Fourteen years ago, Lawyers Collective filed a petition in the Bombay High Court against the opening of liaison offices by foreign law firms in India. Ashurst, Chadbourne & Parke and White & Case opened liaison offices in India after obtaining permission from the RBI under Section 29 of the FERA Act dealing with the establishment of a branch office or other place of business by foreign companies or persons.

The permission granted to these firms to open liaison offices was challenged by Lawyers Collective as being bad in law. Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, appearing for Lawyers Collective with Firdaus Moosa and Anand Grover, argued that the practice of law in India included the practice of non-litigious matters, and was governed by the Advocates Act. He submitted before the court that since the foreign firms were not enrolled as advocates under the Act, they could not be allowed to practice even in non-litigious matters, such as drafting documents, reviewing and providing comments on documents, conducting negotiations and advising clients on international standards and customary practice relating to the client's transaction, which were the functions being performed by the liaison offices.

White & Case, Chadbourne & Parke and Ashurst Morris Crisp, appearing through Senior Counsel Navroze Seervai, Advocate Shiraz Rustomji and Senior Counsels Iqbal Chagla and D.H. Khambata respectively, argued that the Advocates Act relates to persons entitled to practice in the Supreme Court and the High Court, and thus does not regulate the non-litigious practice of law. Senior Counsel Rajinder Singh, appearing for the Union of India, pointed out that persons who are permitted to act as petition writers in the criminal courts or persons nominated an amicus curie need not be on the roll of the Bar Council and argued that a person carrying on the profession of drafting and giving opinion is not required to be enrolled as advocate under the Advocates Act.

The High Court Bench, comprising Chief Justice Swatanter Kumar and Justice J.P. Devadhar, declined to interpret the Advocates Act in this narrow fashion, however. Rejecting the arguments of the respondents, the Bench held that the practice of the profession of law included litigious as well as non-litigious matters. The Court felt that it was necessary to include non-litigious matters under the purview of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council Rules, since unregulated practice of law would not be conducive to upholding the high standards of the profession.

This long-running case involved fifteen respondents, ten Senior Advocates and six law firms, amongst others. The Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Maharashtra, represented by Nitin Jamdar and A.G. Damle respectively, supported Lawyers Collective's argument. Bombay Incorporated Law Society was represented by P.A. Jani, who was instructed by Vigil Juris. The Bar Association of India, which also supported Lawyers Collective's stand, was advised by Bhasin & Co., who briefed Senior Counsel S.U. Kamdar. Senior Counsel A.Y. Sakhare appeared for the RBI and was instructed by K. Asher & Co. Little & Co. (now FoxMandal Little) obtained the brief for White and Case, while Kanga & Co. were briefing counsel for Ashurst.

Despite the long wait, the matter may not have received final resolution yet. Speaking to Bar & Bench, Firdaus Moosa of Lawyers Collective said that although she was delighted with the Court's judgement, she was "fairly certain" that the matter will go on appeal. Watch this space for more updates on the issue.

The full text of the Bombay High Court Judgement may be obtained here.