UK law minister Shailesh Vara, who is of Gujarati origins, has lobbied for the entry of foreign law firms to practise non-Indian transactional law here during his ongoing visit to India.
Vara said at a press conference in Ahmedabad, according to the PTI: “I had met Indian Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and chief of Bar Council of India during my visit to Delhi. Today I met Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and state head of the Bar Council and talked to them about the need to open up the Indian legal system.”
“We have just initiated a debate with our Indian counterparts and we would like to discuss the issue, as it would be benefical to India,” he said on the topic of allowing foreign law firms to practise here, in light of Narendra Modi’s pro-foreign investment agenda. Because foreign companies here would like to use their international legal counsel, “the companies coming here will also be benefited” if foreign law firms were allowed to have offices in India.
“We are not asking the Indian government to allow our lawyers to argue in Indian courts or advice Indian clients about Indian Law, but our lawyers should be allowed to guide on international laws.”
The last time the UK government made a conscious push for Indian legal market liberalisation, was in 2011, when then-law minister Kenneth Clarke made a similar argument as Vara is making now.
While Clarke promised to make a “forceful” case for UK lawyers, the talks with the Congress-led government and the Bar Council of India (BCI) ended in Indian promises of “fast-tracking” a policy, with the BCI wanting to trial educational exchanges for six months.
Then-Law Society of England & Wales president John Wotton told Legally India after the talks that he was optimistic about the future of liberalisation, despite no agreement having been signed.
There have not been any reported high-level talks on the issue between the UK and India since then.
Comments
So what is wrong with AMSS or AZB or for that matter any other Indian firm trying to thwart the Goras from entering India and taking out our work? And please do not give excuses like let there be fair competition and open markets. It does not certainly have to do anything with tiss hazari lawyers. Goras rot the system please understand that before you even make comments!
Further, a number of ethnically Indian lawyers have run prominent international law firms. Indian lawyers are free to take up US admission. Lalit Bhasin's nephew is a partner in a prominent US firm, for example.
Your comments show clearly the bases for the ban on foreign law firms: abject racism and monopoly interests.
Japan and Korea you must understand before you even write about them do not use English as a language to communicate mostly (70% times). So Goras cannot afford to act smart there and kill the market for the locals. Offcourse you will have your counters like do Japan and Korea not transact business with others? etc etc. But I hope you will appreciate the fact that Koreans and Japs have an upper hand for using their own language, language is not only when you write emails to the other side! Now please donot yank the example of china and how so many GORAS have pitched camps there!
I do not support the fact that the Indian markets are closed to the foreign firms but I think there is a plausible reason for keeping it that way.
And also lets have your bright thoughts on why USA/Aust./etc not allow Indian qualified lawyers to setup shops in their soil to even advise on NON USA laws!! I hope you know we (poor Indians) acquired quite a few USA cos. in the past. The only way to get your foot in the door is to clear their pseudo NY bar which if you have any idea costs about 50L INR excluding renting a place at NY to park yourself to mug for the bar which again by all means is impossible for many bright Indian lawyers.
so please understand that it is not being racial or biased towards goras!!
Foreign firms in Singapore have a large no. of local lawyers. They simply reduce 2 years of experience when determining the pay band for locally qualified lawyers who do not have foreign law qualifications. They will certainly do that in India too, for non UK or US qualified lawyers. Further, many of the most profitable practice areas of foreign firms in Singapore are headed by local lawyers and even Indian lawyers.
In case of Singapore I am sure your facts are not in order. The big 4 local firms (D N, RT, A&G and WongP ) are headed by locals agreed or Indian lawyers ( give me one example). The big 4 locals thrive on litigation mostly right? DN corporate headed is not a local again. Hope that gives you perspective? Other than this the chunk of the corporate work is divided among the foreign firms. Now imagine if these foreign firms were not there who would have got the work and who would have got the riches? Still want to foreign firms in India? Be careful about what you wish.
