Advocate on Record and Proprietary Firms: Supreme Court's Clarification

The Supreme Court of India in In Re: Advocate on Record Includes a Proprietary Firm addressed an important legal question regarding the registration of Advocates on Record (AORs) and whether they can use a specific style or name while filing cases. The case was triggered by repeated emails from an Advocate on Record, Mr. Siddharth Murarka, seeking to register his practice under the name ‘Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka’ instead of his personal name.

The Court examined whether an individual AOR could use a firm-style name similar to law partnerships and provided a ruling that balances tradition with professional flexibility.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mr. Siddharth Murarka, sought clarification from the Supreme Court on whether an Advocate on Record (AOR) could register their name in the AOR register in a particular format, such as ‘Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka.’ His grievance was that while partnerships of AORs were permitted, individual practitioners were not allowed to operate under a similar structure.

The Court noted that the petitioner had sent repeated emails to the Registry and other advocates in an inappropriate tone. As a result, the matter was taken up judicially.

Key Legal Issues Addressed

1. Whether an Advocate on Record Can Use a Proprietary Firm Name

The petitioner argued that he should be allowed to register under a proprietary name instead of his individual name. He contended that partnerships of AORs were allowed to register under firm names, putting individual practitioners at a disadvantage.

2. Legal Framework Governing AORs

The Court examined the rules governing AORs under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, particularly:

Order IV Rule 13(1) – Permits firms of advocates on record to employ clerks for filing and handling cases.
Order IV Rule 22 – Allows two or more AORs to form partnerships and act in the name of the partnership.
Order IV Rule 23 – Permits non-AOR advocates to form partnerships and practice under the firm’s name.

Based on these provisions, the petitioner argued that the rules should allow sole practitioners to use a firm-style name as well.

3. The Court’s Interpretation of the Rules

The Court acknowledged that the existing rules only referred to an ‘Advocate on Record’ or a ‘Firm of Advocates on Record.’ The terms ‘sole proprietorship’ or ‘proprietary firm’ were not mentioned, raising the need for an interpretation.

Findings of the Court

1. AORs Can Use Certain Styles in Their Practice

The Supreme Court ruled that an Advocate on Record could use a professional style as long as it clearly indicates that the individual remains personally responsible for all filings. The Court stated:

“We are thus, of the view that writing ‘Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka, Sole Proprietor Siddharth Rajkumar Murarka, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India AOR NO.2151’ is a permissible style of putting on the letterhead and in the Vakalatnamas.”

However, the Court clarified that this would still be treated as an individual AOR’s filing and not as a firm.

2. Existing Rules Do Not Allow Independent Proprietary Firms

While allowing the petitioner to use a professional title, the Court refrained from amending the rules to permit sole proprietorship registrations under different names. It observed that such changes require rule amendments and should be addressed by the Supreme Court’s rule-making authority.

The Court stated:

“If different styles of writing names are to be permitted for Advocates on Record, that can only be done by an exercise to amend the Rules.”

3. The Legal Profession is Not a Business

The Court emphasized that the legal profession is distinct from a business enterprise. While law firms can operate under partnerships, individual AORs must be cautious about not misrepresenting their status.

Referring to the traditional use of the term ‘Law Chambers,’ the Court noted that in England and India, this term typically refers to a lawyer’s professional practice rather than a business entity.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that:

An Advocate on Record can use a professional style such as ‘Law Chambers of [Name]’ but must clearly indicate their personal responsibility.
The existing rules do not permit the registration of sole proprietorship firms as independent legal entities.
Any changes to the rules should be considered by the rule-making authority and not through judicial intervention.

Conclusion

This ruling clarifies the extent to which an AOR can style their practice while maintaining individual responsibility. The Court balanced professional flexibility with the traditional framework of legal practice, ensuring that AORs are not misrepresented as business entities.

The judgment highlights the importance of following the Supreme Court Rules while recognizing evolving practices in legal branding. Any further changes to allow proprietary firms in the AOR framework must come through formal amendments.

Petitioner Name: Advocate on Record Includes a Proprietary Firm.
Respondent Name: Not Applicable.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 20-01-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: advocate-on-record-i-vs-not-applicable-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-01-2021.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contractual Employment
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by Dinesh Maheshwari
See all petitions in Judgment by Hrishikesh Roy
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2021
See all petitions in 2021 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category