We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
BUT
New work - Mission impossible!
First BCI tries to sneak in an amendment in newly proposed bill as per which first they tried to expand the definition of 'legal practitioners' to include corporate lawyers as well - meaning that they are taking a view that corporate lawyers are not 'advocates', which means then advertisement bar should not apply to corporate lawyers. DSK legal launched those advertisements precisely taking advantage of the same.
Now BCI has not only retracted the proposed amendments, but they have also clarified that the existing definition of advocate in the current legislation is all expansive enough.