1. It is not really an insult considering that international firms with a global footprint do not hire US/UK law graduates unless they are "all-rounders" from top universities. Why should they hire graduates of Indian lawschools that they are not comfortable with? Having said that, they do hire Indian law graduates to staff their offices in London, Singapore and the Middle East i.e. it is about quality control.
2. I cannot say much about the lack of quality and training, because it will be hurtful to the egos of many senior Indian lawyers. There is no training culture in India. I am not saying India doesn't have good lawyers, but they are few in number and most of them do not get the right training and do not develop the most professional mindset or adequate knowledge, especially when it comes to transactional law.
3. A bright lawyer who is a senior associate at a top Indian firm cannot really work as a senior associate in an international firm only because she/he lacks the appropriate training. If the same lawyer had started her/his career in a US or UK firm, she/he would get equal treatment in terms of promotion and lateral hiring.
4. Unlike Indian firms who are criticized for their hiring policies by Indians, international firms have a transparent procedure and they do not, as a general practice, hire by jugaad. In fact, partners complain about partners if they feel the hiring policy is breached even in spirit.
5. We Indians can blame the goras (I find the term racist) but we need to clean up our own act first. Indian firms abuse their associates and behave most unprofessionally. Further, we all know how internships, hiring, promotions and bonuses are determined in Indian firms.
My facts are quite all right, but I cannot lay out a detailed analysis here. Suffice to say, not all Big 4 focus on litigation (for example, Wong P is not a litigation biggie like D&N). However, they became known as the litigation biggies because international firms were not allowed to practise litigation before the Singaporean courts until very recently. Yes, they do compete with international firms heavily on the pricing for transactional work and often end up doing a lot of low end volume driven work since no company would give that mandate to an expensive international firm (but hey, even some Indian firms presently do IPOs and financings for 5 lakhs, not to mention Amarchand has started TSG and a copuple of our desi "Biglaw" compete ridiculously on pricing). The question is not whether SIngapore's Big 4 are hiring their practice heads from international firms to boost their image, but whether foreign firms are hiring Singaporean law graduates and making them partners. The answer is in the affirmative.
Btw, the riches of India are, and have always been, in the hands of a few families. There's no meaningful lockstep in Indian firms and the "owners" do not cede equity or retire. Most of the few non-family "equity partners" are usually trusted old hands who prove loyalty over 20-30 years and get a 1% equity as a gift which also guarantees their retention.
Hope you see the other side of the coin. Cheers!
P.S. I am not pitching for entry of foreign firms, just stating some facts. Also, international firms and foreign firms are techically different concepts; not every foreign firm – like Korean or Singaporean firms – are international firms.
I understand this might be one of the major reasons for the recent mushrooming of several law mid sized law firms in India. And actually I am not very optimistic that the scene is going to get any better with international law firms making an entry. It's just my thought and can be proved wrong.
Luck aside – our culture is to think short-term gain, fight with each other instead of the common enemy, and tolerate abuse. We all know how evil continues when people tolerate abuse! AMSS is a case in point, although it is now struggling to maintain quality owing to the unwillingness of smart people to work there after acquiring the branding :)
Personally, I don’t think there is any anti-Indian lobby in big international firms (although some practice areas naturally prefer local law graduates). Quite the reverse, we have a "State bias" culture in some Indian practices! You may also consider that some Indians at foreign firms avoid firm parties and Thursday/Friday drinking with workmates and lose out on making friends / support group. Even if there was any biased “lobby” at some firms, it would be restricted to the “group” and a short stint at an international firm would nevertheless remain a much coveted asset.
The start-up culture is, perhaps, an assertion of independence by the younger lawyers who do not wish to tolerate abuse or “suck up”. It is the first step to move away from the “family” culture, which has already weakened on some fronts, although IMO it may take a few decades to eradicate the evil substantially.
