The Collective Counsel Logo
All Research
What the BCI Guidelines Mean for Lawyers on Social Media: Educating Without Soliciting

What the BCI Guidelines Mean for Lawyers on Social Media: Educating Without Soliciting

Vani Krishnappa20264 Students Reached

The article explains the BCI’s rules on lawyers’ use of social media. Lawyers can use platforms like Instagram, LinkedIn and YouTube for legal education and awareness, but they cannot use them to solicit clients, advertise services, or promote themselves. The 2026 BCI circular specifically warns against promotional reels, client testimonials, influencer marketing, courtroom/chamber content, misleading legal information, fake judgments, deepfakes and disclosure of confidential client information. Law students and interns are also covered. In short: lawyers can educate online, but social media should not become a tool for attracting legal work.

What the BCI Guidelines Mean for Lawyers on Social Media: Educating Without Soliciting

A lot of people now learn about the law from Instagram reels, LinkedIn posts and YouTube videos. Lawyers who explain a new judgment or a legal right in simple words are doing useful work. But an advocate in India cannot use social media the way a shop or a startup does. The Bar Council of India (BCI) has said this many times, and in July 2026 it said it in a detailed circular.

The rule behind it all

The base is Rule 36 of the BCI Rules. It says an advocate shall not solicit work or advertise, directly or indirectly. It names circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, newspaper comments, and photographs published in connection with cases the advocate has handled. The signboard, nameplate and stationery also cannot show that the advocate specialises in a particular type of work.

The words to notice are "directly or indirectly". A post does not have to say "hire me" to be a problem.

This idea is not new. In 1975 the Supreme Court dealt with advocates in the Bombay criminal courts who chased clients and fought over briefs. It treated such conduct as professional misconduct.

What is allowed online: the 2008 change

In 2008 the BCI added a proviso to Rule 36. Advocates can now put limited information on a website. This covers name, address, phone number, email, enrolment details, bar association membership, qualifications and areas of practice. Anything beyond that list can be treated as a violation.

So being online is fine. Using the internet to promote your services is not.

The Madras High Court case on online platforms

On 3 July 2024 the Madras High Court decided P.N. Vignesh v. Chairman and Members of the Bar Council (W.P. No. 31281 of 2019). The case was about websites like Quikr, Sulekha and Justdial. They listed lawyers, graded them with labels like "Platinum" or "Premium", and connected users with lawyers. The platforms said they were only directories.

The Court did not agree. It said such platforms were soliciting work for lawyers, and it called this an act of "touting" under Rule 36. It told the BCI to push State Bar Councils to act against advocates who advertise, and to act against the platforms too.

What the Supreme Court did next

The matter did not end there. On 14 August 2024 the Supreme Court heard JustDial's challenge. It did not stay the High Court's directions, but it issued notice because of the larger question about professional ethics. In November 2024 it issued notice in a similar petition by Sulekha.com. I could not find a final ruling, so the High Court judgment should not be described as the last word.

What the BCI did in 2024 and 2025

After the High Court judgment, the BCI wrote to State Bar Councils on 6 July 2024 and issued a press release on 8 July 2024. It asked them to start disciplinary action against advocates seeking work through online portals. It also sent cease and desist notices to Quikr, Sulekha, Just Dial and Grotal.

On 17 March 2025 the BCI issued another press release. It condemned advocates who advertise through social media, promotional videos and influencer endorsements. It also criticised the use of film actors and celebrities to promote legal services.

The 2026 circular

The Supreme Court then became involved. A petition (Anil Pandey v. Bar Council of India, W.P.(C) No. 817 of 2026) raised concerns about promotional reels, paid legal content, influencer tie ups and client testimonials. On 14 July 2026 the Court issued notice to the BCI.

Three days later, on 17 July 2026, the BCI issued its circular on social media conduct, forwarded under number BCI/D/4659/2026. It covers advocates, law students and interns. The BCI says it is not a new code. It applies existing duties, found in the Preamble to Chapter II, Part VI and in rules including Rules 36 and 37, to online conduct. A follow up direction on 23 July 2026 asked State Bar Councils and law schools to implement it immediately.

Where education turns into solicitation

The circular warns against content that crosses the line from legal education into solicitation, misinformation, false authority, self promotion and sensationalism.

Reports on the circular say it does not leave everything to judgment. It bars recording, photographing or publishing court proceedings, client meetings and chamber discussions. It prohibits popular reel formats such as "Day in Court", "Internship Reveal", "Courtroom Drama" and "Lawyer Life". Lawyers also cannot use courtrooms, court premises, robes or client files as a backdrop for promotion, branding or earning money. The BCI has also said that live streamed court proceedings cannot be clipped, monetised or used to ridicule the court.

Beyond that, watch out for these:

  • Posts that mainly push your contact details or invite people to approach you.
  • Client testimonials and claims of being the "best" or a specialist.
  • Sensational commentary on ongoing cases just for views.
  • Fake judgments, made up citations or misleading legal summaries.
  • AI generated images, deepfakes or cloned voices that falsely show judges, lawyers, clients or court proceedings.

