Bar Council of Kerala Issues Show Cause Notice To Lawyer Over Social Media Advertisement
Bar Council of Kerala issued a show cause notice to advocate Happymon Babu over a social media video allegedly advertising his services, which he claims was created by a PR firm without his knowledge using AI
Kerala advocate faces disciplinary notice over AI-generated promotional video
The Bar Council of Kerala has initiated disciplinary proceedings against Advocate Happymon Babu for allegedly advertising his legal services through a promotional video circulated on social media platforms. The Council has issued a formal show cause notice seeking his response to the allegation.
The matter came to the Council's attention after a video showcasing the lawyer's profile and services appeared on popular social media channels.
The video, which presented him as a professional available for consultation, was deemed to amount to solicitation of clients, an act that is prohibited under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.
Under the regulatory framework governing the legal profession, Advocates are barred from advertising or soliciting work in any manner.
The Bar Council of India Rules on Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette expressly prohibit such conduct, considering it a deviation from the dignity of the legal profession.
Rule 36 of Section IV of the BCI Rules specifically restricts advocates from soliciting work either directly or indirectly, through circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communications, or by any other means.
The video in question portrayed details of the advocate's practice in a manner that, according to the Bar Council of Kerala, crossed the boundary between permissible information sharing and prohibited advertising.
The Council, therefore, decided to exercise its regulatory powers and called upon the Advocate to explain the circumstances under which the video was created and circulated.
In his defence, Advocate Happymon Babu denied any involvement in the making of the video. He stated that the video was not prepared or released by him. Instead, according to his explanation, a public relations firm that had approached him for collaboration on social media content was responsible for creating and uploading the video.
He further asserted that the video was generated using artificial intelligence technology without his knowledge or consent.
The advocate emphasised that he neither authorised nor participated in the preparation or dissemination of the video. He has also sought to clarify that no benefit was derived by him from its circulation.
The Bar Council of Kerala, however, has maintained that the responsibility to comply with the professional standards laid down under the Advocates Act and Bar Council rules lies with the advocate himself. The Council has therefore asked him to provide a detailed explanation justifying why action should not be taken against him for alleged violation of professional conduct rules.
The Advocates Act, 1961 establishes the framework for regulating legal practice in India and empowers Bar Councils to prescribe standards of professional conduct. Section 49 of the Act authorises the Bar Council of India to make rules governing advocates, which includes the prohibition on advertising.
Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules explicitly prohibits advocates from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. The rule permits only a limited exception, whereby lawyers may provide basic information such as their name, qualifications, and areas of practice on websites approved by the Bar Council of India, but direct or indirect solicitation through advertisements or social media remains impermissible.
In V.B. Joshi v. Union of India (2000), the Supreme Court upheld the ban on advertising, holding that the profession of law is not a trade or business and must be conducted with dignity. Later, in Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018), the Court reiterated that solicitation and advertising by lawyers were barred, even while considering the entry of foreign law firms in India.
The current case also raises important questions on the role of artificial intelligence and third party firms in the legal sector.
With increasing reliance on digital platforms, advocates often engage public relations agencies or content creators for visibility. However, the use of AI-generated promotional material, as alleged here, complicates the regulatory framework, as it becomes difficult to draw a clear line between personal involvement and third party action.
Case Title: Bar Council of Kerala v. Advocate Happymon Babu
Date: September 17, 2025