removal from the roll of advocates.
  2. File complaints against online platforms that facilitate illegal advertisements, such as,, and
  3. Ensure the removal of lawyer advertisements on these platforms by coordinating with government authorities.

Advertising and Advocates in India

In India, the legal profession is governed by the Bar Council of India (BCI). The BCI has established strict rules regarding the advertisement of legal services to maintain the dignity of the profession. Rule 36 of the BCI Rules, framed under the Advocates Act, 1961, explicitly prohibits advocates from soliciting work or advertising, whether directly or indirectly. This includes using circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, or interviews not warranted by personal relations. The rule aims to prevent any form of commercialization of the profession and to uphold the ethical standards expected of lawyers.

However, the advent of the internet and digital media has prompted some relaxation in these rules. In 2008, the BCI allowed lawyers to have their websites, where they can provide their contact details, qualifications, and areas of practice. This move was intended to strike a balance between maintaining professional decorum and embracing modern means of communication.

Despite this relaxation, Indian lawyers are still prohibited from using social media platforms, search engine advertisements, or other forms of electronic media to solicit clients. The BCI continues to emphasize that the legal profession is a noble one and should not be commercialized.

Unlike other professions, advocates and law firms in India are not permitted to advertise their services. This prohibition stems from the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, particularly Part 4 – Duty to Colleagues, Rule 36.

Bar Council of India Rules: Part 4, Rule 36

Rule 36 explicitly prohibits advocates from soliciting or advertising their services directly or indirectly. This includes means such as:

– Circulars

– Advertisements

– Touts (persistent sellers)

– Personal contacts

– Interviews not related to personal relations

– Newspaper comments or photographs related to cases they are engaged in

Furthermore, the rule mandates that name-plates should be of reasonable size and should not include achievements or information such as posts, associations, or memberships with any Bar Council or organizations. 

These rules aim to protect clients from undue influence and ensure fair competition among colleagues. The legal profession is considered noble, and unscrupulous competitive advertising could undermine its integrity. 

 The 2008 Amendment: A Relaxation of Rules

In 2008, the Supreme Court heard a petition filed by Advocate V.B. Joshi challenging Rule 36. The petition was reviewed by a bench comprising Justices B.N. Agrawal, S.H. Kapadia, and D.K. Jain. During the proceedings, the senior counsel for BCI indicated that a resolution to amend Rule 36 had been passed, allowing advocates to furnish information on their websites.

Amendment to Rule 36

The amendment introduced a new paragraph to Rule 36, stating:

“That this Rule will not stand in the way of advocates furnishing website information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India. Any additional other input in the particulars than approved by the Bar Council of India will be deemed to be violation of Rule 36 and such advocates are liable to be proceeded with misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.”

Permitted Website Information

The schedule attached to this amendment specifies the information advocates can include on their websites:

– Name

– Address

– Contact Information: Telephone numbers, Email IDs

– Enrollment Information: Enrolment Number, Date of Enrolment, Name of State Bar Council where originally enrolled, Name of State Bar Council on whose roll name stands currently, Name of the Bar Association of which the Advocate is Member

– Professional and Academic Qualifications

– Areas of Practice

Additionally, the website must contain a declaration stating the accuracy of the information provided, confirmed with the advocate’s name and signature.

Advertisement by Lawyers in Other Parts of the World

United States

In stark contrast to India, the United States has more lenient regulations regarding lawyer advertisements. The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct permit lawyer advertising, provided it is not misleading or false. Lawyers in the U.S. can advertise their services through various mediums, including television, radio, print, and online platforms. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977) recognized lawyer advertising as a form of commercial speech protected under the First Amendment.

However, the ABA imposes certain ethical guidelines to ensure that advertisements are truthful and do not exploit vulnerable clients. Lawyers must avoid making false claims about their services, misrepresenting their qualifications, or guaranteeing outcomes.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom also allows lawyer advertisements, but with strict regulations to maintain professionalism and avoid misleading the public. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) governs solicitors in England and Wales and permits advertisements, provided they are not misleading, confusing, or deceptive. Solicitors can advertise through various channels, including online platforms, but must ensure that their communications are clear and transparent.


In Australia, lawyer advertising is regulated by state and territory laws, but generally, advertising is permitted with certain restrictions. Advertisements must not be misleading or deceptive and should comply with the Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules. Lawyers are allowed to use a variety of media to promote their services, including websites, social media, and traditional media.


The regulation of lawyer advertisements varies widely across different jurisdictions, reflecting differing perspectives on maintaining the dignity of the legal profession and embracing modern marketing techniques. In India, the stringent rules set by the Bar Council of India emphasize the noble nature of the profession and aim to prevent its commercialization. In contrast, countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia adopt a more liberal approach, allowing lawyers to advertise their services while imposing ethical guidelines to protect clients.

As the legal profession continues to evolve with technological advancements, the debate on lawyer advertisements is likely to persist, balancing the need for ethical standards with the benefits of modern communication tools.

The 2008 amendment represents a significant step in aligning the legal profession with contemporary digital practices, ensuring that advocates can maintain an online presence without compromising the integrity of their profession.

Law Trend
Law Trend
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles