Advertising for Advocates

“A bar on advertising for Advocates in India beneath Advocates Act,1961 and Bar Parliament of India Rules” ANALYSED BY: MOSES PINTO 5TH YEAR LL. B. (HONS. ) ROLL NO. 512 ACADEMIC YEAR: 2012-13 PREFACE Behind the Second Cosmos-vulgar War the Interpolitical Economic Methodize which emerged, encouraged Unimpeded Employment in pi & benefits. India was a fobeneath premonitionatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Employment (GATT) gone 1947, which led to the shape of WTO, on 1st January 1995. This has led to a all remote deliberate in India redress the aastringent laws governling sequence of ethics and chastity of Lawful Professionals on one index and the WTO laws on the other index. This deliberate revolves encircling main results pertaining to the motiveives of lawful avocation, consumerism, collective justness, Indian commitment to WTO regime, race law etc. Some avocationals debate that the change in employment constitution of lawful benefits shall hinder ‘authoritative ethics’ and concept of ‘justness to all’. Some others say that the maxims imposed on the lawful benefits sector are repugnant to the goals and aim of race classification and Race Act, 2002. At the kernel of this bickering lies the result of lawful advertising. The monitions in India are closed from advertising their avocation beinfer the avocation to be a honorable one and such advertising to be uncomely to that avocation. Advertisements are a forum for substantiateing the benefit of pi and benefits. Further, it augments and encourages race in the bearing negotiate by providing a forum for launching of new products. To vie up behind a while the WTO laws and orderizes and looking at the general deviate which has scrutinyed lawful avocation to employment laws, it has beseem unavoidable to concede the lawful avocationals to promulge and to reponder encircling the classification of law in India. Vulgar ponder whether this peel of ban installed on age old orderizes is viable in this late era. The deliberate of the hour in the Indian lawful cosmos-vulgar is on why the avocation should enjoy very accurate curbs on promoting its benefits stemming from laws that proceed from British pondering when the kingdom from where it proceeds has itstubborn produced far behind a while the curbs? In the aim of the redresshead setting, I would enjoy to debate the laws banning the advertising for lawful avocationals in India and their involutions, beinfer the comcomaspect of such laws in other familiar countries ascribable to the WTO orderizes. INDEX I. CHAPTER I: The Law on Lawful Advertising in India * The law beneath Bar Parliament of India Rules; * The Judiciary on this synod II. CHAPTER II: Law in other Countries * Comaspect in U. K. * Comaspect in U. S. * Comaspect in other countries III. CHAPTER III: The Constitutional vigor of Synod 36 IV. CHAPTER IV: Disadvantages of banning Lawful Ads * Consumerism and Sensible Select * Voicelessness on Internet * Other disadvantages * Need for reigning the advertising V. CONCLUSION. I. CHAPTER I: The Law on Lawful Advertising in India Behind entrance into entiretyity the confideations of the Law Commission on the scrutiny of Rearfile of Judicial Synod relative-to to the Bar and to lawful monition and to utensil the confideations of the All India Bar Committee made in 1953, the Indian Legislature came up behind a while the Advocates Act, 1961. This act beneath the speciality 4 arranges a Bar Parliament of India to govern all the lawful avocationals and lawful monition in India. The Bar Parliament of India is the mediate undiminished for supervising and mentoring the fruit and fruit of lawful benefits and the functioning of defenders & huskred strongs & corporations in India. Pursuant to the functions of Bar Parliament of India beneath speciality 7 and its synod to reach synods beneath speciality 49 of the said Act, it has independent the Bar Parliament of India Rules which are stringent on all the lawful avocationals in India. The law beneath Bar Parliament of India Rules There is a thorough ban on advertising for monitions in India. The Bar Parliament of India, pursuant to its functions mentioned beneath Individuality 7(1)(b)[9] of the Advocates Act peruse behind a while its synods to reach synods beneath Individuality 49(1)(c)[10] has framed Synod 36 of the Bar Parliament of India Rules beneath Individuality IV(Duty to Colleagues) of Chapter II(Standards of Authoritative Induce and Etiquette) of Separate IV(Rules Controlling Advocates). Rule 36 peruses as beneath: “An defender shall not implore result or promulge, either straightway or interveniently, whether by rounds, promulgements, touts, singular messages, interviews not obligatory by singular kinsfolk, furnishing or stirred informationpaper comments or conceding his photographs to be circulateed in junction behind a while subjects in which he has been occupied or concerned. His premonition-consultation or spectry-plate should be of a culm greatness. The premonition-consultation or spectry-plate or stationery should not betoken that he is or has been Superintendent or Constituent of a Bar Parliament or of any Community or that he has been associated behind a while any special or organisation or behind a while any point infer or subject or that he specificises in any point stamp of result or that he has been a Judge or an Defender General. ” Thus, it is counter an defender’s sequence of ethics to implore or promulge result and amounts to a misguide on the separate of the defender. Twain plain and inplain advertising is inhibited. An defender may not promulge his benefits through rounds, promulgements, touts, singular message or interviews not obligatory by singular kinsfolk. Similarly, the follascribable arranges of inplain advertising are inhibited: A. by issuing rounds or exciteence manifestos by a monition behind a while his spectry, avocation and disprogress imprinted on the manifestos, thereby apostrophizeing to the constituents of the avocation practising in the inferior flatters who are in a comcomaspect to confide clients to monition practising in the lofty flatter B. anvassing for votes by touring in the sphere or sending out his clerk or agents to the ungentleman districts, which must necessarily average straightway approaching defenders practising in secondary flatters. Further, the premonitionconsultation or spectryplate displayed by an defender should be of a culm greatness. It should not associate to details of an affiliated by the defender i. e. that he is or has been superintendent or constituent of a bar parliament or of any community, or he has been a Judge or an Advocate-General, or that he specificises in a point peel of result, or hat he is or was associated behind a while any special or organisation or behind a while any point infer or subject. Elevate advertising on internet is besides inhibited. Bar Parliament of India, in a voicelessness dated 21st October 1999, reaffirmed that such ‘advertisements’ on the Internet are considered an affront. It orderizeed all the lawful Websites to be behind a whiledrawn straightway, beneath denunciation of lawful renewal ranging from portioial deprivation to persistent debarring of the monition from experience. The redresshead synod has been vehemently enforced by the Bar Parliament of India, barely despising all the criticisms made counter this inclement synod. Further, the govern of Individuality IV of Chapter II of Separate IV of Bar Parliament of India Rules are disentangled i. e. “Duty to colleagues”. This averages that the another infer subsequently jurisprudence of such a orderize is to nullify the defenders, law strongs, etc from inviting the clients of their foe and to catch far the avocation of their foe. Such a law is besides made in orderize to acceleration the mean and unnormal defenders and strongs to melt in the negotiate and do avocation. The aim subsequently it is to nullify a set of monitions from entrance unculm usage. Also such a law nullifys monitions from reversion beneath their decency in orderize to propel clients by doing anything and thus outrageous the constitution of the avocation. * The Judiciary on this synod The flatters enjoy redress or short agreed behind a while the aim of the Bar Parliament and enjoy utensiled the synod laid down by the Parliament pertaining to advertising. The Supreme Flatter of India observed in Bar Parliament of India v. M. V. Dhabolkar, that  “….. the canons of ethics and justness for the lawful avocation wholly taboo induce by way of imploreing, advertising, scrambling and other offensive experiences….  It elevate glorious that “Law is not a employment, not briefs, not wares, and so the deity of communicateable race should not vulgarize the lawful avocation”. The Allahabad Lofty Court observed that stubborn advertising tends to inferior the decency of this honourable avocation and is undoubtedly consanguineous to touting. The Bombay Lofty Flatter in  Synod Pleader v. S, a Pleader considered sending a round postcard just giving the disprogress and patronymic as an inexpedient induce by the Advocate. The Lofty Flatter of Madras went one tread afront in SK Naicker v. Authorised Officer and held that smooth a premonition consultation or a spectry-plate should be of a sparing greatness. It has been elevate observed that agreement of articles for promulgation in informationpapers beneath his premonitionature, where the writer describes himstubborn as an Defender practicing in the flatter as a atrocious nonperformance of avocational manners. Thus, lawful advertising by far is a taboo in India and the flatters enjoy redress or short base and agreed behind a while this synod framed by Bar Parliament of India. II. CHAPTER II: Law in other Countries Lawful advertising has been an leading and remotely used cat's-paw of message in divers base law countries and in most of the familiar countries enjoy US, UK, etc. It is used by the monitions to advance their avocational benefits. It is concedeed in most of the countries behind a while maxims reigning it as compared to India where it is thoroughly banned. In these countries the maxim is produced in orderize to relinquish untrue, misleading & mendacious promulgements but promulgements displaying accuracy are concedeed. The lawful classification is repeatedly a enigma, and we, its priests, direct redress rituals traitorship to trite denizens. " - Henry Miller * Comaspect in U. K. The edibles banning promulgement adopted in India has its roots in Victorian notions of U. K. which considered each and perfect avocation to be honorable and recurrent that such a maxim is expedient in orderize to uphold the decency and aristocracy of this avocation. Earlier, in U. K. too advertising was banned for avocationals enjoy monitions. But posterior this ban was upheaveed. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1970 and the reaim absorbed by the Office of Untarnished Trading in 1986 keen out at the usages of letting the avocationals promulge and the benefits profited by from unbending such orderizes. Ultimately the ban was upheaveed and the confinements inferiored and thus lawful negotiateing and lawful advertising became a substance in U. K. * Comaspect in U. S. In U. S. the comcomaspect was portioially resembling to that in India until 1977. There was a thorough ban on advertising for lawful avocationals. This comcomaspect took a thorough U-decline behind the strongness of the U. S. Supreme Flatter on 27thJune 1977 in the subject of  Bates v. Particularize Bar of Arizona. The Supreme Flatter validated lawful advertising and invalidated the law of Particularize Bar of Arizona banning lawful advertising by a mainity of 5:4 avocation such a law violative of First Constitutional Amendment. Prior to this subject, the U. S. Supreme Flatter validated communicateable promulgement and gave its svie in the 1942 subject of Valentine v. Chrestensen. Posterior in  Bigelow  v. Virginia  (1975) and in Virginia Particularize Consultation of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Parliament Inc. (1976) the U. S. S. C. nvalidated laws stringent ads negotiateing abortion benefits and ads shascribable prices of adjust drugs on the basis that they violated First Constitutional Amendment i. e. Insubservience of Address and Indication and held that “the unimpeded run of communicateable inshape is necessary. ” All these strongnesss were adopted in the Bates’ prudence by the US SC and it was held that accuracyful lawful advertising should not be inhibited as there is molehill wickedness in it. The flatter invalidated in this apostrophize the law inhibiting lawful advertising avocation it to be violative of unimpededdom of address and indication guaranteed by the First Constitutional Amendment. Justice Blackmun debated that communicateable address does goodness First Amendment shelter absorbed the leading functions it serves in communion, such as providing consumers behind a while inshape encircling benefits and products, and accelerationing to locate instrument in the American classification of unimpeded-enterprise. The Flatter held that concedeing supporters to promulge would not mischief the lawful avocation or the synod of justness, and, in truth, would accoutre consumers behind a while estimable inshape encircling the profitpower and consume of lawful benefits. But the pointizes are concedeed to govern and mentor the advertising by defenders. This is plum from the posterior prudences of ungentleman pointize Supreme Courts which enjoy upheld the laws reigning and restricting gentleman experiences of lawful advertising. * Comaspect in other countries The comcomaspect in other familiar countries is besides wholly disentangled. Advertising is concedeed in most of the countries. In France, though the law is not that gentle, it stands somewhere between Indian and U. K. composition. There is not a thorough ban on advertising. Besides in Italy, the lawful negotiateing has been lawfulized by the Bersani Decree of 2004 which was enforced in 2007. This has been gentleman for most of the European countries enjoy Germany, Spain, etc. Lawful Advertising is a substance perfectwhere. Besides countries in the West, Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia enjoy been alterablely unbending their maxims on lawful advertising to mix to global call-fors. For illustration, Malaysia’s Lawful Avocation (Publicity) Rules, passed in 2001 is a atomary yet pregnant sequence that governs promulgements in lawful and non-lawful plainories, governs promulgation of journals, magazines, brochures and informationletters by monitions and interviews in electronic and imimimprint edia, bars notoriety through clients and smooth includes a synod that governs monitions sending boldness cards on specific occasions. In Hong Kong, monitions are forbidden from advertising on television, radio and cinema. Though advertising in imimimprint is juridical, larger strongs passociate opinion strategies such as winning in displeasing client and generally-known kinsfolk programmes and branding exercises. Smooth in Singapore the lawful promulgements are concedeed behind a while gentleman confinements. Thus, it is disentangled that most of the countries enjoy adopted a gentle classification towards lawful advertising and has concedeed it to confront the global call-fors and cope behind a while the other countries. This has resulted merely in usages and benefits for those countries and no mischief is produced on the repugnant. III. CHAPTER III: The Constitutional vigor of Synod 36 The Synod 36 of Bar Parliament of India Rules, inhibit defenders from advertising. This Synod cannot be investigated behind a while compliments to A. 19(1)(a) i. e. reedom of address and indication as produced in US in the subject of Bates v. Arizona Particularize Bar, beinfer of the strongness of Indian Supreme Flatter in the subject of Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union Of India. The Supreme Flatter came on to flow vigor of law banning promulgement for the sale of gentleman medicines in this subject counter A. 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. The Flatter held that: “An promulgement is no demur a arfile of address but its gentleman cast is exhibited by the motive for the preferment of which it is filled. It assumes the attributes and atoms of the air beneath Art. 9 (1) which it investigates to aid by causeing it to the voicelessness of the generally-known. When it chooses the arfile of a communicateable promulgement which has an atom of employment-or exchange it no longer falls behind a whilein the concept of unimpededdom of address for the motive is not propagation of ideas – collective political or economic or elevateance of study or rational thought; but as in the bestow subject the laudation of the productiveness, appreciate and moment in tenor of point diseases by gentleman drugs and medicines. In such a subject, promulgement is a separate of avocation smooth though as picturesque by Mr. Munshi its spiritual separate, and it was life used for the aim of elevateing the avocation of the entreatyers and had no kinsfolkhip behind a while what may be denominated the redundant concept of the unimpededdom of address. It cannot be said that the direct to circulate and communicate-out communicateable promulgements advertising an special’s singular avocation is a separate of unimpededdom of address guaranteed by the Constitution. ” In the aim of the redresshead strongness, the communicateable promulgement is not a separate of unimpededdom of address and indication and thus ban on promulgement for defenders is justified to be reversion behind a whilein culm confinement as recurrent beneath A. 9(2). The merely relief left is to investigate its constitutional vigor counter A. 19(1)(g) i. e. unimpededdom to propel on Trade, Avocation or Business. Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India confers perfect denizen behind a while the direct to cull his own tenure or to choose up any employment or avocation. This direct is impregnated behind a while an indicated direct for profiting all the mechanisms and instrument – including advertising – for able propeling of the employment or employment supposing it doesn’t go counter generally-known cause. Any blanket bar on this direct would be unculm when there is an liberty of constituting a specificized synod undiminished that would study the satisfied of the promulgement. The scrutiny that debris is whether lawful avocation falls beneath the sort of employment or avocation so as to profit the redresshead direct? Smooth though the judiciary in the govern of Justness Krishna Iyer, has held that Lawful Avocation is such a honorable Avocation that it cannot arfile a separate of employment or avocation,  the new-fangled deviate of the flatters is to defend this avocation as a rade. Redress the years, the flatters enjoy normal ‘Legal Service’ as a ‘service’ rendered to the consumers and enjoy held that monitions are entiretyityable to the clients in the subjects of want of benefits. In the subject of Srinath v. Union of India, the Madras Lofty Flatter held that, in aim of Sec. 3 of Consumer Shelter Act, 1986 that Consumer redressal forums enjoy government to communicate behind a while privileges counter defenders. Sec. 2 (U) of the Race Act, 2002 defines the vocable ‘Service’ parallel the lines of the Consumer Shelter Act, 1986. Also the strongness of Supreme Flatter in Bangalore Water Accoutre and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, holds that lawful avocation is balmy beneath the specification of the vocable Industry beneath the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Elevate it should be glorious that India is a separate of WTO and is scrutinyed to WTO laws and lawful benefits are scheduleed as a subindividuality of Avocation Services in WTO Services Sectoral Classification schedule. In the aim of the redresshead setting, the indispensable direct to promulge guaranteed beneath A. 19(1)(g) can be absorbed to the lawful avocationals to advance their benefits. This direct thus, can be choosen far merely by august a culm confinement beneath A. 19(6) of the Constitution The Supreme Flatter elevate observed that: “Unshort it is shown that there is a culm relevancy of the edibhither of the Act to the aim in aim, the direct of unimpededdom of employment and avocation cannot be curtailed by it……….. the specialty ‘culm confinement’ connotes that the taciturnity imposed on a special in renewal of the direct should not be harsh or of an exorbitant constitution, aggravate what is insist-upond in the causes of the generally-known. The term ‘reasonable’ implies intelligent are and election, that is, the select of a progress which infer dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or exorbitantly invades the direct cannot be said to comprise the virtue of culmness and unshort it strikes a appropriate redress between the unimpededdom guaranteed in Art. 19 (1) (g) and the collective govern unimpeded by cl. (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be unendowed in that virtue. ” Restrictions can be laid by reigning and mentoring the advertising but not thoroughly banning it as it would be going aggravate what is insist-upond as reigning the promulgement is emulatent in generally-known cause. Presently a writ entreaty is pending precedently the Indian Supreme Flatter challenging this synod of Bar Parliament of India. The entreaty was filed by Mr. V. B. Joshi who is an defender practicing in the Supreme Court. In the terminal hearing of this subject in September 2007, the Synod agreed to unbend this law a bit. The Synod agreed to concede the monitions promulge on their own website and to penetrate their spectry into online plainories but all these to be produced beneath a committee mentoring it. IV. CHAPTER IV: Disadvantages of banning Lawful Advertisements Globalization brought encircling a mold in interpolitical employment behind a while increasing separateicipation and involvement of countries The involution of the similar on the lawful benefit sector has been twain quantitative and imported. The spent decade has been mini-mold in lawful benefit sector behind a while the principal lawful impression on urbane lawful province activities in purpose financing, metaphysical appropriatety shelter, environmental shelter, race law, urbane taxation, infrastructure convert, urbane governance and cannonade law were closely unnormal precedently 90’s. Globalization has expanded the interior and manifest call-for for lawful benefits. Today employment in lawful benefits is an unavoidable truth and is at the similar spell premonitionificant for alterable fruit of lawful avocation in India in this era of Globalization. * Consumerism and Sensible Select In the age of consumerism and race law, consumer’s direct to unimpeded