Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping how legal work is done in India and across the globe. From drafting contracts and summarising case law to predicting outcomes and automating compliance, AI tools promise speed, efficiency, and cost savings. However, for Indian advocates, the enthusiasm must be balanced with strict compliance to the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules. The BCI’s Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette—read with Rule 36 of the BCI Rules, 1975—prohibit certain forms of marketing, contingency fee arrangements, and conflicts of interest. Using AI in legal practice is permissible, but lawyers must ensure that the way AI is deployed does not breach these rules.
The first point to understand is that the BCI does not ban the use of AI in legal work. What the BCI regulates is the conduct of advocates—regardless of whether they use AI or not. This means that AI can assist in legal research, contract analysis, compliance tracking, or even client intake, but advocates must remain the final decision-makers. Outsourcing judgment entirely to AI is risky, as it can undermine professional accountability. The BCI requires that all legal advice and representation be rendered by a licensed advocate; AI can be a tool, but not a replacement.
Another area of caution is advertising and solicitation. Rule 36 strictly prohibits direct or indirect advertising by advocates, including through online platforms. Many AI-powered legal tools come with marketing features such as automated client acquisition funnels, chatbots that promise “guaranteed outcomes,” or mass outreach systems. If these tools are used to solicit clients in a way that breaches Rule 36—such as making exaggerated claims or promoting the lawyer’s services as superior—it could trigger disciplinary action. Therefore, if AI is embedded in a website or app, its language must remain factual, informational, and free from promotional superlatives.
Confidentiality is another cornerstone of the advocate’s duties under the BCI Rules. When using AI—especially cloud-based tools—lawyers must ensure that client data is stored and processed securely. Uploading sensitive case files to unverified AI tools could amount to a breach of professional confidentiality. Best practice is to use AI platforms with strong data protection protocols, preferably those that allow local or encrypted processing, and to obtain explicit client consent before inputting any sensitive information into an AI system. This is particularly important in light of India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which imposes compliance obligations on entities handling personal data.
Fee arrangements are also relevant. Some AI-driven legal platforms abroad experiment with “success fee” or “percentage of recovery” billing models. While these might be legal in other jurisdictions, the BCI explicitly prohibits advocates from charging contingency fees or fees based on the outcome of a case. This means any AI-powered service that is marketed to clients under such models would not be permissible for an Indian advocate. AI can be used to improve efficiency and reduce costs, but billing must remain compliant with Indian ethical standards—preferably fixed fees, hourly rates, or capped retainers.
There is also the issue of non-lawyer involvement in legal service delivery. If an AI platform is operated by a non-lawyer entity, and that entity directly provides legal advice to clients, it could amount to unauthorised practice of law. For advocates, this means ensuring that any AI legal service they offer is clearly positioned as advocate-supervised. The BCI permits the use of technology to deliver legal services, but the actual legal advice must come from a licensed advocate, with AI functioning as a support mechanism rather than the primary provider.
In arbitration and litigation contexts, advocates should also consider the risk of AI-generated content being challenged for accuracy. Courts expect advocates to take responsibility for every argument, citation, and document they submit. If AI is used to draft pleadings or briefs, the advocate must personally verify every fact, precedent, and legal proposition before filing. Inaccurate or “hallucinated” citations from AI tools could damage credibility and invite judicial censure.
The safe way to integrate AI into legal practice is to adopt a “human-in-the-loop” approach—where AI handles routine, repetitive, or data-heavy tasks, and the advocate retains oversight, interpretation, and responsibility for the output. Examples include using AI to: • Extract key clauses from contracts for faster review, • Summarise large volumes of case law for initial filtering, • Generate first drafts of standard agreements (with final review by the advocate), and • Automate deadline reminders and compliance checklists. In conclusion, using AI in law is both permissible and advantageous if approached correctly. The guiding principle is that AI must remain a tool in the advocate’s hands—not a replacement for professional judgment. By ensuring that AI use complies with the BCI’s rules on advertising, confidentiality, fee arrangements, and professional accountability, lawyers in India can leverage technology to enhance their practice without risking disciplinary issues. The future of law in India will likely be “tech-augmented,” and those who master the balance between innovation and ethics will be best placed to lead in this evolving legal landscape.
Author: Advocate Dimple Rajpurohit (Bombay High Court)
Contact (Admin): info@nolegalpaisa.com
Last updated: 25-09-2025
