After the Second World War the International Economic Order which emerged, encouraged Free Trade in goods. India
was a founder signatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) since 1947, which led to the formation of WTO, on 1st January 1995.[1]
This has led to a whole wide debate in India over the stringent laws
governing code of ethics and morality of Legal Professionals on one hand
and the WTO laws on the other hand. This has come in due to the
phenomenon of globalization developing world over. This debate revolves
around major issues pertaining to the objectives of legal profession,
consumerism, social justice, Indian commitment to WTO regime,
competition law etc. Some professionals argue that the shift in trade
nature of legal services shall hamper ‘professional ethics’ and concept
of ‘justice to all’.[2]
Some others say that the regulations imposed on the legal services
sector are anti-competitive and contrary to the goals and purpose of
competition policy and Competition Act, 2002.[3]
At
the heart of this controversy lies the issue of legal advertising. The
lawyers in India are barred from advertising their profession
considering the profession to be a noble one and such advertising to be
derogatory to that profession.[4]
Advertisements are a forum for establishing the utility of goods and
services. They generate awareness in public regarding the availability
of different brands of products/services, thereby, providing them with
vast array of options to choose from and keeping them fully informed.
Further, it enhances and encourages competition in the relevant market
by providing a forum for launching of new products. Advertising
is considered as a necessary part of modern market economies, provided
that it conforms to moral standards based upon integral human
development and the common good, which are “the most efficient
instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs”
of a socio-economic kind.[5]
To cope up with the WTO laws and norms and looking at the current trend
which has subjected legal profession to trade laws, it has become
inevitable to allow the legal professionals to advertise and to rethink
about the policy of law in India. People think whether this kind of ban
based on age old norms is viable in this modern era. The debate of the
hour in the Indian legal world is on why the profession should have very
strict curbs on promoting its services stemming from laws that
originate from British thinking when the country from where it
originates has itself done away with the curbs?[6]
In
the view of the above background, I would like to discuss the laws
banning the advertising for legal professionals in India and their
implications, considering the position of such laws in other developed
countries owing to the WTO norms and globalization and the need to do
away with such age old laws.
CHAPTER I: The Law on Legal Advertising in India
After
taking into account the recommendations of the Law Commission on the
subject of Reform of Judicial Administration relating to the Bar and to
legal education and to implement the recommendations of the All India
Bar Committee made in 1953, the Indian Legislature came up with the
Advocates Act, 1961.[7]
This act under the section 4 forms a Bar Council of India to regulate
all the legal professionals and legal education in India. The Bar
Council of India is the central institution for supervising and
monitoring the growth and development of legal services and the
functioning of advocates and related firms and corporations in India.[8]
Pursuant to the functions of Bar Council of India under section 7 and
its power to make rules under section 49 of the said Act, it has enacted
the Bar Council of India Rules which are binding on all the legal
professionals in India.
The law under Bar Council of India Rules
As
compared to other big common law countries like US and UK, advertising
for lawyers in India is still in their dreams. There is a complete ban
on advertising for lawyers in India. The Bar Council of India, pursuant
to its functions mentioned under Section 7(1)(b)[9] of the Advocates Act read with its powers to make rules under Section 49(1)(c)[10]
has framed Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules under Section
IV(Duty to Colleagues) of Chapter II(Standards of Professional Conduct
and Etiquette) of Part IV(Rules Governing Advocates). Rule 36 reads as
under:
“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. His sign-board or name-plate should be of a reasonable size.
The sign-board or name-plate or stationery should not indicate that he
is or has been President or Member of a Bar Council or of any
Association or that he has been associated with any person or
organisation or with any particular cause or matter or that he
specialises in any particular type of worker or that he has been a Judge
or an Advocate General.”
Thus,
it is against an advocate’s code of ethics to solicit or advertise work
and amounts to a misconduct on the part of the advocate. Both direct
and indirect advertising is prohibited. An advocate may not advertise
his services through circulars, advertisements, touts, personal
communication or interviews not warranted by personal relations.
Similarly, the following forms of indirect advertising are prohibited:
i. by
issuing circulars or election manifestos by a lawyer with his name,
profession and address printed on the manifestos, thereby appealing to
the members of the profession practising in the lower courts who are in a
position to recommend clients to counsel practising in the high court
ii. canvassing
for votes by touring in the province or sending out his clerk or agents
to the various districts, which must necessarily mean directly
approaching advocates practising in subordinate courts.