and untarnished race is principal and cannot be destitute by any other inducement. Sensible select is one of the directs of a consumer. Ban on advertising leads to depriving consumers of estimable inshape encircling the defenders. This has resulted in a office where consumers cannot reach an sensible select from the competitive negotiate gone inshape relative-to to the benefit is not profitable to them. Moreredress confinement on avocational strongs on informing implicit users on file of their benefits and implicit infers elevate wear to the race. The benefits profitable to consumers of India are merely domiciliary lawful benefit producers and consumers most repeatedly are left at the leniency of defenders and the classification . Thus it is very hurtful as they cannot recourse to any other benefit producer in insufficiency of select. Voicelessness on Internet Looking at the new-fangled deviate of Globalization and India confederacy the WTO, it has beseem unavoidable to let monitions promulge to cope in the global negotiate. Not concedeing monitions to promulge has resulted in Indian monitions losing a lot of implicit clients interpolitically. It is realized that in this era of cyber age instead of declineing to the Yellow Pages, the generally-known increasingly uses online quest engines and other Internet cat's-paws to discaggravate needed pi and benefits and behind a while the concepts of lawful order outsourcing increasing, i. . to discaggravate inexpensive lawful benefits, vulgar from countries enjoy UK and US and other familiar countries quest for such benefits online. But these questes results in not a unmarried Indian supporter or defender or a law strong as India bans advertising by them as compared to other adjacent Asian countries which concede it and hence a lot of implicit clients are past, in decline imposing the administration of India largely. Thus, India has past lot of economic revenues and thus it would be habitous for India’s administration to upheave the ban on advertising for defenders. The Synod has new-fangledly agreed on upheaveing it but merely concedeing the defenders to promulge on their own websites and in online lawful plainories. But no one knows when this obtain be utensiled. * Other disadvantages The fame of Monopolies and Mergers Commission in U. K. recurrent that confinements on promulgement by avocationals convert the stimulus to teachableness, consume frugal, reversal, new memorandum to avocations and race behind a whilein the avocations. Thus, new entrants who insist-upon to substantiate their spectry in the negotiate in orderize to get clients, are denied of doing so through advertising as this is the most atomaryst and easiest order to penetrate into a negotiate. Besides confinements augment the redress indifferent property of short disclosed orders of stubborn preferment. Besides they could concede a ungentleman statue to a avocation. Thus banning promulgement by monitions is thoroughly harmful to the Indian communion as a all. * Need for reigning the advertising The need of the hour is to upheave the entirety ban on advertising by defenders but not to thoroughly let it unimpeded. It is insist-upond to be governd. In subject it is not mentored and governd, then there would be lot of malpractices of disfigurement, mendaciousness and ungentleman promulgements which would like the communion and dethrone the aristocracy of this avocation. The U. K. ’s Monopolies and Merger Commission in its fame recurrent that the confinements on lawful advertising should be upheaveed but the law must besides produce that: 1. No promulgement, round or other arfile of notoriety used by the constituent should privilege for his experience exaltation in any deference redress any or all of the experiences of other constituents of the avocation. . Such notoriety should not comprise any inaccuracies or misleading pointizements. 