We live in an era where public perception has assumed unprecedented importance. The rise of digital platforms has made it easier than ever for individuals to broadcast their personal opinions to vast audiences, almost instantaneously and with remarkable reach. For the most part, the credit (blame) for increased importance of public perception lies with social media.
The conventional advantages and disadvantages of social media are, by now, well understood. Yet, the growing competition to shape and secure favourable public perception has given rise to a range of novel and increasingly nuanced challenges.
The need to put on a performance.
Classic case of Courtroom Theatrics!The premise of my argument is extremely simple. With no exceptions, this is an era where you must not only do your work, you must also be seen doing your work. As a Lawyer, even my profession has faced the brunt of becoming a performative art. With the introduction of live streaming of court proceedings, the Lawyer must not only satisfy the court for now, he must satisfy the ever-watching client. This becomes particularly challenging when you factor in the fact that the client is otherwise illiterate when it comes to the intricacies of a court. Otherwise, the client is not even expected to understand the court. His lack of understanding is the only reason Lawyers, like myself, get paid. However, there is inevitably some tendency to put on a performance when your client is watching.
Social Media is overflowing with reels of Lawyers and their “heroic” submissions. A fight with the Bench is no more a matter of concern for the social media lawyer. In his eyes, it is a click-bait moment which demands its very own reel. Aggressive submissions, for most parts, is extremely inefficient, but not anymore. On social media, it is a testament to the fact that this particular advocate will fight your case as his very own.
Not a new tendency whatsoever!
I, for one minute, am not arguing that putting on a performance for the client was alien to the legal profession before live streaming of court proceedings became a thing. Perhaps, this anecdote will make it clear. As a junior running through the corridors of Trial Courts, it had become very clear to me, that the Judge, with his vast practical experience of seeing countless cases and lawyers, had gained far more practical knowledge than one could fathom. The same goes for Senior Advocates.
This pretext is necessary, because the Judges and senior Lawyers remain painfully aware when an Advocate is putting on a performance (which is strictly for his client’s gratification). The trick I was taught is this – if you see an overly enthusiastic client inside the courtroom watching his lawyer with great attention, you know the cross-examination is going to persist way longer than necessary. The targeted audience for that extended bit of theatrical performative art was never supposed to be the Judge, but strictly his client.
In such a scenario, interestingly, the judge and the Seniors were never fooled, but there seemed to be some level of acceptance for this practice. The judge, after all, is as human as all of us. Admittedly, we barely seem ready for AI Judges with absolute inability to deal with matters in the grey. The judges today, for most parts, seem to understand the necessity. This scenario was best summarized by my Senior, vide this ever-repeated joke –
“Case ke liye argument ho gaya… ab jo ho raha hai, fees aur Client ko dikhane ke liye ho rha hai”
The need for putting on a performance, thus, is not new, especially for Trial Advocacy. The tendency for this did not originate with social media. However, very notably, it has just been aggravated at an unprecedented level.
Un-informed vs. ill-informed
You believe what you see.ATTENTION!!! A Lawyer (supposedly) has put up a reel – “Cheque bounce cases now to be completed within 6 months” – BIG ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SUPREME COURT!!!
My client shares this reel with me late at night. He asks me with extreme enthusiasm, if this is true? Does it finally mean that the cheque bounce case, that he filed 5 years ago is finally going to end? Is he finally going to recover his debt?
How do I explain to him, that the next date for his case, is 4 months later! How do I explain to him, that the reel-maker has probably never read an entire judgement completely, in his life?
“But I saw it on a reel, so there must be some truth to it!”
At the risk of sounding pompous, any lawyer, who has spent a day’s worth of time in a real court, would immediately know that the current status of our Judiciary would make it impossible for the influencer advocate to be right. The abysmally low number of judges, horrid infrastructure, and insane amounts of pendency has troubled the Judiciary in India since one can remember. But the client is mostly unaware, and rightfully so, despite, being the biggest victim of it. As such, a natural reaction on his part would be to presume, that his conducting counsel is probably just un-informed and oblivious.
“Time for an advocate who will fight with his life for me, and knows about this law which will get me justice in only 6 months!”
Apart from the rise is courtroom theatrics, ill-informed clients are the next big issue that has crept up because of the onslaught of influencer lawyers. However, either side cannot be held objectively wrong. On one hand, algorithm demands click-bait content from the influencer. On the other hand, clients can’t be expected to understand the complete purport of a judgement.
The flip-side.
Social Media awareness around the Court and its proceedings cannot be all bad, though.
The influencer lawyer must be appreciated for what it’s worth. Although ill-informed, the client is no more completely in the dark about what the Law is. One could argue, perhaps, that half-information is the logical step towards complete information. Plus, traditional litigators are forced to innovate, owing to new ideas being constantly pitched.
Live streaming of court proceedings has led to increased accountability, which can never be all that bad. The client should have the right to know if the exorbitant fees he paid for a hearing date was an adjournment by his own lawyer or not.
Summary
Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with the Excellent Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate. No amount of articulation, at least in this nascent stage of my profession, will enable me to summarize this conversation around court-room theatrics better than him. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part is reproduced herein –
“Therefore, never be under the pressure to perform or get theatrical for the sake of the audience, because these days, especially after live streaming – everybody wants those kind of performance reels –
doesn’t help… really doesn’t help… It could be counterproductive.
Because sometimes the judge will even say – are you performing for us or for the YouTube audience?”
Consequences
The Judiciary is reacting to these novel issues too. Recently, The Kerala High Court on 20.08.2026 initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against one Advocate. He was allegedly recording court proceedings conducted via video conferencing and uploading them to his YouTube channel. The same was done without obtaining prior written permission from the Court. The seriousness of this matter can be understood by the fact that the Hon’ble High Court has, for now, barred the particular advocate from participating in any court proceedings in Kerala through online or virtual mode until further orders.
Furthermore, the Bar, within itself has also reacted. The Bar Council of India (BCI) recently, has passed a detailed circular on social media content by lawyers. The BCI has designation of a social media ethics nodal officer to deal with complaints relating to social media use by litigators. Moreover, the BCI has now mandated a signed undertaking at the time of enrolment to ensure professional conduct in relation to social media, digital platforms, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI). The circular prohibits lawyers, law students and interns from making reels, videos, photographs or promotional content inside court premises, courtrooms, corridors, Bar rooms, chambers or judicial buildings in a manner inconsistent with the dignity and decorum of the court and the profession. The BCI has also completely banned using bands, gowns or robes for public display, reels, posts, promotional photographs or social media performance.
Be that as it may, this is a developing issue like most issues. Court-room theatrics have always found its way within the courtroom. But the degree at which it is happening now, is unprecedented. Furthermore, legal content on social media is only going to grow. The Legal profession must prepare and evolve accordingly. That is the only option at its disposal.
(The author is a practicing advocate in the Gauhati High Court.)
