Can Advocates Have a Website? Bar Council Rule 36 Explained

A young advocate in Thane, three years into practice, asked us for a website last year. Her brief, copied from a friend’s dental clinic site, had a “Why choose me” section, a slider of client thank-you messages, a counter showing cases won, a WhatsApp button that opened by itself and a plan to rank for “best divorce lawyer in Thane”. For a dentist, most of that is routine. For an advocate, every item on the list can be read as advertising under Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

So, can advocates have a website at all? Yes, and this guide shows what may go on it. I have read Rule 36 and its 2008 proviso in the rules text itself and quote it below, so you can check every line. I build websites and practice software; I am not an advocate or an ethics adviser. Each advocate is responsible for their own compliance, so treat this as a working map and settle doubts with your State Bar Council.

Can advocates have a website in India?

Yes. Since 2008, a proviso to Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules has allowed advocates to put up website information limited to the particulars in a Schedule: name, address and contact details, enrolment details, qualifications and areas of practice. Anything beyond those particulars is deemed a violation of Rule 36.

The rule sits in Part VI, Chapter II, Section IV (Duty to Colleagues) of the BCI Rules. I have read it from the compilation of the rules “as amended up to 30th September, 2009”, published by the Bar Council of Gujarat. The Bar Council of India’s own website did not render the Part VI text when I tried it, so treat the quotations as accurate to that compilation and check for later amendments.

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.Rule 36, Part VI, Chapter II, BCI Rules (first sentence)

The rule then says a sign-board or name-plate should be of reasonable size and should not say that the advocate is or was a Bar Council or association office-bearer, has been a judge or Advocate General, or “specialises in any particular type of work”. Then comes the 2008 proviso, which is the only reason an advocate’s website is lawful at all:

That this Rule will not stand in the way of advocates furnishing website information as prescribed in the Schedule under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India. Any additional other input in the particulars than approved by the Bar Council of India will be deemed to be violation of Rule 36 and such advocates are liable to be proceeded with misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.Proviso to Rule 36, added vide Res. No. 50/2008 dated 24-3-2008

Two phrases matter for anyone planning a site. “As prescribed in the Schedule” fixes the content. “Under intimation to and as approved by the Bar Council of India” suggests the particulars are meant to be intimated to the BCI. I could not find a published current procedure for that step, so ask your State Bar Council how it is handled before launch, and keep a copy of whatever you send.

1. The five permitted particulars, item by item

The Schedule to the proviso lists five items: name; address with telephone numbers and email; enrolment number, date and Bar Council details plus Bar Association; professional and academic qualifications; and areas of practice. It ends with a declaration that the information given is true, signed by the advocate.

Source: Bar Council of India Rules, Part VI, Chapter II, Rule 36 proviso and Schedule (Res. No. 50/2008 dated 24 March 2008), as printed in the BCI Rules compilation amended up to 30 September 2009, published by the Bar Council of Gujarat. The last two columns are Infoways’ application, not BCI text.

The fifth item deserves care. The Schedule’s own examples are broad heads such as civil, criminal, taxation and labour. In the law firm sites we work on, advocates usually want to describe each area in a paragraph. A neutral description of the kind of matters handled is close to the Schedule. A paragraph that tells the reader why they should pick you, or how often you win, is not.

2. A compliant advocate website, page by page

A compliant advocate or law firm website has a short home page, a profile page per advocate built from the Schedule, a practice areas page, a contact page and the legal pages a website needs. It has no testimonials, results, client lists, rankings, offers, pop-ups or promotional video.

Nothing in Rule 36 prescribes a design, so a site can look calm and professional. What is prescribed is content. This is the page plan we now use when an advocate or chamber asks us for a website, with the reason for each choice.

Source: Rule 36 and its Schedule as above; the DPDP Rules 2025 per the PIB explainer. The include and leave-out columns are Infoways’ application; your advocates make the final call on each line.

Articles, photos and a firm name: the grey areas

Three things that most clients ask for are not in the Schedule. Read strictly, the proviso’s “any additional other input” line puts them outside what is permitted. Many firms still publish them in a restrained form. My view is to decide each one deliberately rather than by habit.

• Articles or legal updates. Not a Schedule item. If the firm publishes any, I would keep them general and educational, never about the firm’s own matters, with no “contact us for help” line, and approved by a named advocate.
• Photographs. Rule 36 specifically bars producing photographs “in connection with cases”. A plain profile photo is not listed either way; event galleries, court-steps photos and photos with clients are a clear no.
• Firm name and logo. A firm of advocates naturally shows its name. A logo that works as a slogan or badge is the kind of thing I would leave out.

See also: chartered accountants face a similar but looser regime; compare it in ICAI advertising rules 2026, which shows how much further CA firms may go than advocates.

3. Do advocates need a disclaimer on their website?

No rule text I could find requires a specific disclaimer, but most Indian law firm websites show an entry notice saying the site is for information only, is not an advertisement or solicitation, and that the visitor has sought the information on their own. It is a sensible practice that you should draft yourself.

The notice does not make non-compliant content compliant. A site full of testimonials does not become lawful because a pop-up says “this is not advertising”. Its value is that it states the site’s purpose clearly and records that the visitor chose to enter. In the builds we do, the notice appears before the home page loads, the visitor’s acceptance is remembered in their browser for a period you set, and search engines can still read the page content.