Further,
the signboard or nameplate displayed by an advocate should be of a
reasonable size. It should not refer to details of an affiliated by the
advocate i.e. that he is or has been president or member of a bar
council or of any association, or he has been a Judge or an
Advocate-General, or that he specialises in a particular kind of work,
or that he is or was associated with any person or organisation or with
any particular cause or matter.
Further advertising on internet is also prohibited. Bar Council of India, in a notice dated 21st
October 1999, reaffirmed that such ‘advertisements’ on the Internet are
considered an offence. It ordered all the legal Websites to be
withdrawn immediately, under threat of legal action ranging from
temporary suspension to permanent debarring of the lawyer from practice.[11]
Also publishing in online legal dictionaries is a bar for advocates.
The above rule has been vehemently enforced by the Bar Council of India,
simply disregarding all the criticisms made against this archaic rule.
The law under Bar Council of India Rules
The roots of this law are based on age old Victorian notions of British Common law.[12]
The conception of legal services as a ‘noble profession’ rather than
services has resulted in the formulation of such stringent and
restrictive regulatory machinery. This law relating to bar on
advertisement for legal professionals has been justified on the grounds
of public policy and ‘dignity of profession’.[13]
Letting advertise, would lead to the commercialization of this noble
profession and would degrade it. Further, the words of Section IV of
Chapter II of Part IV of Bar Council of India Rules are clear i.e. “Duty
to colleagues”. This means that the another reason behind enactment of
such a norm is to prevent the advocates, law firms, etc from enticing
the clients of their adversary and to snatch away the business of their
adversary. Such a law is also made in order to help the small and
unknown advocates and firms to rise in the market and do business. The
purpose behind it is to prevent a set of lawyers from taking
unreasonable advantage otherwise the same names would appear time and
again.[14]
Also such a law prevents lawyers from falling below their dignity in
order to fetch clients by doing anything and thus degrading the nature
of the profession.
The Judiciary on this rule
The
courts have more or less agreed with the view of the Bar Council and
have implemented the rule laid down by the Council pertaining to
advertising. The Supreme Court of India observed in Bar Council of India v. M. V. Dhabolkar,[15] that “…..the
canons of ethics and propriety for the legal profession totally taboo
conduct by way of soliciting, advertising, scrambling and other
obnoxious practices….” It further noted that “Law is not a
trade, not briefs, not merchandise, and so the heaven of commercial
competition should not vulgarize the legal profession”.
The Allahabad High Court[16]
observed that self advertising tends to lower the dignity of this
honourable profession and is undoubtedly akin to touting. The Bombay
High Court in Government Pleader v. S, a Pleader[17]
considered sending a circular postcard merely giving the address and
description as an improper conduct by the Advocate. The High Court of
Madras went one step ahead in SK Naicker v. Authorised Officer[18] and
held that even a sign board or a name-plate should be of a moderate
size. It has been further observed that writing of articles for
publication in newspapers under his signature, where the writer
describes himself as an Advocate practicing in the court as a flagrant
breach of professional etiquette.[19]
Thus,
legal advertising by far is a taboo in India and the courts have more
or less approved and agreed with this rule framed by Bar Council of
India.
CHAPTER II: Law in other Countries
Legal
advertising has been an important and widely used tool of communication
in many common law countries and in most of the developed countries
like US, UK, etc it is used by the lawyers to promote their professional
services. It is allowed in most of the countries with regulations
regulating it as compared to India where it is completely banned. In
these countries the regulation is done in order to avoid false,
misleading and deceptive advertisements but advertisements displaying
truth are allowed.
Position in U.K.
The
provision banning advertisement adopted in India has its roots in
Victorian notions of U.K. which considered each and every profession to
be noble and stated that such a regulation is necessary in order to
preserve the dignity and nobility of this profession. Earlier, in U.K.
too advertising was banned for professionals like lawyers. But later
this ban was lifted. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1970 and
the review given by the Office of Fair Trading in 1986 pointed out at
the advantages of letting the professionals advertise and the benefits
availed by from relaxing such norms.[20]
Ultimately the ban was lifted and the restrictions lowered and thus
legal marketing and legal advertising became a reality in U.K.[21]
Position in U.S.
In
U.S. the position was somewhat similar to that in India until 1977.