I won’t really have anything to gain directly with the entry of international firms, but I do feel that it will have some “rub off” effect on the culture of Indian firms and also provide future law graduates the opportunity to experience better training at the India offices of the international firms. Unfortunately, international firms lack a bit of their home-office professionalism and efficiency in some jurisdictions, owing to the “local hires”, which will likely be the case with India initially.
Cheers!
In my experience though, lawyers aren't much better with advice/advise & practice/practise :) So maybe it was a UK law ministry press release that got it wrong :)
It's more likely, IMHO, that US spelling has been winning over UK spelling in words with C and S, which has been getting some journos and lawyers confused... :)
Anyway, I was just supporting you, Kian, and underscoring that usage has kind of done away with the strict rules from an earlier era. The grammar and style rules vary a lot today in different manuals, so nobody is right! Personally, I like to follow the Oxford comma and Wren & Martin, but sometimes even clients may think, for example, that “practise” has been incorrectly used in place of “practice”. It becomes even more tricky with defence v. defense and license v. licence. Similarly, few people know when to use spaces with a slash ( / ) and when to avoid it. Cheers!
Once they get in, foreign firms will start advising on deals and documents that do not mention the governing law until the signing/closing. At that stage, an Indian firm or lawyer will be engaged to "vet" the document for a nominal fee. Alternately, they will be engaged for rendering commercial advise, or cross-border advice, or any service with a fancy name, on documents governed by Indian law - it being a client's prerogative to engage any professional.
[b]The present reality[/b]
International firms are already engaged in such practices, where they advise on Indian law documents and subsequently, an Indian firm is paid a nominal fee to vet it on Indian law.
[b]The questions[/b]
[b]1.[/b] What law prohibits anyone to sit in India and advise on foreign law?
[b]2.[/b] What law prevents a foreign firm from opening an office in India for rendering Indian law advice and staffing it with Indian lawyers?
And lets not forget the bad publicity that will follow for opening Indian offices without seeking approvals (btw no such approvals presently exist).
1. Agree - there's nothing legally that could stop Clifford & Overy from opening an office here under its own name, practising foreign law, if they do NOT repatriate profits or revenues to the UK or US or wherever the main partnerships are.
Perception wise it's a different story. It just takes one more Balaji or ML Sharma to become a massive pain in the backside for them as the Lawyers Collective case did for Ashurst, White & Case, etc.
I think they've all been burnt and have adjusted their realities to more conservative aims - a small captive best friend or close relationships firms in India, whom they can feed good work and be in control of quality of service somewhat.
This is pretty much the same effect as a branded-office here with which they can't share profits, but avoids painting a bulls eye on their chest.
Why would they need to rock the boat anymore and risk alienating some of the Big Six by competing here for foreign work?
2. I'm pretty sure a foreign firm could structure it to open up here and do a profit share with its foreign partnership, as a consultancy, for example, though legally that's more risky.
Even if they'd ultimately win a legal challenge in the Supreme Court by getting 'legal practice' under the Advocates Act re-interpreted as only domestic legal work or even purely domestic litigation (which would make sense, since consultants / CAs and everyone else seem to be offering transactional 'legal' services these days), it would take a long time to get such a judgment.
And while the challenge remained sub-judice, that would be used by government and bar politicians to postpone making a tough and unpopular decision.
If the foreign firms keep their nose clean and avoid the courts, they might be hoping that a political solution will come before a legal one. And they might be right in that suspicion and will need to continue exhibiting patience.
However, entry of foreign law firms is going to be a very positive news for non-partners/junior lawyers. Majority of junior lawyers will gain as their salaries will go up once foreign law firms are allowed. Salary levels of associates in other jurisdictions is testimony to this fact.
So, the real issue is that whether the government should protect the interest of 100 senior partners or 5000 associates. I will go with 5000 associates.
And as far as the argument that foreign lawyers would start doing work relating to Indian law is concerned, I am quite sure that no reasonable foreign lawyer would be confident enough to advise on Indian laws considering its complexity.
Sadly the debate on LI has been consciously or unconsciously hijacked by the supporters/well-wishers of senior partners/owners of big firms.
