SHRAYASHREE T

BC0150024

RESPONSE PAPER – II

In India, the Professional Standards given by the BCI is more stringent than in any other Country
and this, in some ways acts as hindrance while competing with the Advocates across the Globe.

For instance, in India as under Rule 36 of the BCI Rules, any publicity by legal professionals of
their services is allowed to such a limited extent that it is futile whereas in other countries like
UK (from where we originally adopted this ethical standard), USA, Malaysia, Singapore etc.
advocates are allowed to publicise and advertise their services provided they adhere to some
restrictions that are imposed to ensure the welfare of the general public (consumers). The
Advocates have time and again fought for lifting the ban but no change has been made since
2008, when an amendment was made to include minimal advertising on websites.

Another example of unnecessary restriction on the Indian advocates is the prohibition on them to
start a partnership firm with non-lawyers as per Section 2 of Chapter III under the BCI Rules.
The U.K. had a similar rule barring nonlawyer ownership, but under reforms implemented by the
Legal Services Act of 2007 law firms have been able to take on a limited number of non-lawyer
partners and lawyers have been allowed to enter into a wide variety of business relationships
with non-lawyers and non-lawyer owned businesses. Likewise, when compared to other
countries, India has very less international standing when it comes to legal firms as the Indian
lawyers cannot enter into partnerships with foreign lawyers. The SC also recently upheld non-
allowing of foreign lawyers into the India legal scenario.

Further, the size of a partnership in India is limited whereas in abroad it is unlimited.

In case of transactional lawyers too, there is some code of conduct applicable but since they are
not necessitated to come to the Court, the stringent rules of litigation do not apply to them. They
do not work for the court. They work for their clients and they will have ethics and obligation i.e.
their duty to their clients, which may be prescribed in their Company or firm's guidelines. Their
clients' wish fulfillment will be their prime goal. Hence, such difference between them is
justified as their nature of work itself is different and only those ethics that their work demand
must be imposed on them.

It is my position that the ethical standards in India need little modifications to meet the
International standards as there is not substantial difference between Indian Standards and those
in the foreign countries