There was a complete ban on advertising for legal professionals. This
position took a complete U-turn after the decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court on 27th June 1977 in the case of Bates v. State Bar of Arizona.[22]
The Supreme Court validated legal advertising and invalidated the law
of State Bar of Arizona banning legal advertising by a majority of 5:4
holding such a law violative of First Constitutional Amendment. Prior to
this case, the U.S. Supreme Court validated commercial advertisement
and gave its scope in the 1942 case of Valentine v. Chrestensen. Later in Bigelow v. Virginia (1975) and in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc.
(1976) the U.S. S.C. invalidated laws restraining ads marketing
abortion services and ads showing prices of prescription drugs on the
basis that they violated First Constitutional Amendment i.e. Freedom of
Speech and Expression and held that “the free flow of commercial information is indispensable.”[23]
All these decisions were adopted in the Bates’ judgement by the US SC
and it was held that truthful legal advertising should not be prohibited
as there is nothing wrong in it. The court invalidated in this appeal
the law prohibiting legal advertising holding it to be violative of
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the First Constitutional
Amendment. Justice Blackmun argued that commercial speech does merit
First Amendment protection given the important functions it serves in
society, such as providing consumers with information about services and
products, and helping to allocate resources in the American system of
free-enterprise.[24]
The Court held that allowing attorneys to advertise would not harm the
legal profession or the administration of justice, and, in fact, would
supply consumers with valuable information about the availability and
cost of legal services.[25]
But the states are allowed to regulate and monitor the advertising by
advocates. This is evident from the later judgements of various state
Supreme Courts which have upheld the laws regulating and restricting
certain practices of legal advertising.[26]
Position in other countries
The
position in other developed countries is also quite clear. Advertising
is allowed in most of the countries. In France, though the law is not
that liberal, it stands somewhere between Indian and U.K. position.
There is not a complete ban on advertising.[27] Also in Italy, the legal marketing has been legalized by the Bersani Decree of 2004 which was enforced in 2007.[28] This has been true for most of the European countries like Germany, Spain, etc.[29] Legal Advertising is a reality everywhere.
Besides
countries in the West, Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore and
Malaysia have been progressively relaxing their regulations on legal
advertising to adapt to global demands.[30]
For instance, Malaysia’s Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules, passed in
2001 is a simple yet comprehensive code that regulates advertisements in
legal and non-legal directories, controls publication of journals,
magazines, brochures and newsletters by lawyers and interviews in
electronic and print media, bars publicity through clients and even
includes a rule that regulates lawyers sending greeting cards on special
occasions. In Hong Kong, lawyers are forbidden from advertising on
television, radio and cinema. Though advertising in print is
permissible, larger firms prefer alternative strategies such as engaging
in aggressive client and public relations programmes and branding
exercises. Even in Singapore the legal advertisements are allowed with
certain restrictions.[31]
Thus,
it is clear that most of the countries have adopted a liberal policy
towards legal advertising and has allowed it to meet the global demands
and compete with the other countries. This has resulted only in
advantages and benefits for those countries and no harm is done on the
contrary.
CHAPTER III: The Constitutional validity of Rule 36
The
Rule 36 of Bar Council of India Rules, prohibit advocates from
advertising. This is against fundamental rights guaranteed under A. 19
of Constitution of India. This Rule cannot be challenged with regards to
A.19(1)(a) i.e. freedom of speech and expression as done in US in the
case of Bates v. Arizona State Bar, because of the decision of Indian Supreme Court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union Of India.[32]
The Supreme Court came on to decide validity of law banning
advertisement for the sale of certain medicines in this case against A.
19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. The Court held that:
“An
advertisement is no doubt a form of speech but its true character is
reflected by the object for the promotion of which it is employed. It
assumes the attributes and elements of the activity under Art. 19 (1)
which it seeks to aid by bringing it to the notice of the public. When
it takes the form of a commercial advertisement which has an element of
trade-or commerce it no longer falls within the concept of freedom of
speech for the object is not propagation of ideas - social political or
economic or furtherance of literature or human thought; but as
in the present case the commendation of the efficacy, value and
importance in treatment of particular diseases by certain drugs and
medicines. In such a case, advertisement is a part of business even
though as described by Mr. Munshi its creative part, and it was being
used for the purpose of furthering the business of the petitioners and
had no relationship with what may be called the essential concept of the
freedom of speech. It cannot be said that the right to publish and
distribute commercial advertisements advertising an individual’s
personal business is a part of freedom of speech guaranteed by the
Constitution.”
