Lawyer Solicitation Through Online Platforms: In a landmark judgment passed on July 3rd, 2024, the Madras High Court took a strong stance against lawyers soliciting work through online service providers. The court emphasized that the legal profession is not a business driven by profit, but rather a service to society. The verdict comes in response to a petition filed against websites like Quikr, Sulekha, and Justdial, which offered online lawyer services. Madras High Court Cracks Down on Lawyer Solicitation Through Online Platforms Unethical Solicitation and Violation of Rules: The court, presided over by Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice C Kumarappan, highlighted that such practices violate the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. These rules strictly prohibit lawyers from advertising or soliciting work directly or indirectly, including actions like furnishing newspaper comments or publishing photographs related to cases. The bench pointed out the fundamental difference between the legal profession and other professions. Legal services are not a “job” or a “business,” but rather a means to provide social welfare. While lawyers do receive fees, these fees are a token of respect for their knowledge and time invested in a case. Dignity and Integrity at Stake on Lawyer Solicitation Through Online Platforms : The court expressed concern about the growing trend of “business models” within the legal profession. Practices like lawyer rankings and customer ratings were deemed detrimental to the dignity and integrity expected from legal professionals. Justice Subramaniam stated, “It is agonising that some legal professionals today are trying to adopt […]
News Tags: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court on Wednesday ushered in a groundbreaking era for legal proceedings involving incarcerated individuals. In a decision that marks a significant shift in how courts handle appeals from convicts, the court granted permission to R. Subramanian, a convict, to argue his own case through video conferencing. Madras High Court Makes Landmark Decision: Convict to Argue Case Through Video Conference A Desire for Self-Representation In November 2023, Subramanian, former promoter of several financial institutions, got convicted. He received a 20-year imprisonment term for an economic offence. Despite this, he filed a writ petition. He wanted to actively engage in his legal proceedings. Consequently, this petition, heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, presented a compelling argument for allowing Subramanian to argue his appeals without the need for physical presence in court (Convict to Argue Case). The petition stemmed from Subramanian’s wish to represent himself in some of his pending cases before the High Court. This request highlighted a growing trend of convicts seeking a more active role in their legal battles. A Balanced Approach While acknowledging the merits of Subramanian’s petition, the court recognized the need for a nuanced approach. Chief Justice Gangapurwala emphasized the importance of considering the specifics of each case. A blanket order granting Subramanian permission to argue all his cases without a lawyer wouldn’t be prudent, he explained. To ensure a balanced and well-informed decision, the court directed Subramanian’s counsel to submit a comprehensive list of […]
The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University has been ordered by the Madras High Court to allow a student who completed a three-year diploma program after completing the tenth grade to apply for admission to the five-year BA LLB program. The court ruled that he cannot be disqualified just because he completed a three-year diploma program after passing the tenth grade. 5-year integrated L.L.B. degree course The Bar Council of India previously stated that for the purposes of admission to the 5-year integrated BA LLB degree course, a 3-year diploma or polytechnic study from a government-recognized institution would be regarded as equivalent to a Class XII certificate. The circular is extremely self-explanatory in nature, according to Justice CV Karthikeyan, and it is obvious that the petitioner’s qualifications permit him to take part in the selection process for the five-year integrated law degree. The court also took note of a division bench decision from 21.12.2022, which was in the case of P. Santhru Swaminathan vs. The Registrar, the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, and two others. In that case, the issue was also examined, and it was decided that for the purposes of admission to the 5-year integrated L.L.B. degree program, a 3-year diploma or polytechnic course from a government-recognized institution. BA LLB: Bar Council of India circular and incorporate in their prospectus “This decision clarifies the whole situation, and the respondents are instructed to let the petitioner take part in counseling and then, if he is otherwise qualified, to […]