Typical points in such a notice, which your advocates should word themselves: the site is for information only; it is not an attempt to solicit work or advertise; reading it does not create an advocate-client relationship; nothing on it is legal advice; and the visitor confirms they are accessing it of their own accord.

4. What advocates must keep off their website

Leave out testimonials, ratings, success rates, case results presented as promotion, client names and logos, rankings and awards, promotional video, paid listings and any page built to rank for “best lawyer in [city]”. Each of these goes beyond the five particulars, and several are exactly what Bar Councils acted on in 2024 and 2025.

Source: Rule 36 and Schedule (BCI Rules); reported BCI and court actions listed in section 5 and in Sources. The “why” and “instead” columns are Infoways’ reading; where a feature is not named in the rule, it is my interpretation.

One point from our side of the work. Website companies, including good ones, reuse templates. A template built for a clinic or a consultancy arrives with a testimonials block, a “trusted by” strip, a newsletter pop-up and an analytics setup that feeds ad platforms. When we build for advocates, we remove those components from the code, not just hide them, so nobody can switch them back on by accident later.

5. Social media, listings and the 2024-2025 crackdown

The BCI and state Bar Councils have treated social media promotion, influencer and celebrity endorsements and online listing platforms as advertising under Rule 36. A petition on digital solicitation by advocates is pending in the Supreme Court. Plain, non-promotional profiles are the cautious course.

Source: Gala Law (26 March 2025) for the Madras High Court ruling; MediaNama (18 March 2025) for the 2024 notices and the BCI press release; LawBeat and SCC Online (March 2025) for the show cause notice; Verdictum (7 August 2025) for the Delhi notice; India Legal for the PIL. These are press reports, not the orders themselves.

What does that mean in practice? A LinkedIn or X profile that states who you are and where you practise is different from a reel explaining why clients should hire you. The BCI press release, as reported by MediaNama, described self-promotion at events and online as “unethical canvassing”, and the Bar Council of Delhi’s August 2025 notice used the same words. Map and directory listings sit in the same zone as the platforms that received notices; I would ask your Bar Council before creating or claiming one.

6. Where a website and software make compliance reliable

The safest advocate website is one where the content can only come from approved fields: a profile built from the five Schedule items, a publish step that needs a named advocate’s approval, no marketing components in the code, and a contact form that collects only what it must. That turns Rule 36 from a memory test into a setting.

Most problems we see on law firm sites are not deliberate. A junior adds a client’s thank-you email to the home page. An agency installs a review plugin during a theme update. A partner retires and his profile still shows him as practising. These are process gaps, and software handles process well.

• Schedule-only profiles: each advocate profile has exactly the Schedule fields, and the editor has no free-text box for “achievements”.
• Approval log: nothing goes live without approval from a named advocate, and the approval is kept with the date.
• No marketing components: no testimonial, review, pop-up, chat or newsletter modules exist in the build, so they cannot be switched on.
• Entry notice and consent: the entry notice and a DPDP consent line on the contact form are part of the template, not an afterthought.
• Profile changes from the roll: when an advocate joins or leaves, one change updates the site, so it never lists someone who has left.

The contact form carries a separate duty. Names and phone numbers typed into it are personal data under the DPDP Act 2023. The DPDP Rules were notified on 14 November 2025 with an eighteen-month phased compliance period and require a clear notice of why data is collected, according to the PIB explainer on the Rules. For advocates there is the added weight of privilege, so the form should ask for a name, a phone or email and a one-line subject, never the facts of a dispute.

We build plain Rule 36 websites and the private systems behind them, such as case diaries and client portals, for advocates and firms; the details are on our law firm software page. An independent advocate does not need anything custom for the website. A simple, well-built site with five pages and a disciplined approval habit is enough.

See also: if you are choosing a platform for the site, read WordPress vs a custom website; the private side of a practice, matters and dates, is covered in case diary and hearing date tracking for advocates.

7. Where this advice breaks down

This guide rests on a rules text dated 2009, press reports of Bar Council actions and my own reading of grey areas. The rules are being argued in court, Bar Councils can take a stricter view than mine, and no Bar Council pre-approves an article like this one. For anything that matters, ask your State Bar Council.

• The text may have moved. I quoted the compilation amended to 30 September 2009. I found no later change to the proviso, but I could not read Part VI on the BCI’s own website. Check the current text before a redesign.
• The intimation step is unclear. The proviso speaks of website information “under intimation to and as approved by” the BCI. I could not find how that works today. Ask, and keep the reply.
• Press reports are not orders. The 2024-2025 actions above come from legal news reports. Where a decision matters to you, read the order or notice itself.
• The law may change. A petition on digital solicitation is pending in the Supreme Court. A ruling could tighten or relax what is allowed online.
• Grey areas are mine. Articles, profile photos and firm logos are my reading of a short rule. A Bar Council could see them differently.

I would also push back on the opposite mistake. Some advocates avoid a website altogether. That was never required, and a plain site with correct enrolment details and a working contact page is useful to existing clients, opposing counsel and court staff who simply need to reach you.

Pre-launch checklist for an advocate website

Run the whole site through these questions before it goes live, and again after any redesign or template update. If any answer is wrong, fix it before launch.

The advocate in Thane launched with five pages: her profile, practice areas, contact, an entry notice and a privacy page. No counter, no testimonials, no “best lawyer” page. It took a week to build, and it is the version she would be comfortable showing her Bar Council.