In
the view of the above decision, the commercial advertisement is not a
part of freedom of speech and expression and thus ban on advertisement
for advocates is justified to be falling within reasonable restriction
as stated under A. 19(2). Thus, the ground on which the US Supreme Court
held this ban to be violative of Constitution is not available in the
Indian scenario.
The
only remedy left is to challenge its constitutional validity against A.
19(1)(g) i.e. freedom to carry on Trade, Profession or Business.
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India confers every citizen
with the right to choose his own employment or to take up any trade or
calling. This right is impregnated with an implied right for availing
all the mechanisms and resources – including advertising - for effective
carrying of the trade or occupation provided it doesn’t go against
public interest. Any restriction on this right would be unreasonable
unless it is done in public interest. Advertisements can go against
public interest only when it is immoral or obscene or presents something
which is illegal and goes against public morality. Any blanket bar on
this right would be unreasonable when there is an option of constituting
a specialized government body that would examine the content of the
advertisement.[33]
The
question that remains is whether legal profession falls under the
category of trade or business so as to avail the above right? Even
though the judiciary in the words of Justice Krishna Iyer, has held that
Legal Profession is such a noble Profession that it cannot form a part
of trade or business,[34]
the recent trend of the courts is to justify this profession as a
trade. Over the years, the courts have recognized ‘Legal Service’ as a
‘service’ rendered to the consumers and have held that lawyers are
accountable to the clients in the cases of deficiency of services. In
the case of Srinath v. Union of India, the Madras High
Court held that, in view of Sec. 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
that Consumer redressal forums have jurisdiction to deal with claims
against advocates. Sec. 2 (U) of the Competition Act, 2002 defines the
term ‘Service’ along the lines of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Also the decision of Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa,[35]
holds that legal profession is covered under the definition of the term
Industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further it should be
noted that India is a part of WTO and is subjected to WTO laws and legal
services are listed as a subsection of Business Services in WTO
Services Sectoral Classification list.[36]
Thus, it could be concluded that legal services are becoming subject of
trade related laws in India where consumerism and market forces should
be given adequate space.
In
the view of the above background, the fundamental right to advertise
guaranteed under A. 19(1)(g) can be given to the legal professionals to
promote their services. This right thus, can be taken away only by
imposing a reasonable restriction under A. 19(6) of the Constitution.
The restriction must have a reasonable relation with the object which
the legislation seeks to achieve and must never exceed it.[37] The Supreme Court further observed that:
“Unless
it is shown that there is a reasonable relation of the provisions of
the Act to the purpose in view, the right of freedom of occupation and
business cannot be curtailed by it……….. the
phrase ‘reasonable restriction’ connotes that the limitation imposed on
a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public.
The word ‘reasonable’ implies intelligent care and deliberation, that
is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which
arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain
the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance
between the freedom guaranteed in Art. 19 (1) (g) and the social control
permitted by cl. (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that
quality.”
In
the view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, I feel that this
kind of total ban on advertising for legal professionals laid down under
Rule 36 is excessive in nature and is beyond what is required in the
interests of the public. Restrictions can be laid by regulating and
monitoring the advertising but not completely banning it as it would be
going beyond what is required as regulating the advertisement is
sufficient in public interest. Thus, according to me, Rule 36 is
violative of A. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Presently
a writ petition is pending before the Indian Supreme Court challenging
this rule of Bar Council of India. The petition was filed by Mr. V. B.
Joshi who is an advocate practicing in the Supreme Court. In the last
hearing of this matter in September 2007, the Government agreed to relax
this law a bit. The Government agreed to allow the lawyers advertise on
their own website and to enter their name into online directories but
all these to be done under a committee monitoring it.[38]
But still all the other forms of advertisement are a bar for advocates
and no one knows when the Government would enforce these relaxations.
CHAPTER IV: Disadvantages of banning Legal Advertisements
Globalization
brought about a revolution in international trade with increasing
participation and involvement of countries & greater access to
domestic economies. The implication of the same on the legal service
sector has been both quantitative and qualitative. The past decade has
been mini-revolution in legal service sector with the greatest legal
impact on corporate legal arena Activities in project financing,
intellectual property protection, environmental protection, competition
law, corporate taxation, infrastructure contract, corporate governance
and investment law were almost unknown before 90’s.In last few years Law
Firms, in house firms and individual lawyer’s expertise in providing
legal services in corporate sector has increased by several times.[39] Globalization has expanded the internal and external demand for legal services.[40]
Today trade in legal services is on inevitable fact and is at the same
time significant for progressive development of legal profession in
India in this era of Globalization.[41]
Consumerism and Informed Choice
The emerging legal service sector is equally beneficial to all the consumers of legal services, without discrimination.[42]
In the age of consumerism and competition law, consumer’s right to free
and fair competition is paramount and cannot be denied by any other
consideration.[43]
Trade in legal services focuses on benefits accruing to consumers from
legal service sector, particularly the quality of service available with
respect to particular fields. Informed choice is one of the rights of a
consumer. Ban on advertising leads to depriving consumers of valuable
information about the advocates. This has resulted in a situation where
consumers cannot make an informed choice from the competitive market
since information relating to the service is not available to them.
