The hearing in the Foreign Law Firms case in Supreme Court continued today before a Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit..Advocate Nakul Dewan, representing Global Indian Lawyers Association, advanced his submissions today..Dewan argued that the Advocates Act does not apply to law firms but only applies to individual lawyers. Hence, it was his argument that the Bombay High Court judgment, which barred foreign law firms under the Advocates Act was wrong..Dewan further argued that Advocates Act does not restrict Indian qualified lawyers from acquiring dual qualification. Dewan also submitted that practice of law under Advocates Act means practice of Indian law..The Bench frequently quizzed Dewan particularly regarding his submission that Advocates Act does not apply to law firms..“If a single individual cannot practice, then how can a group of such individuals be allowed to practice”, asked Justice AK Goel..Dewan responded by stating that if the restriction mandated by Bombay High Court judgment goes, then the existing structures would play out to determine the question..“A foreign law firm might then be able to open an office in India with Indian qualified lawyers. However, this judgment has stopped foreign law firms from setting up the office itself”..The hearing today lasted only for half an hour and will continue tomorrow. The Court expressed its inclination to conclude the hearing tomorrow..Last week, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued for Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Bird & Bird, Clyde & Co, Ashurst and Evershed.
The hearing in the Foreign Law Firms case in Supreme Court continued today before a Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit..Advocate Nakul Dewan, representing Global Indian Lawyers Association, advanced his submissions today..Dewan argued that the Advocates Act does not apply to law firms but only applies to individual lawyers. Hence, it was his argument that the Bombay High Court judgment, which barred foreign law firms under the Advocates Act was wrong..Dewan further argued that Advocates Act does not restrict Indian qualified lawyers from acquiring dual qualification. Dewan also submitted that practice of law under Advocates Act means practice of Indian law..The Bench frequently quizzed Dewan particularly regarding his submission that Advocates Act does not apply to law firms..“If a single individual cannot practice, then how can a group of such individuals be allowed to practice”, asked Justice AK Goel..Dewan responded by stating that if the restriction mandated by Bombay High Court judgment goes, then the existing structures would play out to determine the question..“A foreign law firm might then be able to open an office in India with Indian qualified lawyers. However, this judgment has stopped foreign law firms from setting up the office itself”..The hearing today lasted only for half an hour and will continue tomorrow. The Court expressed its inclination to conclude the hearing tomorrow..Last week, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued for Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Bird & Bird, Clyde & Co, Ashurst and Evershed.
