How India’s Lawyers Are Paralysed by Obsolete Advertising Norms

Prachi Shrivastava

By Prachi Shrivastava | March 30, 2025

Somewhere between the Supreme Court’s of India’s shutdown of Internet platform JustDial’s and Quikr’s lawyer listing pages, and the Bar Council of India’s (BCI)  passive-aggressive circulars on “promotional activities” by law firms, the Indian legal profession entered what can only be described as a cold war with modernisation.

The most recent chill came not from courtrooms but from corridors of regulatory opacity. In the wake of DSK Legal’s now-infamous advertisement with Bollywood actor Rahul Bose in the lead, a new BCI circular reminded lawyers—yet again—of the profession’s “ethical obligations” and “dignity”. One might be forgiven for thinking that the greatest threat to professional ethics in India is not poor advocacy, delayed justice, or client mistrust, but a 25-year-old rule that regulates how and when a lawyer may speak of their work.

That rule, of course, is Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

And it is quietly, but significantly, crippling the profession.

Rule 36: A Colonial Hangover in the Age of Instagram

Let’s recall the wording: “An advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, either directly or indirectly…”

What began as a modest attempt to prevent ambulance chasing has, over the years, morphed into a black-and-white mandate for a full-colour world.

In its broadest interpretation, Rule 36 has now come to include:

• No digital ads (paid or unpaid);

• No social media posts that look like “marketing”;

• No directory listings (unless controlled); and

• Quite bizarrely, no educational or thought leadership content if it leads to client conversion.

In an age where CA firms, consulting shops, and even bureaucrats actively build personal brands, Indian lawyers are still being asked to look the other way while their clients Google “cheap legal help near me”. In its 2024 Am Law Report, American Lawyer divulged that Kirkland & Ellis reported annual revenue of US$7.2 billion. According to the India Brand Equity Foundation, the country’s legal services industry turned over only a fraction of that amount, namely $1.5-$2.2 million. (excluding unrecorded low-billed court fees).

The Supreme Court Clampdown: What JustDial & Quikr Got Wrong—And Right

In March 2023, citing both Rule 36 and the Advocates Act, the Supreme Court held that platforms like JustDial and Quikr could not allow listing or advertisement of legal professionals.

Their rationale? These platforms provided an unfair commercial advantage to some lawyers, violating the principle of “dignified legal practice”.

But in solving one problem—unregulated touting—we’ve now created another: a chilling effect that stops even well-meaning, trust-first platforms from operating.

Analysis Paralysis: What Happens When Lawyers Are Too Scared to Speak

In the months that followed, an eerie silence swept over Indian legal LinkedIn. Young lawyers who were once creating insightful carousels on contract law or startup structuring now pause before sharing the most harmless knowledge nugget.

Law firms hesitate to write blogs. Associates fear reposting their own media quotes. Even seasoned practitioners now whisper queries: “If I post about a webinar, is that advertising?”

The answer no longer matters. The damage is done.

This is what a chilling effect looks like — and feels like.

Vakil Vetted: A Platform Built for Trust, Now Paying the Price for Compliance

When we at Lawfinity Solutions set out to build Vakil Vetted, we didn’t imagine we’d have to explain to the legal profession that doing the right thing should not scare them.

Vakil Vetted is a BCI-compliant, trust-first platform that does not:

• List lawyers publicly;

• Rank or rate them;

• Show prices or reviews;

• Charge referral commissions; or

• Use ads or endorsements.

Instead, we use a private, internal vetting system—one that understands what a small business in Indore needs versus what a SaaS startup in Bangalore might. Lawyers are matched to client risk areas and industry type. Discovery calls are scheduled only after consent. No names are promoted, and no images splashed across paid feeds.

And yet, despite the need for such a platform, the legal profession is watching from the sidelines.

Why?

Because fear has overtaken common sense.

What Rule 36 Was Supposed to Do—And What It’s Now Preventing

Rule 36 was meant to preserve dignity, not deny discovery.

It was created to prevent lawyers from touting, not from educating.

Yet we’ve blurred that line so much that even good-faith, BCI-compliant legal tech is treated with suspicion.

The result?

• A small business owner looking for contract help searches Google instead of a trusted legal match;

• A brilliant associate who understands fintech law sits invisible in Tier 2 cities; and

• Trust—the very thing Rule 36 sought to protect—is now collateral damage.

In 2024, several Indian newspapers reported on a survey indicating that the legal profession is among the least trusted in India. The Ipsos Trustworthiness Index 2024, a global survey conducted across 32 countries, including India, highlighted these findings. 

Rethinking the Narrative: Modern Trust ≠ Advertising

Platforms like Vakil Vetted are not the problem.

In fact, they’re the most aligned with the BCI’s core mission—to ensure that legal help is found by those who truly need it, without manipulation, solicitation, or confusion.

By creating a curated, private legal infrastructure:

• Clients aren’t misled into overpaying for generic advice;

• Lawyers aren’t undercut by gig-style portals; and

• Legal help becomes a structured, trackable process—not a lucky click.

Time to Update the Compass

Lawyers are not startups. But their clients are.

And the modern Indian business client does not want to scroll bar council websites or call a friend of a friend of a cousin in order to find a lawyer.

They want:

1. Transparency;
2. Clarity;
3. Access; and
4. Trust.

Platforms like Vakil Vetted are trying to build that—quietly, compliantly, and with integrity. But until Rule 36 is reinterpreted or reformed, lawyers will remain in a curious trap: the law that governs them also silences them.

As lawyers, we’re trained to argue for justice.

But when the system stops you from even explaining what you do, who exactly are we helping?

It’s time for the legal profession to find its voice again—not in the cacophony of ads or the whisper of unethical practices, but in the calm, confident conversation between those who offer legal help and those who seek it.

That’s what Vakil Vetted is trying to build.

And that’s what Rule 36, in its current chilling form, is still preventing.

Prachi Shrivastava is a legal strategist and the founder of Lawfinity Solutions and Vakil Vetted.

RELATED ARTICLES

Lawyer prosecuted for “overstating” client’s case

Failed lawyers cost creditors $1.42 billion

Lawyer disbarred for extramarital affairs

Abusive firm leader disbarred for insulting juniors

Vancouver bar icon dies before facing laundering charges