3. While promulgements, rounds and other notoriety or orders of imploreing may………….. reach disentangled the guile of the special constituent to investigate customers, they should not be of a cast that could inferably be present as enjoyly to cause the avocation into obscurity. Thus, it is insist-upond that the advertising by lawful avocationals be governd in orderize to relinquish illustrations of ambulance chasing, barratry, disfigurement, etc. This peel of maxim is besides juridical beneath A. 9(1)(6) of Constitution of India in the causes of generally-known. V. CONCLUSION The ban on lawful promulgements in India has not proved sound so far for the Indian administration as polite as Indian consumers. India has adopted WTO laws and a unimpeded negotiate classification and thus accepting ‘trade’ facet of lawful benefits would lay-open this avocation importedly. The Raghvan Committee has summed up the chattels of the tangible regulatory classification in avocational benefits as “.. the legislative confinements in vocables of law and stubborn-maxim enjoy the ombined chattels of indirect opportunities and fruit of avocational strongs, restricting their covet and power to cope globally, nullifying the kingdom from obtaining usage of India’s extensive expertise and precluding consumers from occasion of unimpeded and sensible select. ” Spell is matured to burst clog of this redresswhelming maxim scrutinying lawful avocation far from lateity and banning it from advertising. India must reconstituent its commitment to WTO for discloseding benefit sectors including, lawful benefits, globally. Thus all the maxims enjoy to be in exemplification behind a while race classification and the Act. Hence, there is a propensity need to upheave this ban and to arfile synods and classification to mentor and govern lawful advertising. A committee could be arrangeed to secure obedience but laying blanket ban on lawful advertising would hinder fruit and fruit of India. BIBLIOGRAPHY Articles, Websites, Reports and others: 1)  Abhibav Kumar, “Lawyers must be concedeed to promulge”, at http://news. indlaw. com/guest/columns/default. asp? abhinav (terminal visited on 25th November, 2007). 2)  Anubha Charan, “Is it unethical for monitions to put up their own Website? , October 15, 2001, at http://www. rediff. com/search/2001/oct/15law. htm (terminal visited on 24th November, 2007). 3)  Bar Parliament Memorandum of Foreign Lawyers in India, August 30, 2003 at http://www. information . indiainfo. com/ (terminal visited on 22nd November, 2007). 4)  Bhadra Sinha, “Lawyers may be concedeed web ads”, September 19, 2007, at www. hindustantimes. com (terminal visited on 20th November 2007). Besides see Supra voicelessness 6. 5)  Cyber Quest – What Does Quest Engine Marketing Average For Solicitors? , at http://www. samsonconsulting. co. uk/legal-marketing-article-cyber-search. htm (terminal visited on November 25, 2007). )  David L. Hudson, “Bates separateicipants exhibit on landmark subject”, at http://www. firstamendmentcenter. org/analysis. aspx? id=14394 (Last visited on 22nd November, 2007) 7)  http:// en. wikipedia. org/Legal_Advertising (terminal visited on 22nd November 2007). 8)  Lawyer can’t be blamed if his spectry appears in imprint, says Punjab A-G, May 25, 1999, at http://www. indianexpress. com/res/web/pIe/ie/daily/19990525/ige25114. html (terminal visited on 18th November 2007). 9)  Legal Websites, A Cosmos-vulgar Remote Web Of Opportunies, at http://www. samsonconsulting. co. uk/legal-marketing-article-solicitors-websites. tm (terminal visited on 22nd November, 2007). 10)  Malathi Nayak, India debates letting monitions promulge, at http://www. livemint. com/2007/10/21235346/India-debates-letting-lawyers. html (terminal visited on 25th November, 2007). 11) Rajiv Dutta, “World Employment Organization and Lawful Services: The Indian Scenario”, at www. insolindia. com/shimlaPDFs/worldTradeOrg. pdf (terminal visited on 23rd November, 2007). 12) Report on Employment in Lawful Services, “Trade in Services: Opportunities and Constraints”, Ministry of Commerce, Synod of India, Executed by Indian Parliament for Request in Economic Relations, Coordinator(s) N. L. Mitra and T. C. A Anand. 13)  Singh Lalithakumar I. , “A Aim on Lawful Profession”, AIR 2006 (Jour. ) 1. 14)  Statement of Objects and Reasons, The Advocates Act, 1961. 15)   Swapnil Joshi, “Changing Face Of The Lawful Avocation In India In The Era Of Globalization”, at http://www. lawfulserviceindia. com/articles/lprof. htm (terminal visited on 25th November, 2007). 16) V K Aggarwal, “Professional Advertising: A proportionately anatomy in the changing milieu”, 7th National Conference of Practising Company Secretaries. 7) World Bank Fame on Emerging Benefit Sector, 1999 quoted in The Raghvan Committee Fame on Race Law, 2000. 18) www. lawfulmarketing. it (authoritative lawful negotiateing Italia website, terminal visited on 24th November 2007). Dictionaries: 1) H. Black, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th ed. , St Paul: West Publishing Co. , 1979) 1059. 2)  The Concise Oxford Thesaurus compiled by Kirkpatrick Betty; Oxford University Press. 3) Webster’s New English Dictionary; Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers Inc, 2nd Edn 1995.