However, entry of foreign law firms is going to be a very positive news for non-partners/junior lawyers. Majority of junior lawyers will gain as their salaries will go up once foreign law firms are allowed. Salary levels of associates in other jurisdictions is testimony to this fact.
So, the real issue is that whether the government should protect the interest of 100 senior partners or 5000 associates. I will go with 5000 associates.
And as far as the argument that foreign lawyers would start doing work relating to Indian law is concerned, I am quite sure that no reasonable foreign lawyer would be confident enough to advise on Indian laws considering its complexity.
Sadly the debate on LI has been consciously or unconsciously hijacked by the supporters/well-wishers of senior partners/owners of big firms.[/quote]
What makes you believe the foreign law firms will hire Indian associates and will not get their own lot as associates? I am just inquisitive to understand the reason for your sound reasoning that Indian associates will get a facelift in terms of scoring astronomical salaries ?
And also please understand it is easier to take bitter words (all of us have to take some of it , like it or not) from an Indian, rather than from a foreigner. I believe you do not want to be called a dirty native every time you miss a full stop or a hyphen. So dude get your rosy glasses off and get a grip on reality.
They may give certain key posts as MD, CEO to citizens of their native country or expats, but mostly it would be Indians who are running the show. Don’t see any issue in giving key posts to foreigners as Indian companies also follow this practice in cases of outbound investment. Also, for an associate, it should hardly matter whether ultimate owner of his firm is Indian or foreigner as long as he/she is making good money.
The foreign firms would have to pay much more to expats. Therefore, any commercial minded person would not chose to hire majority of associates from US,UK or for that matter any country which is costlier than India.
If an Indian lawyer is confident about quality of his/her work, I am sure he will be able to find much more opportunities once legal market is liberalized.
So if foreign law firms do not pay associates as much as they pay to the expat associates in any other country what's the point of working in one? I believe you were thrilled by the fact that Indian associates will also be paid per the expat associates in one of your posts?
I hope I am correct in guessing that you have no experience of working in a foreign firm where Indians who have aced in their law schools are not sent beyond trainee solicitors. Any thoughts on that? I have vital stats to back my statement in case you want to get a clearer picture.
Sour grapes, dawg?
@Fish aur Chips: Wish you could, but you didn't get the TC, did you? Sorry bro.
I don't know what kinds of bitter words you have to hear at your firm, but I work at one of the firms in the Balaji case and there is absolutely no name-calling. On top of getting better pay, it sounds like Indian associates would also be treated better if foreign firms are allowed.
Better pay??? Really care telling where you work? I am an associate at the top of the list Indian firm and how I see is it really does not matter if I work in a foreign firm in India because they cannot pay me more than what I am already making here.
I understand life can be unfair at times. My comment was certainly not aimed at you Mr. Court and apologizes in case it made you realize your financial difficulties and getting by in life. First, get into the league before you talk about how much is too much [i][i]'you have no idea about lawyer fees'[/i][/i]
Have a good weekend in case you can!
I don't know if salaries at big international firms are equal across offices - I have only worked in the US - but I'm pretty sure that they would not be as appallingly low as the current market rate in Indian firms. Let's face it - big cities in India like Delhi and Mumbai have some of the most expensive real estate in the world, and are not that cheap to live in. Salaries at Indian firms are okay but I'm not really sure why you are bragging about it.
Do you know how many LL.M's from India, who have passed the NY bar exam or other equally difficult bar exams make in the U.S.? How many of them even have jobs after an LL.M.? The unofficial lawyer unemployment rate in the U.S. is 36%. It's equally bad in the U.K. I don't work for the family firms, though I did a brief stint at one years ago. So, not a loyalist, understand and agree with the comments on stifling atmosphere for the lawyers in the big six. Please read about lawyers from Harvard, Stanford and others and partners from U.S. firms in the docket review circuit in US. People just disappear in the U.S. with J.D's to get other jobs, since they cannot compete for even normal jobs. It's horrible in the U.S.