Moreover restriction on professional firms on informing potential users
on range of their services and potential causes further injury to the
competition.[44]
Also it is worthy to note that the services available to consumers of
India are only domestic legal service providers and also the consumers
most often are left at the mercy of advocates and the system and thus it
is very detrimental as they cannot resort to any other service provider
in absence of choice.
Advertisement on Internet
Looking
at the recent trend of Globalization and India joining the WTO, it has
become inevitable to let lawyers advertise to compete in the global
market. Not allowing lawyers to advertise has resulted in Indian lawyers
loosing a lot of potential clients internationally. It is realized that
in this era of cyber age instead of turning to the Yellow Pages, the
public increasingly uses online search engines and other Internet tools
to find needed goods and services and with the concepts of legal process
outsourcing increasing, i.e. to find cheap legal services, people from
countries like UK and US and other developed countries search for such
services online. For example, 35,309,524 people of the UK’s 59,889,407
population use the internet (Internet World Stats 3/2/05). Between
September and October 2004 the percentage share of the market for
broadband (i.e. always on internet connections) increased from 34.4% to
36% (National Statistics).[45]
In December 2004 the following searches were made in U.K. for solicitor
services, across the search engines of Yahoo, MSN, Lycos, AOL, and
Wanadoo (search phrase followed by number of searches in one month:)
• Personal Injury Solicitor - 3,523
• Conveyancing Solicitor - 2,422
• Divorce Solicitor - 1,529
• Manchester Solicitor -1,197
This
does not take into account the number of searches made across Google,
still widely accepted as the most used UK search engine.[46]
But these searches results in not a single Indian attorney or advocate
or a law firm as India bans advertising by them as compared to other
neighbouring Asian countries which allow it and hence a lot of potential
clients are lost, in turn affecting the economy of India largely. Thus,
India has lost lot of economic revenues and thus it would be beneficial
for India’s economy to lift the ban on advertising for advocates. The
Government has recently agreed on lifting it but only allowing the
advocates to advertise on their own websites and in online legal
directories. But no one knows when this will be implemented.
Other disadvantages
The
report of Monopolies and Mergers Commission in U.K. stated that
restrictions on advertisement by professionals reduce the stimulus to
efficiency, cost saving, innovation, new entry to professions and
competition within the professions. Thus, new entrants who require to
establish their name in the market in order to get clients, are deprived
of doing so through advertising as this is the most simplest and
easiest method to enter into a market. Also restrictions enhance the
more undesirable effects of less open methods of self promotion Also
they could give a false image to a profession.[47] Thus banning advertisement by lawyers is completely disadvantageous to the Indian society as a whole.
Need for regulating the advertising
The
need of the hour is to lift the total ban on advertising by advocates
but not to completely let it free. It is required to be regulated also.
In case it is not monitored and regulated, then there would be lot of
malpractices of misrepresentation, deceptiveness and false
advertisements which would effect the society and degrade the nobility
of this profession. The U.K.’s Monopolies and Merger Commission in its
report stated that the restrictions on legal advertising should be
lifted but the law must also provide that:
1. No
advertisement, circular or other form of publicity used by the member
should claim for his practice superiority in any respect over any or all
of the practices of other members of the profession.
2. Such publicity should not contain any inaccuracies or misleading statements.
3. While
advertisements, circulars and other publicity or methods of soliciting
may make clear the intention of the individual member to seek customer,
they should not be of a character that could reasonably be regarded as
likely to bring the profession into disrepute.
Thus,
it is required that the advertising by legal professionals be regulated
in order to avoid instances of ambulance chasing, barratry,
shokevertising, misrepresentation, etc. This kind of regulation is also
permissible under A. 19(1)(6) of Constitution of India in the interests
of public.
