Modernizing Legal Practice: Strengthening the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025

By Rajesh Harishankar Singh, Advocate – Bombay High Court

Date: 19th February 2025

Introduction

The Government’s initiative in introducing the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a significant effort to modernize and strengthen the legal profession in India. This blog post explains the key features of the draft bill in a simple, accessible language—with practical examples—and outlines additional proposals to fill existing gaps. We also compare these proposals with best practices from jurisdictions like the US, UK, and Australia, making it easy for law students and practitioners to trace the sources.

For ease of reference, our discussion is divided into three parts:

Part I: General Proposed Changes (with clause references and examples)
Part II: Detailed Notes on the Proposed Enhancements
Part III: Step-by-Step Process for a Law Graduate Under the Proposed Amendments

Part I. General Proposed Changes to the Draft Bill

1. National Advocate ID (NAI) and Centralized SSISO System

Current Situation:
The current draft does not mandate a centralized digital identity. Advocates must register separately with State Bar Councils, leading to administrative inefficiencies and potential duplication.

Proposed Change:
Introduce a National Advocate ID (NAI) linked to Aadhaar, issued through a Single Sign-In/Sign-Out (SSISO) system. This will create a single, uniform identity for all advocates, streamlining registration and facilitating seamless inter-state transfers.

Example:
Imagine an advocate practicing in Maharashtra. With the NAI, if he later moves to another state, his credentials and practice details transfer automatically without the need for duplicate enrolment.

2. Digital Address and Certificate Verification System

Current Situation:
Address verification is largely manual and inconsistent. Although the draft requires verification, it lacks a modern, automated backend.

Proposed Change:
Implement an automated digital verification system using Aadhaar-based eKYC for real-time address confirmation, supplemented by certified postal verification with a neighbor witness whose Aadhaar details are recorded. Additionally, all law degrees and enrolment certificates should be authenticated via integration with DigiLocker and university databases.

Example:
A graduate from a Mumbai law school would have his degree verified online instantly, while his address would be confirmed digitally and via a postal check, ensuring accurate records.

3. Unified Training Portal with Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

Current Situation:
There is no structured system specifying the ratio of online to offline training or tracking of professional development.

Proposed Change:
Mandate a National Legal Training Portal through the BCI where training records are maintained digitally. The system should require 70% of training to be delivered online (lectures, interactive sessions, and live webinars) and 30% offline (certificate courses), with access restricted to registered advocates via SSISO.

Example:
A lawyer might complete a series of online modules (70% of his CLE) and attend a live workshop (making up the remaining 30%) – all tracked and recorded on the centralized portal for performance assessment.

4. Five-Year Life and Practice Certificate (LPC) Verification

Current Situation:
The bill mandates verification of practice details every five years but lacks real-time tracking, which can lead to outdated records.

Proposed Change:
Require advocates to submit an online Life and Practice Certificate (LPC) tied to their NAI. Integrate this process with court case management systems for automatic re-verification of active practice.

Example:
Every five years, an advocate must update his LPC online. If he’s actively appearing in cases, his records are automatically updated from the court’s system, ensuring his practice details remain current.

5. Mandatory Judicial On-the-Spot Assessments

Current Situation:
Promotions to Senior Advocate or Designated Counsel rely on subjective recommendations, with no formal, real-time performance feedback.

Proposed Change:
Implement a system whereby judges provide immediate, case-based performance ratings on a scale of 1–10 for advocates appearing before them. These ratings—accounting for 60% weightage in promotion decisions—will be permanently recorded in the BCI system and cannot be altered later.

Example:
During a complex case, a judge rates an advocate 9/10 for their effectiveness, which later becomes a key part of his record when considered for promotion to Senior Advocate.

6. Compliance and Penalty System for Lawyers

Current Situation:
The draft bill does not clearly specify penalties for non-compliance with verification, training, and practice updates.

Proposed Change:
Introduce clear penalties: non-updated credentials (NAI, LPC, CLE) will result in automatic suspension until compliance is met, and failure to follow digital verification procedures may attract fines. This should be integrated into Section 45 and corresponding regulations.

Example:
If an advocate fails to update his LPC after five years, his licence could be suspended automatically, and he might face a fine until he complies with the mandatory update.

7. Provision for Strike / Boycott

Current Situation:
The draft bill lacks comprehensive highlights on the issue of strike, although it does include provisions against boycott.