Read about UK trainee contracts. They just dried up a few years ago. Without a trainee contract your are doomed as a lawyer.
Do you know what will happen if the flood gates open right now? Unemployed Indian lawyers, will be the norm. There are enough US and UK lawyers ready to work in India at close to Indian salaries. Unlike the other great professions, these lawyers can read up the Indian contract act and research on what they need in a couple of hours and draft what they need.
I mean our laws are extremely easy to ken, compared with the monstrosity that is UCC and common contract law in the US. Or even the contract law in UK. All you need is the Indian contract act from last century and case law cites. So, it's not that impractical either for foreign lawyers to be taking away those jobs.
No it's not cost they are smart and we are not, it's just how a US lawyer is trained. Contract law for better or for worse is different in the 50 states in US. So, you are trained to do legal research instead of being trained in the law of a state. Yes, the differences are sometimes minor and often irrelevant to an issue. There are however key differences, and US lawyers don't engage in multi-jurisdictional practice due to licensing issues and other practical considerations. So, they don't even let a lawyer from NJ compete in NY without more. So why should we let the US and UK lawyers into our country?
UK requires you to pass through thirty different loops to become a solicitor, and want India to just open up? UK is a services based economy, which shows, why they are keen on the Indian market.
In summary, yes by all means, but not now. When the US and UK market are just roaring again, maybe we open up the strings. Yes, when it happens at the right time it will be great for the foreign associates.
Now, I will be accused of being a voice from the six and also will be accused of other things. Most of what I dished out above is true, not because we are stupid, but other economic conditions. I have seen the US and UK lawyers, they have method, but they are often stupid. They don't ken the obvious, but will get there if you give them a couple of hours. Then they will come back to you and proudly proclaim what you told them hours ago, as if it is the gospel.
Good luck everyone, whichever side of the spectrum you are on. And btw, don't waste your money on an LL.M. in US or UK right now. You are welcome to try your luck at the lotto of big firm lottery.
Come on - you have clearly no experience of working at an international law firm.
The reality is that foreign firms will be governed by economics as much as any other business. Do other businesses staff their offices with only foreigners at astronomical salaries? If so, there is a market for such service at such a price and the question to be asking is why can't Indian firms also charge that and pay their associates such astronomical salaries?
They can hire Indian lawyers. Not to mention that they have a [i]Blitzkrieg[/i] going in terms of analyzing laws of any jurisdiction using experinced lawyers and dedicated research teams. Every foreign firm has reseach teams for every practice area in every jurisdiction they operate and some US and UK firms advise on Indian law documents often, leaving the FEMA issues for Indian firms.
I assure my colleagues that we will not allow foreign law firms to enter. We are in talks with respected members of parties like Congress, RJD, Samajwadi Party etc and we we will block it in parliament.
Understand that quality law students are not entering litigation primarily because they do not see the 'value' of your 'knowledge' as being so great that they will accept a pittance like Rs 15,000 a month, which in a lot of cases I'm sure is about half of what even average lawyers command per hearing.
Competition is key to efficiency and law students are not cheap commodities. They spend a lot of money on their education and it is only fair that they expect to be compensated for their value.
Congress and DMK did very good work by blocking foreign law firm. This BJP govt only wants economic growth and jobs for youth to get votes. They do not care about national interest.
1. What makes you think that foreign law firms will not make lawyers struggle? If you are so arrogant as to believe that lawyers do not work hard in law firms then you need a reality check boss.
2. The cost factor was an argument directed mainly towards the fees in the National Law schools which can go up to about 1.7 Lakh a year. Further, there is no reason why if a fresher is good enough he cannot get a decent salary. DO you really think a young lawyer can survive in places like Delhi and Mumbai on a pittance like Rs 15,000?
3. Your argument about guru-shishya tradition may have worked a century ago but I seriously doubt it exists in the true sense today. Of course, I will concede that there are indeed some seniors who do have that quality of guiding juniors but is that the case everywhere with every senior?
