Summary
The Supreme Court permitted an individual Advocate-on-Record to use a “Law Chambers” style on letterheads and vakalatnamas when it clearly identified him as sole proprietor and the registered Advocate-on-Record. Such filings remained his individual filings. The Court did not authorize registration of a separate sole-proprietorship entity in the AOR register; wider changes to permitted registration styles were left to the rule-making authorities.
Issues
- Whether an individual Advocate-on-Record could use a chambers name on filings and obtain registration in a proprietorship style.
Provisions considered
- Order IV Rule 22, Supreme Court Rules, 2013The provision for registered partnerships of two or more Advocates-on-Record did not justify judicially expanding the register to separate sole-proprietorship styles. Any broader change was left to amendment of the Rules. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
Held
- Expansion of AOR registration to different sole-proprietorship names or styles required consideration by the rule-making authorities. The Court declined to make that broader alteration in this proceeding. (¶ 6)
- The identified individual could describe his practice as his Law Chambers, specifying his full name as sole proprietor, AOR status and registration number on letterheads and vakalatnamas. Such vakalatnamas would be treated as those of the registered individual. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- The order distinguished a permissible descriptive style identifying the individual from registration of a separate professional entity. It disposed of the particular grievance without amending the Rules. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9, 10)
Result
Proceedings closed with permission for the specified individual chambers description on letterheads and vakalatnamas; wider registration changes left to the rule-making authorities.