Lawyers in the crosshairs

The United States was selected by the ‘Coalition for the Day of the Endangered Lawyer’ as the focus country for its 16^th edition to highlight escalating concerns regarding the independence of the legal profession. The International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) collaborated on a comprehensive report documenting a “sustained, coordinated campaign” against the US legal system, including executive interference and harassment of law firms.

The choice is deeply ironic. The United States - a constitutional democracy often held up as a model for the rule of law - is the focus in 2026. The study of American constitutional principles reveals how they evolved as essential safeguards against state overreach, ultimately shaping the framework of constitutionalism in other democratic nations, including India. Yet, constitutional text, however eloquent, is only as strong as the institutions entrusted to uphold it.

Recent developments in the US illustrate growing tensions between the executive branch and the legal profession. President Trump’s executive actions and public rhetoric have targeted lawyers, law firms, and judges. The law firm Perkins Coie was targeted and barred from federal contracts while security clearances of its lawyers were suspended. Presidential memoranda issued in 2025 directed the Department of Justice and Homeland Security to pursue sanctions and disciplinary action against lawyers and law firms perceived to have filed “frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious” litigation against the government.

It was widely criticised as an attempt to intimidate lawyers who challenge government policies in court. The American Bar Association (ABA) stated that such actions “undermine the courts and the profession” and warned that efforts to “remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not” pose a grave threat to the rule of law. In June 2025, the ABA filed a lawsuit, American Bar Association v. Executive Office of the President, challenging executive intimidation tactics as unconstitutional and harmful to legal advocacy.

The actions of the executive in the US have reportedly created a “chilling effect,” undermining lawyers’ ability to act fearlessly for their clients or in the public interest. A Reuters investigation documented that major law firms, once active in pro bono representation of immigrants and other vulnerable clients, have curtailed such work under pressure stemming from the administration’s policies and rhetoric. This climate of fear – where lawyers refrain from representation due to fear of retaliation – is exactly what qualified as the ‘endangered lawyer.’

Closer to home, in Pakistan, on January 24, 2026, human rights lawyers Imaan Zainab Mazari-Hazir and Hadi Ali Chattha were sentenced to 17 years in prison under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016, allegedly for social media posts critical of state institutions. Both lawyers had represented clients in cases involving enforced disappearances and custodial abuse.

Indian courts, however, have demonstrated a stronger institutional response (at least so far) to protect the independence of lawyers and the professional conditions essential for legal advocacy.

In Puneet Batra v. Union of India & Ors, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department conducted a search of a lawyer’s office and seized his computer, including potentially privileged information. The Delhi High Court held that GST officials must not access an advocate’s computer without the advocate’s presence and consent, warning that opening the device without safeguards could result in a serious breach of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. The Court cautioned that such access should occur only under exceptional circumstances and with clear protocols.

Similarly, in October 2025, the Supreme Court of India took up suo motu proceedings when investigative agencies began summoning lawyers solely for the legal advice they provided to clients. In its ruling, the Court directed that investigating officers shall not issue summons to lawyers representing accused persons unless statutory exceptions apply and clear safeguards are observed, including preserving confidentiality and limiting inquiries to what is strictly necessary. This reaffirmed that unfettered agency action against lawyers would undermine both the independence of the Bar and the broader administration of justice.

These examples do not suggest that India is free from broader legal pressures. A report by International Commission of Jurists in 2025 published a detailed report on status of judicial independence in India, touching on executive influence on the judiciary and legal profession. 

Yet, recognising attorney-client privilege as foundational to the adversarial legal process shows a commitment to protect lawyers from investigative overreach that could chill their ability to represent clients fearlessly.

Constitutional text sets the framework, but institutions must act to preserve the conditions that allow lawyers to advocate, contest and defend without fear of retaliation. Lawyers remain the frontline defenders of individual rights and it is important for that their independence is upheld whenever it is tested.

Amit Gupta is an Oxford and Columbia University graduate practicing in the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.