Order in the (content) court: Legality of legal influencers in focus

Bryan Wilson, dressed as a cop, breaks up a party, jumps through fire, does wild manoeuvres on his jet ski, grabs a fish from the river, and even fights coronavirus. He is not a comic or a parody artist. He is a lawyer — who calls himself “Texas Law Hawk”. 

 

Through his creative, and often over-the-top, YouTube advertisements, Wilson dishes out legal advice that appears in bold font on top of his videos. Though loud and brash, advertisements such as these aren’t barred in the US, where lawyers are allowed to openly solicit clients and market their services.

 

The story is very different in India. 

 

For close to two centuries now, courts, judges, and lawyers here have interpreted the various provisions contained in numerous laws to write judgments, ensure justice, or represent a client to the best of their ability. The legal profession is treated as a noble cause centred on justice, integrity, and fairness. 

 

The legal profession in India, therefore, has remained a service that cannot be marketed or advertised. This view has been upheld by legal luminaries, high court judges, and even the Supreme Court of India through multiple orders. These rules have been laid down by advocates themselves. 

 

Now, as the internet makes its way deeper into the winding depth of the legal profession, stakeholders are divided on whether voices that have the power to shape narratives and influence choices should be allowed to dish out legal advice and talk about provisions of the law online.

 

Earlier this month, the Bar Council of India (BCI), the sole non-judicial authority on administrative matters related to lawyers, issued a stern warning against lawyers advertising their services on social media through promotional videos and/or via influencer endorsements.

 

In its missive to a law firm, the BCI criticised the use of Bollywood actors and celebrities in such promotions, as well as the exploitation of digital platforms for advertising. It called it a breach of Rule 36, Chapter II, Part VI of the BCI Rules. 

 

This rule prohibits advocates from soliciting work or advertising, whether directly or indirectly, through methods like circulars, ads, personal outreach, unwarranted interviews, or publishing photos tied to cases they’re involved in.

 

Lawyers, likes & legal limits

 

The question is what qualifies as advertising and what doesn’t.

 

“If the content is purely educational and monetised through advertisements or sponsorships without offering legal services, it remains in a grey area,” Nitish Banka, an advocate who practises in the Supreme Court, said. “However, actively using content to attract clients could be viewed as indirect solicitation, violating professional ethics.” 

 

The BCI’s diktat asking law firms and lawyers to refrain from advertisements is also likely to put a spanner in the online activities of lawyers and legal experts who use social media platforms to break down court judgments, explain legal rights of users, and in general educate the public about the law, legal educator Rupali Sharma, who started an Instagram page named LAWgical Connect, said.

 

Manu Abhishek Bhardwaj, an advocate and a standup comedian, has roughly 11,000 followers on Instagram and makes satirical content on life inside the courtroom. One of the biggest problems, he contends, is influencers misleading and using click-baity headlines or video thumbnails.

 

“I saw a video put out by a law influencer titled ‘How to marry a Russian girl’, and when you watch the video, it talks about the Special Marriage Act. This is one example of misleading and click-baity content,” Bhardwaj said.

 

Others, such as Tushar Agarwal, the founder and managing partner of New Delhi-based law firm CLAP Juris, opine that if an advocate is actively practising and earning from their legal work, the earnings as a law influencer, if any,  should be treated as dual employment as social media influencing is a specific profession and a lot of people have made it their primary source of income.

 

Hashtag overruled?

 

Though BCI rules prohibit advocates from engaging in any trade, business, or profession other than the practice of law as long as they are registered with the regulatory body, there are no clear guidelines from the advocates’ regulatory body on whether such monetisation through online engagement falls under the definition of “dual income”, Banka said.

 

“If a law influencer’s posts are solely educational and do not seek to attract clients, they might not fall foul of the rules,” Sharma said, but added, “Yet, because even educational content can boost a lawyer’s profile and bring in clients, it is a very narrow margin, and the rules do not offer a free pass for such content.”

 

While the jury is still out on whether registered advocates can be social media influencers and dish out legal advice online, law students and persons not registered as lawyers have also taken to making content with videos on the various nuances of Indian laws and their provisions.

 

Nearly all the experts unanimously agree that law students should not be allowed to dish out legal advice under any circumstances.

 

“Under Section 29 of the Advocates Act, only an advocate enrolled with a State Bar Council can practice law in India,” Banka said. “Since law students are not yet advocates, they cannot provide legal representation, draft pleadings, or give legal opinions.”

 

The influencer objection

 

What happens if the rules are violated? 

 

Well, that can invite severe disciplinary action such as suspension or cancellation of enrolment, and contempt proceedings, said Alay Razvi, managing partner of Hyderabad-based law firm Accord Juris.

 

Though no action has been taken against law influencers so far, the BCI intends to act against lawyers advertising and soliciting, the regulatory body’s Vice-chair­man Ved Prakash Sharma said.

 

“We will definitely take action against content creators that violate our rules,” he said. “Our jurisdiction is over the advocates. We have taken actions against advocates advertising in the past.”

 

While it is essential to prevent the spread of misleading legal information and unethical advertising practices, the BCI must also consider the challenges faced by genuine lawyers, Rupali Sharma said. “These guidelines should clearly differentiate between unethical self-promotion and genuine legal education, ensuring that while harmful, sensational content is stopped, honest lawyers, especially those who are jobless or just starting out, are not unfairly penalised,” she added.

 

For now, the jury is out on the matter. 

Case brief

 

> In India, legal advertising is barred under BCI rules

> Bar Council of India recently cautioned law firms against using promotional videos or influencer tieups to market services

> BCI’s Rule 36 prohibits direct or indirect solicitation

> Educational content that doesn’t directly attract clients still sits in a grey zone

> Earning from legal practice and social media influencing could count as dual employment

> Violations can lead to suspension, cancellation of enrolment, or contempt proceedings

> Experts urge BCI to differentiate between soliciting and imparting genuine legal education