Madras High Court orders probe into “law firm” run by non-lawyer

The Madras High Court recently ordered a probe by Tamil Nadu's Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) into allegations that a fake law firm and its representatives have been involved in murky transactions involving certain land in Chennai's Mylapore..In focus was a firm named "JMI Law Associates", a man named Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim who allegedly ran the firm despite not being a lawyer, and two others associated with the firm, namely an advocate named Preethi Baskar and one Kamalesh Chandrasekaran.Justice AD Jagadish Chandira took a serious view of allegations that representatives of the "law firm" had first appeared for the landowners in certain rounds of litigation against encroachers and later engaged in a series of transactions allegedly meant to pressurise landowners into parting with the land. Further, the judge was displeased to find that the "law firm" had run advertisements on social media platforms such as LinkedIn to boast of their services by referring to routine court orders."In fact, the daily orders being granted by this court have been cited with the names of some of the sitting Hon'ble Judges of this Court to give a fallacious impression to the common people/litigant, which is highly deprecated," the Court observed. The Court reiterated that legal profession is supposed to be a noble profession and not a business or trade and that lawyers are expected to be scrupulously honest and fair."Legal profession must be purified from abuses of the Court procedures. Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also professional misconduct," the judge added.The Court opined that the alleged illegal activities by JMI Law Associates and its representatives require a thorough probe not just by the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu but also by the CB-CID..The CBCID was ordered to investigate the activities of JMI Law Associates, as well as those associated with it. Further, the CBCID was ordered to examine whether there are any pending cases against the said firm and those connected to it.The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry was asked to cross-check the genuineness of the education and enrolment of the three advocates associated with the firm - Preethi Baskar, Mani Bharathi and Abel Selvakumar, as well as their associates.Further, the State Bar Council was directed to verify whether JMI Law Associates was entitled to operate as a law firm, as well as the vakalats that the firm may have filed in courts or tribunals.During the hearings, certain cross-allegations were also made by advocate Preethi Baskar against the counsel representing the opposing side, advocate S Ganesan. The Court directed the Bar Council to inquire into these allegations as well.The Court added that the Bar Council should take action against lawyers who solicit work or advertise themselves by flouting restrictions on such activities by lawyers. Further, the Court called for a press release to be issued so that the public is not carried away by advertisements given by fake law firms..The Court took note of the issue while dealing with a civil revision petition filed by one Kamalesh Chandrasekaran. Chandrasekaran had moved the High Court with a plea to question a trial court's refusal to grant him an interim order to restrain three persons - namely MA Noor Jehan Beevi, KA Shaik Madar and Abdul Hassan - from alienating certain land.Chandrasekaran claimed that he had earlier arrived at an agreement to buy land from the three landowners after bearing the expense of evicting several encroachers from the site.Chandrasekaran alleged that the landowners later backed out of the deal and started negotiating with a company called Life Style Builders on the possible sale of land to this entity.He, therefore, approached the trial court to restrain any such deal from going through. The trial court declined to pass any such interim order, prompting Chandrasekaran to approach the High Court..However, things took a more dramatic turn when the landowners accused Chandrasekaran and his counsel of having engaged in several unethical practices. The landowners claimed that Chandrasekaran's counsel, Advocate Preethi Bhaskar, had actually appeared for them (the landowners) in earlier cases concerning the same property. On enquiry, the Court was eventually told that the "law firm" to which advocate Bhaskar belonged to - namely JMI Law Associates - was run by one Jamal Mohammad Ibrahim who was not a law professional. The Court was later told that the "law firm" was dissolved in July 2024. However, this claim was debunked after the Court noted that "JMI Law Associates" had issued a legal notice on November 18, 2024..Advocate Bhaskar eventually expressed regret for any mistake on her part, stating that it was due to her inexperience. She added that she was no longer associated with the "now-dissolved" JMI Law Associates Firm.The Court, however, refused to close the matter. "The entire episode discloses some professional misconduct, misrepresentation, unethical practices, into which, this court cannot indulge and the same need to be addressed and investigated at once only by proper investigating agencies," the Court reasoned. The matter will be heard again after three weeks. .[Read Order]