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?
A man has to earn something, he is earning; in fact he's even paying you something. The line between ethics and direness is very shallow when one has to make ends meet.
Welcome to Litigation!
All the same, don't report him - nothign good will come out of it for you personally
If your boss is contacting a prospect after seeing their name on the previous day’s cause list, he is not engaging in a covert practice. He is operating within the same framework that every major litigation firm on retainer already follows. Top-tier litigation and full-service firms—Karanjawala, Aggarwala, CAM, SAM, Trilegal, Khaitan, Anand & Anand, SK&A—systematically monitor the cause list and alert their clients the moment a case is filed.
Here is a reality that few openly acknowledge:
It is almost impossible to secure an ex parte order against a company represented by these firms.
Why? Because they track filings in real time and intervene before “Day Zero” relief can be granted.
Moreover, these firms are not merely allowed to inform clients—or promising prospects—about a potential injunction or the appointment of a Local Commissioner; they do so routinely. This is not unethical. This is defensive legal strategy in a competitive and high-stakes environment.
The true ethical boundary is not defined by information. It is defined by intent and conduct.
For example:
If a Local Commissioner is appointed to seize infringing goods and capture sales data, and a lawyer advises the client on how to destroy that data or obstruct a lawful fact-finding process, that is a direct violation of both law and professional ethics.
That is the red line.
Therefore, if you ever warn a prospect about a possible LC visit, the boundary, in my view, is clear:
1. You may warn.
2. You may prepare.
3. You may not—explicitly or implicitly—advise on how to destroy or conceal evidence.
This is the distinction between legitimate advocacy and unethical interference.
I hope this offers clarity—and some peace of mind.
If, however, you ever witness your senior advising a client to destroy evidence (which is unlikely, as most understand that calls can be recorded), then—and only then—should you step away.
Now, in principle, reporting such conduct to the Bar Council would be the right thing to do.
But in practice—and this is the deeper tragedy—it would likely achieve little for systemic justice while causing significant damage to your own career. Unless you have the security to withstand the backlash, the system may punish the whistleblower more than the offender.
Why? Because the Indian litigation ecosystem in 2025 tolerates a considerable degree of grey-zone conduct. Even highly respected names cross ethical lines with unsettling regularity.
And this is where the structural failure becomes undeniable:
Our regulatory framework is neither proactive nor genuinely independent.
It does not enforce standards consistently—it responds only when public pressure or media scrutiny forces its hand.
This is why many Tier-1 disputes partners and senior advocates have operated beyond ethical boundaries without consequence. Undermining client interests, leaking information, manipulating negotiations for leverage or fees—happens. Sharing sensitive information with counterparties for personal gain—happens.
The system allows it.
The status quo protects it.
And entrenched interests ensure it continues.
Consider the Bar Council of India.
When genuine reform threatened its control, influential forces did not allow its disbandment —they orchestrated preservation. The BCI received a superficial facelift while leadership returned to the same hands that oversaw the unchecked proliferation of private law colleges without faculty or infrastructure, and simultaneously prevented foreign law firms from entering the market—despite an acute job crisis and oversupply of law graduates from NLUs and substandard private universities. Law students since now put up with the double whammy of a bar exam - which, all things considered, is a good thing- if properly administered.
In such an environment, accountability rarely originates from within institutions.It emerges only when the media forces the system to confront itself. Case in point: the recent shoe-flinging incident in Court No. 1 of the Supreme Court.
If only the reality of the Indian legal market were that simple.
Let us set sentiment aside and look at the system as it actually functions—not as it pretends to.
You say the issue is that a lawyer is “approaching random parties and soliciting work.” But do you realise that this is precisely what every major law firm in the country does—just in more polished packaging?
Let’s not be naïve.Each and every Indian T1 -3 firm —and many others—have full-fledged business development teams staffed with MBAs whose sole job is to track cases, identify potential clients, initiate contact, pitch services, and close mandates.
That is not “client communication.”
That is systematic solicitation.
They don’t even hide it.
They sponsor events.
They host “knowledge sessions.”
They quietly contact companies named in filings.
They reach out to general counsel the moment a dispute appears on the horizon.
They even monitor cause lists in real time and make calls before the matter is heard.
To call this “informing existing clients” is intellectually dishonest. It is targeted acquisition of new business.
Let me put it bluntly:
Almost every large Indian law firm actively solicits work—just with better branding, corporate language, and PR gloss.
The “no solicitation” rule exists, yes—but it is not applied to the powerful.
It is selectively enforced against:
-solo practitioners,
-anyone outside the “club,” and
-most aggressively, foreign firms.
So let’s be clear:
The problem is not solicitation.
The problem is who is allowed to do it without consequence.
If the Bar Council truly believed solicitation was unethical, it would start with the biggest offenders—the firms that literally employ business development departments.
But it won’t.
Because the rule isn’t about ethics.
It’s about control.
It’s about keeping the market closed.
It’s about protecting the incumbents.
So before we declare “solicitation is illegal, simple,” we must answer a more honest question:
Why is it only “illegal” when smaller players do it, but “strategy” when the big firms do the exact same thing at scale?
Until we confront that double standard, invoking the rulebook is little more than theatre.
Intelligent man
Main to 25k ke liye kuchh bhi kaam karne ko ready hu
Kuchh bhi matlab kuchh bhi kaam