Confidentiality is a separate point. Client information, case strategy, pleadings, drafts and chamber discussions must never be shared online.

What you can still post

The BCI says legal awareness content, academic discussion, neutral case law updates, constitutional literacy and accurate legal reporting remain permissible. The condition is that they are not misleading, promotional or sensational.

So a post that explains bail and anticipatory bail is education. If the same post ends with "facing arrest, call our office" or "we have won hundreds of cases", it becomes promotion. Ask yourself who the post really helps. If it helps the reader understand the law, it is education. If it mainly helps you get clients, it is not.

Law students and interns

Students and interns are told not to post "day in court" or "day in chamber" content. They can take part in legal literacy and academic discussions, but they cannot present themselves as advocates. Law colleges must hold orientation sessions, appoint a nodal officer, and take a separate undertaking from every student at admission and before every internship.

What State Bar Councils must do

State Bar Councils must send the circular to every enrolled advocate and every recognised Bar Association. They must introduce a standalone affidavit or compliance acknowledgement for future enrolment. They must also set up a Digital Ethics Committee, nodal group or nodal officer, along with a complaint channel. This body receives complaints, preserves material, counsels first time violators and refers serious or repeated breaches to the competent authority.

What happens if the rules are broken

Under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, a State Bar Council that believes an advocate is guilty of misconduct refers the matter to its disciplinary committee. The BCI has also said breaches can be treated as minor, serious or aggravated, with fake judgments and deepfakes treated most seriously. It adds that the circular should be used in an educative, preventive and proportionate way, and not for personal rivalry, moral policing or to silence fair criticism. Final thoughts

The message is not "stay off social media". It is "use it to inform, not to attract clients". Being visible online is not the same as advertising. What matters is what your post is actually doing. Some terms in the circular, like "dignity" and "sensationalising", are not clearly defined, so the safest course is to keep client and court material off social media entirely and keep your educational posts free of any push for work. The Supreme Court is also still hearing the Anil Pandey petition, so this area may change.

Sources

  1. Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Rule 36, and the 2008 proviso (BCI resolution dated 30 April 2008, amendment made 24 March 2008): 
  2. The Advocates Act, 1961, Sections 35 and 49.
  3. Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar, Supreme Court, 3 October 1975, (1976) 2 SCC 291.
  4. Mr. P.N. Vignesh v. Chairman and Members of the Bar Council, Madras High Court, W.P. No. 31281 of 2019, 3 July 2024: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/169670340/
  5. JustDial.com v. P.N. Vignesh, Supreme Court order of 14 August 2024, SLP (C) No. 17844/2024: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54893361/
  6. Verdictum, "Supreme Court Issues Notice To Bar Council Of India On Scope Of Online Listings For Advocates" (13 November 2024), on Sulekha.com v. P.N. Vignesh, SLP (C) No. 25794/2024: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supremecourt/sulekhacom-new-media-private-limited-v-pn-vignesh-ors-special-leave-toappeal-c-nos-257942024-1557830
  7. SCC Times, "BCI bans illegal solicitation of legal services by lawyers on online portals after Madras HC decision" (9 July 2024): https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/07/09/bci-bans-illegal-solicitation-oflegal-services-by-lawyers-on-online-portals-after-madras-hc-decision/
  8. Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Law and Justice, "Regulation for Online Legal Services" (9 August 2024): https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2043470&reg=3&lang=2
  9. SCC Times, "BCI condemns unethical legal advertising by advocates and legal influencers" (17 March 2025): https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/03/17/bcicondemns-warns-against-unethical-legal-advertising-advocates-legal-influencersissues-directives/
  10. India Legal, "Supreme Court seeks BCI response on plea seeking regulation of social media of advocates for digital solicitation": https://indialegallive.com/constitutionallaw-news/courts-news/supreme-court-seeks-bci-response-on-plea-seeking-regulationof-social-media-of-advocates-for-digital-solicitation/
  11. Bar Council of India, Circular BCI/D/4659/2026 dated 17 July 2026: https://www.barcouncilofindia.org/info/forwarding-d4cwwl
  12. TaxGuru, "BCI Directs Immediate Implementation of Social Media & Digital Ethics Circular" (text of the forwarding letter): https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/bci-directsimplementation-social-media-digital-ethics-circular.html
  13. SCC Times, "Promotional Reels, Client Testimonials, Legal Influencers: BCI Issues Digital Conduct Rules for Legal Community" (18 July 2026): https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/07/18/bci-social-media-digital-ethicsguidelines/ Social
  14. The Cyber Blog India, "Dignity of the Bar or Digital Overreach? Reading the BCI's 2026 Media Circular Closely" (28 August 2026): https://cyberblogindia.in/dignity-of-the-bar-or-digital-overreach-reading-the-bcis2026-social-media-circular-closely/