Justice AD Jagadish Chandira expressed displeasure over the “law firm’s” marketing tactics. It was noted that the firm had promoted its services on platforms like LinkedIn by boasting about routine court orders.
Madras: The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Crime Branch-Crime Investigation Department (CBCID) to conduct an in-depth investigation into allegations against a fake law firm, “JMI Law Associates,” and its representatives. The allegations involve land transactions in the Mylapore area of Chennai.
Allegations Against JMI Law Associates
The court’s attention was drawn to Jamal Mohammed Ibrahim, who allegedly ran “JMI Law Associates” despite not being a qualified lawyer. Two other individuals associated with the firm are advocate Preethi Baskar and Kamalesh Chandrasekaran.
The court expressed concern that representatives of this firm initially represented landowners in disputes against encroachers but later became involved in questionable transactions allegedly meant to pressure the landowners to give up their land.
Justice AD Jagadish Chandira expressed displeasure over the “law firm’s” marketing tactics. It was noted that the firm had promoted its services on platforms like LinkedIn by boasting about 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 emphasized the sanctity of the legal profession, stating,
“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 stressed that the legal field is a noble profession, not a business, and called for strict adherence to honesty and fairness by all legal practitioners.
Directions for Investigation
Given the gravity of the allegations, the Court directed CBCID to:
- Investigate the activities of JMI Law Associates and its representatives.
- Examine whether there are any pending cases against the firm and its associates.
- Collaborate with the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to verify the educational qualifications and enrolment details of three advocates linked to the firm: Preethi Baskar, Mani Bharathi, and Abel Selvakumar.
- Verify whether JMI Law Associates was authorized to operate as a law firm and whether the vakalats (legal representations) filed by the firm in courts or tribunals were legitimate.
During the hearing, advocate Preethi Baskar made certain allegations against opposing counsel, advocate S Ganesan. The Court directed the Bar Council to investigate these claims as well.
The Court also highlighted the need for stricter action against lawyers who solicit work or advertise services in violation of legal ethics. The Court recommended that the Bar Council issue a press release to inform the public and prevent them from being misled by false advertisements.
Background of the Case
The case emerged from a civil revision petition filed by Kamalesh Chandrasekaran. He approached the High Court after a trial court refused his plea for an interim order to prevent three individuals—MA Noor Jehan Beevi, KA Shaik Madar, and Abdul Hassan—from selling certain land.
Chandrasekaran claimed he had an agreement to purchase the land after spending money to evict encroachers. However, he alleged that the landowners later withdrew from the deal and began negotiating with Life Style Builders for the sale of the land.
When Chandrasekaran moved the trial court for an interim order to prevent the sale, his plea was rejected, prompting him to approach the High Court.
The landowners accused Chandrasekaran and his counsel, Advocate Preethi Baskar, of unethical conduct. They alleged that Baskar had previously represented them in earlier litigation involving the same property.
Upon inquiry, it emerged that “JMI Law Associates,” the firm Baskar was associated with, was allegedly run by Jamal Mohammad Ibrahim, a non-lawyer. Though it was claimed that the firm had been dissolved in July 2024, the Court found this claim untrue as “JMI Law Associates” had issued a legal notice dated November 18, 2024.
Advocate Baskar later expressed regret, attributing her actions to inexperience. She claimed she was no longer associated with the “now-dissolved” firm. However, the Court 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 stated.
The Court has scheduled the next hearing for three weeks later.
Case Title: Kamalesh Chandrasekaran vs. M.A.Noor Jehan Beevi and Others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
