The Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) recently cracked down on advocates using social media to promote their services, issuing show-cause notices to eight lawyers for not taking down promotional reels and videos. This move follows a resolution passed by the council on August 15, 2025, instructing all advocates in the state to remove any online content that could be seen as soliciting work, by August 31.The KSBC noted that some lawyers were creating reels “in cars, under trees, and on footpaths” specifically to attract clients, a practice it deemed unprofessional and a violation of professional ethics.This development in Karnataka is the latest in a series of moves by bar councils across the country to enforce a long-standing ban on advertising by lawyers – a rule that is now being tested in the age of social media influencers and digital marketing. Earlier this year, the Bar Council of India, as well as those of Delhi and Punjab and Haryana, issued similar warnings.What is the legal framework that prohibits lawyers from advertising? Why is there a renewed push to enforce it now?What does the law say about lawyers advertising their work?In India, lawyers are strictly forbidden from advertising their services or soliciting work. The foundation for this rule lies in the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 49(1)(c) of the Act empowers the Bar Council of India (BCI), the apex regulatory body for lawyers, to make rules on “the standard of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates”.Exercising this power, the BCI framed the Bar Council of India Rules. Rule 36 in Part VI, Chapter II states: “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.”What is the rationale for this ban?The prohibition is rooted in the belief that the legal profession is a noble service, not a commercial business. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this stance.Story continues below this adIn Bar Council of Maharashtra v MV Dabholkar (1975) before the Supreme Court, Justice V Krishna Iyer famously observed, “Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise, and so the leaven of commercial competition or procurement should not vulgarise the legal profession.”Two decades later, in 1995, the apex court in Indian Council of Legal Aid & Advice v Bar Council of India described law as a “noble profession” and said that those engaged in it have certain obligations to society, as the practice of law has a “public utility flavour”. The core idea is that allowing advertising would lead to commercialisation, undermining public trust and the dignity of the profession.While the rules are strict, a minor relaxation was made in 2008. After a challenge in the Supreme Court, Rule 36 was amended to allow advocates to furnish basic information on their websites –their names, contact details, qualifications, enrolment number and areas of practice, as prescribed by the Bar Council. However, this is a far cry from active promotion or solicitation.In July 2024, a Madras High Court judgement extended the ambit of the bar on advertising to even online legal directories.Story continues below this adHearing a petition against online portals like Quikr, Sulekha and Just Dial that listed and advertised lawyers’ services, the court held that such practices were a clear violation of Rule 36. It stated that “branding culture in the legal profession is detrimental to society” and “demeans the ethos of the profession”. The court directed the BCI to issue guidelines to all state bar councils to initiate disciplinary proceedings against advocates who advertise on such platforms.Following this judgment, the BCI swiftly issued directives to all state bar councils to take strict action against lawyers advertising or soliciting work through online portals. It also issued cease-and-desist notices to the platforms to remove all advertisements about legal services, failing which they would face legal proceedings and penalties from the BCI.However, this failed to create a sufficient deterrent, with most online legal directories continuing to function today.What triggered the recent wave of enforcement?The recent crackdown by various bar councils can perhaps be traced back to a promotional video by law firm DSK Legal starring actor Rahul Bose.Story continues below this adThis triggered a detailed press release from the BCI on March 17, 2025, that took a stringent view on the rise of “self-styled legal influencers”. The council strongly condemned advocates using social media, promotional videos and influencer endorsements, and expressly denounced the involvement of actors and celebrities. It noted with “serious concern” the rapid growth of legal influencers, many of whom, it said, spread misinformation on critical legal issues without possessing appropriate credentials, leading to public confusion and an undue burden on the judiciary.This BCI directive set the stage for individual State Bar Councils, including those in Delhi and Punjab and Haryana, to issue their own notices in July and August, respectively. Both cautioned against using social media and promotional content by lawyers to solicit work, warning that this would be treated as professional misconduct, leading to the suspension or cancellation of the advocate’s license.These were followed by the KSBC resolution, which was the first that set a deadline for lawyers to remove such social media content.