CONCLUSION
The
ban on legal advertisements in India has not proved healthy so far for
the Indian economy as well as Indian consumers. India has adopted WTO
laws and a free market policy and thus accepting ‘trade’ facet of legal
services would develop this profession qualitatively. The Raghvan
Committee has summed up the effect of the existing regulatory system in
professional services as “…..the legislative restrictions in terms of
law and self-regulation have the combined effect of denying
opportunities and growth of professional firms, restricting their desire
and ability to compete globally, preventing the country from obtaining
advantage of India’s considerable expertise and precluding consumers
from opportunity of free and informed choice.” Time is ripe to break
shackles of this overwhelming regulation subjecting legal profession
away from modernity and banning it from advertising. India must remember
its commitment to WTO for opening service sectors including, legal
services, globally. Thus all the regulations have to be in conformity
with competition policy and the Act. Hence, there is a craving need to
lift this ban and to form rules and policy to monitor and regulate legal
advertising. A committee could be formed to ensure compliance but
laying blanket ban on legal advertising would hamper development and
growth of India.
.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles, Websites, Reports and others:
1) Abhibav Kumar, “Lawyers must be allowed to advertise”, at http://news.indlaw.com/guest/
2) Anubha Charan, “Is it unethical for lawyers to put up their own Website?”, October 15, 2001, at http://www.rediff.com/search/
3) Bar Council Entry of Foreign Lawyers in India, August 30, 2003 at http://www.news .indiainfo.com/ (last visited on 22nd November, 2007).
4) Bhadra Sinha, “Lawyers may be allowed web ads”, September 19, 2007, at www.hindustantimes.com (last visited on 20th November 2007). Also see Supra note 6.
5) Cyber Search - What Does Search Engine Marketing Mean For Solicitors?, at http://www.samsonconsulting.
6) David L. Hudson, “Bates participants reflect on landmark case”, at http://www.
7) http:// en.wikipedia.org/Legal_
Lawyer can’t be blamed if his name appears in print, says Punjab A-G, May 25, 1999, at http://www.indianexpress.com/
9) Legal Websites, A World Wide Web Of Opportunies, at http://www.samsonconsulting.
10) Malathi Nayak, India debates letting lawyers advertise, at http://www.livemint.com/2007/
11) Rajiv Dutta, “World Trade Organization and Legal Services: The Indian Scenario”, at www.insolindia.com/shimlaPDFs/
12) Report
on Trade in Legal Services, “Trade in Services: Opportunities and
Constraints”, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, Executed by
Indian Council for Research in Economic Relations, Coordinator(s) N.L.
Mitra and T.C.A Anand.
13) Singh Lalithakumar I., “A View on Legal Profession”, AIR 2006 (Jour.) 1.
14) Statement of Objects and Reasons, The Advocates Act, 1961.
15) Swapnil Joshi, “Changing Face Of The Legal Profession In India In The Era Of Globalization”, at http://www.legalserviceindia.
16) V
K Aggarwal, “Professional Advertising: A comparative analysis in the
changing milieu”, 7th National Conference of Practising Company
Secretaries.
17) World Bank Report on Emerging Service Sector, 1999 quoted in The Raghvan Committee Report on Competition Law, 2000.
18) www.legalmarketing.it (official legal marketing Italia website, last visited on 24th November 2007).
Dictionaries:
1) H. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed., St Paul: West Publishing Co., 1979) 1059.
2) The Concise Oxford Thesaurus compiled by Kirkpatrick Betty; Oxford University Press.
3) Webster’s New English Dictionary; Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers Inc, 2nd Edn 1995.
Case laws:
1) (Thirteen) Advoates, Allahabad, In the matter of, AIR 1934 All. 1067.
2) Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, AIR 1978 SC 969; 1978 LabIC 778.
3) Bar Council of India v. M. V. Dhabolkar, AIR 1976 SC 242.
4) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350.
5) Bigelow v. Virginia (1975) US.
6) Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118.
7) Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995) US.
Government Pleader v. S, a Pleader, AIR 1929 Bom. 335.
9) Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union Of India, AIR 1960 SC 554; 1960 (2) SCR 671.
10) Haniraj L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, AIR 1996 SC 1708.
11) In the matter of A, an Advocate, AIR 1962 SC 1337
12) Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India, AIR 1995 SC 691;
13) Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978) US.
14) SK Naicker v. Authorised Officer, (1967) 80 Mad. LW 153 at 154.
15) Srinath v. Union of India, AIR 1996 Mad 427.
16) Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) US.
17) Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc. (1976) US.
0 Comments