The legal practitioners in Malaysia are restricted from publicising, advertising and marketing themselves on the grounds of fiduciary relationship with clients, the duty to serve the public and it is professionally undignified. Despite the advancement of the Information, Communication and Technology, lawyers are restricted in utilising it for publicity, advertising and marketing. At the same time, the public is deprived of information to engage the best lawyers of their choice. Furthermore, while other countries such as European Union, United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia have moved forward, the Malaysian legal profession remains unchanged. This concept paper investigates the adequacy of the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001(“LPPR 2001”) in legalising publicity, advertising and marketing. This paper adopts a qualitative research methodology with doctrinal and comparative approaches. Firstly, this paper focuses on content analysis of statutes as the primary source of law. Secondly, content analysis on secondary sources of law including journal articles, and online sources. Thirdly, conducting a comparative study by analysing the primary and secondary sources of law in other jurisdictions. This paper explains that lawyers must be allowed to innovate into new methods in publicising, advertising and marketing themselves. Society will greatly benefit from this as they will be more informed and knowledgeable in engaging the service of lawyers of their choice. This paper ends by suggesting that there is a dire need to legalise the publicity, advertising and marketing of the legal profession in Malaysia. Thus, this research is significant to the development of the legal profession in Malaysia.