In 1994, two New York-based law firms and one London-based law firm decided to set up shop in India. Chadbourne & Parke and Ashurst Morris Crisp set up liaison offices in New Delhi, while White & Case chose to base their India office out of Bombay, with the permission of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). In 1995, Indian NGO, Lawyers Collective decided to challenge the order of the RBI granting permission to these firms to open liaison offices in India. In 1995, the Indian legal sector was still a largely closed market. The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) had come into force only in January that year, and its scope was still under debate. In 1995, only one of the National law universities, the NLSIU, was in existence. In 1995, 'best friends' was a word still denoting personal relationships between individuals.

Fast forward to 2009. As India settles firmly into the 21^st century, the dynamics of the Indian legal sector have changed completely. The UPA-led government is vocal in its support of liberalization. Law firms in India are no longer traditional family-oriented entities relying on litigation as their primary source of income. There are over fifteen National Law Universities, promoting excellence in legal education. And most importantly, law firms, both Indian and international, have found loopholes in the rules prohibiting the practice of law by foreign firms in India. This is what is now called a 'best friends' relationship, an agreement, either exclusive or non-exclusive, between an Indian and an international firm to refer clients and, in some cases, share skill-sets.

In this era of co-operation, what is the significance of the Bombay High Court's judgment regarding the practice of law by persons not enrolled with the Bar Council of India? Let me look first at Lawyers Collective's petition. I spoke to Firdaus Moosa, who led the brief for Lawyers Collective, and she was very specific about the questions raised in the matter, and Lawyers Collective's prayer to the Court. Firstly, there was the question of whether the permissions granted by the RBI under Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) are legal and valid. And secondly, assuming that these permissions are valid, whether these foreign law firms could carry on their liaison activities in India only on being enrolled as advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Court has, in its judgment, stated that the "core dispute is with reference to the permission granted by RBI to the respondents No.12 to 14 to open their liaison offices in India under Section 29 of the 1973 Act." [Respondents 12 to 14 being White & Case, Chadbourne & Parke and Ashurst, and the 1973 Act referring to the FERA] The Court, granting the prayer of Lawyers Collective, held that the RBI did not have the authority to grant permission to these firms to carry on the practice of non-litigious matters, and also, that the practice of the profession of law, governed by the Advocates Act and the Rules of the Bar Council of India, includes the practice of non-litigious legal matters. Thus, "to practice in non-litigious matters in India, the Respondent Nos.12 to 14 were bound to follow the provisions contained in the 1961 Act [Advocates Act]."

Pages    1 | 2 | 3    Show Full Article