Bar Council of India President Suraj Narain P. Sinha told Bloomberg in an interview yesterday: “Our stand is clear, we should not allow entry of foreign law firms in the present scenario.”
The comments will come as a blow to liberalisation proponents, after Moily had indicated last Friday that he hoped to get the “legal fraternity” to agree to reform.
After Moily’s meeting with the Bar Council on Monday (8 June), he adopted a more conciliatory tone.
Moily told Bloomberg on Tuesday (9 June): “India will decide the entry of foreign law firms after getting the open consent of the legal fraternity.”
He is set to meet the Bar Council again on June 26 and 27 to continue discussions.
Another Bar Council member Jagdev told Bloomberg: “We categorically informed the minister about the decision taken by the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court Bar Association and bar associations of all the high courts that there would be no entry of foreign law firms in India.”
Supreme Court Bar Association President M.N. Krishnamani made the case for reciprocity and added: “On principle, we oppose the entry of foreign law firms. If there is a need, it should be a conditional entry.”
Comments
Wonder if this is a case of barking up the wrong tree.
All the persons mentioned here, be it Jagdev or Krishnamani, both are litigation lawyers. These bar leaders want votes and that's why they will never allow foreign lawyers coming to India.
And the Bar Council of India is a toothless body which has never acted tough on lawyers who are guilty of misconduct. Even in case of R K Anand and I U Khan, it was Delhi High Court which took the lead in punishing both of them. The bar council remained a mute spectator.
To ensure a equitable regime, not only the question of "practice rights" should be discussed (which is what the previous post is pointing to) but also reciprocity in terms of immigration rules should be evaluated. For example, the recent changes to the UK visa rules have raised the difficulty level very high for an Indian advocate to practice in UK either on his own or in a law firm.
It is time that bilateral discussions (predominantly carried out betwen UK Law society / Jetco and the Indian Law Ministry / the Bar Council) are suspended and the subject is brought back into the main stream negotiations at the WTO so that a just and equitable regime can be negotiated keeping in mind the concerns of all stakeholders including family run Indian law firms, professional junior partners in Indian law firms, individual litigating lawyers as well as the "clients" i.e the Indian and international business community.
Maybe it's difficult for a sole litigator to open a mom&pop law firm in the UK, but that is because of the high competition in the market, not because of reciprocity.
To Anonymus 16.38: it is clear that you have never worked overseas. there is no shame in being a law clerk rather than being an overpayed and untrained incompetent partner
Other than that make up your mind - if you dont mean Indian standards are inferior in any way, how come you jump so felicitously to your conclusion that an Indian partner is overpaid, untrained and incompetent? Freud's delight!
The Aussies understood this long ago - see how many UK firms have establisehed offces and are flourishing down under!
It is a fallacy to keep saying that Indian litigators are opposed to the entry of foreign law firms as though the transactional practices are not. It is the bigger transactional firms that have the most to lose from the entry of foreign firms, and they are the ones behind most of the noise.
Has anyone thought of what the principle behind the opposition is? If you think the issue through, there is none. The issue is simply one of protectionism.
I truly pity younger Indian lawyers who have to put up with financial exploitation and rubbish training, not knowing any better because they are told they are "world class" (of course, the cultural insularity and false sense of superiority kick in as well). Grow up, you're not world class, your skills could use a whole lot of work, and yes, a few years abroad might open your eyes.
1) is it because they want to maintain their monopoly
2) foreign firms are strict in labor laws which Indian firms are not, they even don't pay enough money to their Juniors, and make them work for 12-16 hours and in return don't pay for the overtime.
3) its expected that with their entry they will dispose the work as soon as possible because they believe in speed but Indian firms mean slow and more money.
Why these guys Like sinha, jagdev, jai ram benival are adamantly opposing, just because they will overshadow them like big shots of big Indian firms(AMSS, AZB etc.) in recent time have done to them ;-)