Proposed Change:
Incorporate a specific clause (as per Section 35A) that explicitly prohibits advocates or associations from calling for a boycott or abstention from court work, ensuring that no advocate’s strike disrupts the administration of justice.

Example:
Even if advocates face issues at their workplace, they cannot collectively decide to boycott court proceedings, which protects the functioning of the judicial system.

Part II. Detailed Notes and Examples (Annexure 1)

Here, we provide further explanations of the proposed changes:

Recognition of In-House Counsel Experience:
Current rules often penalize lawyers transitioning to in-house roles.
Proposed Change:
Allow advocates who move to in-house counsel roles without notifying the Bar Council to retain their licenses, thereby recognizing their corporate experience.
Example: An advocate working as an in-house counsel at a corporation can continue practicing without interruption.
Enhanced Digital Verification:
Traditional verification methods are slow and error-prone.
Proposed Change:
Mandate eKYC using Aadhaar and integration with DigiLocker for all certificate and degree verifications.
Centralized Portal and SSISO System:
The current system requires multiple registrations.
Proposed Change:
Develop a unified portal that issues a National Advocate ID (NAI) and integrates State Bar IDs and local court practice IDs, simplifying transfers and practice management.
Structured Training and Assessment:
Without a standard system, training records vary widely.
Proposed Change:
Implement a training portal with a clear 70% online / 30% offline split, along with mandatory judicial performance assessments.

Part III. Step-by-Step Process for a Law Graduate (Annexure 2)

Here’s how a typical law graduate’s journey would look under the revised system:

Completion of Law Degree:
- Graduate from a recognized law school.
- Verification: Degree is automatically verified using DigiLocker and Aadhaar (per Section 24).
  New: Automated backend verification system is mandatory.
Clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE):
- Pass the AIBE and pay required professional fees.
Enrolment with the State Bar Council (SBC):
- Apply online; receive an enrolment certificate.
  New: A National Advocate ID (NAI) is issued at this stage, ensuring a unified identity.
Registration with the Bar Council of India (BCI) and Practice Verification:
- Declare the place of practice; undergo periodic re-verification (every five years).
  New: Real-time address verification using eKYC and postal methods is integrated.
Bar Association Registration:
- Register with the local Bar Association where you intend to practice.
  New: Changes must be updated digitally via the SSISO system, with TSISO for temporary appearances.
Continuing Legal Education (CLE):
- Participate in mandated online and offline training (70% online, 30% offline).
  New: Training records are maintained on the centralized portal and accessed via SSISO.
Life and Practice Certificate Submission:
- Every five years, submit an online Life and Practice Certificate (LPC) linked to your NAI.
  New: Integration with court case management systems ensures automatic re-verification.
Judicial On-the-Spot Assessments:
- Judges provide immediate performance ratings (scale 1–10) during proceedings.
  New: These ratings contribute 60% towards promotion decisions and are permanently recorded.
Compliance and Penalties:
- Non-compliance with verification, training, or LPC updates leads to suspension or fines as per Section 45.
  New: A clear penalty structure is established to ensure adherence to all requirements.

International Best Practices: Learning from the US, UK, and Australia

To further strengthen the Bill, India can adopt successful practices from other jurisdictions:

United Kingdom:
The Bar Standards Board uses an online authorisation portal for barristers.
Reference: Bar Standards Board – Authorisation to Practise
Application: Integrate a similar SSISO-based system for the NAI.
United States:
The American Bar Association (ABA) mandates structured CLE and performance evaluations.
Reference: ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Application: Establish measurable CLE with specified online training quotas and integrate case-based judicial assessments.
Australia:
The Legal Practice Board of Western Australia employs a centralized digital system for verification and practice monitoring.
Reference: Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
Application: Adopt a similar approach using Aadhaar-linked eKYC and regular audits.

Conclusion

The Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025 is a major step toward a modern, transparent, and efficient legal profession in India. However, as highlighted in our proposals:

Introducing a National Advocate ID (NAI), enhanced digital verification, a unified SSISO system, structured CLE, streamlined fee transfers, mandatory judicial performance assessments, and a clear penalty system (including provisions against strikes) are essential to bridge current gaps.

By integrating these changes—and drawing on international best practices—India can build a robust framework that benefits law students and practicing advocates alike.

For further verification and details, please refer to:

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments below or reach out for further discussion!

Wednesday, February 19, 2025