4. How is national interest being served by not allowing competition? Please elaborate.
Boss understand that the entry of foreign lawyers will not hamper on your practice. Litigating advocates will continue doing well in their profession. It's only the corporate law firms that will face competition which I reiterate, is critical to improve any system. And i sincerely hope you do not argue that competition is BAD for the industry.
The ground reality is that across firms the younger breed of associates and partners are immensely frustrated by stifling policies, bad pay and above all the feelingof being a naukar (slave) of the family.
Foreign firms work in a more profesional manner and judging frm feedback received from seniors and friends who worked there the whole environment is tension-free. Pay is good, respect is everywhere although to be fair they work hard as well.
One onl has to look at the foreign CA firms like PWC/ E&Y to know what a difference they make. I hope god punishes these vile b**t**ds who run their family firms and loby the government to prevent entry of foreign firms which would improve the living conditions and jobs of thousands of indian lawyers. No one should have to put up with the cowdung of the [...] and the [...].
Sorry to rant like this but I cant believe there can be a "debate" about such a no-brainer
Friends if you agree with me please vote my comment as 'Like' so we can show those family [...]that we are in favour of liberalisation.
(Hope you dont censor Kian)
The ground reality is that across firms the younger breed of associates and partners are immensely frustrated by stifling policies, bad pay and above all the feelingof being a naukar (slave) of the family.
Foreign firms work in a more profesional manner and judging frm feedback received from seniors and friends who worked there the whole environment is tension-free. Pay is good, respect is everywhere although to be fair they work hard as well.
One onl has to look at the foreign CA firms like PWC/ E&Y to know what a difference they make. I hope god punishes these vile b**t**ds who run their family firms and loby the government to prevent entry of foreign firms which would improve the living conditions and jobs of thousands of indian lawyers. No one should have to put up with the cowdung of the [...] and the [...].
Sorry to rant like this but I cant believe there can be a "debate" about such a no-brainer
Friends if you agree with me please vote my comment as 'Like' so we can show those family [...]that we are in favour of liberalisation.
(Hope you dont censor Kian)[/quote]
True what you say about the feelings of the people not belonging to the equity league. But there are a few places (big ones) where the family concept does not really work and I hope you know to where I am pointing at. Gladly I have been a part of it for sometime now and I feel it is quite a place to be in both in terms of money and work! Hope it remains this way till I retire. LOL
Kain, request you to please raise this issue as to how they are practicing Indian law when they are the subsidiaries of foreign companies. Off-course, foreign parents are not doing charity by only lending their names.
http://www.legallyindia.com/201403264519/Law-firms/writ-to-nip-foreign-firms-india-practice-still-in-bud
Law minister comments, if we did manage to get a quote from him on this politically uninteresting and dangerous subject, I predict would be at most: "We are talking to all the stakeholders involved etc etc blabla."
After years of covering liberalisation's lack of progress here, I don't expect anything will actually happen before 5 years, and maybe even longer than that after pre-emptive writ petitions and legal challenges are disposed of.
http://www.legallyindia.com/201403264519/Law-firms/writ-to-nip-foreign-firms-india-practice-still-in-bud
Law minister comments, if we did manage to get a quote from him on this politically uninteresting and dangerous subject, I predict would be at most: "We are talking to all the stakeholders involved etc etc blabla."
After years of covering liberalisation's lack of progress here, I don't expect anything will actually happen before 5 years, and maybe even longer than that after pre-emptive writ petitions and legal challenges are disposed of.[/quote]
Referring to your own ancient news story??
Not bothering to publish any comments from lawyers and politicos??
Speculating on quotes??
This is the height of lazy (non-existent) journalism
Or are you just afraid of spoiling your cosy relationship with the top law firms by asking unpalatable questions??
I think LI readers deserve an answer
I'm confident in saying that we've been covering liberalisation more regularly and more in-depth than anybody else out there.
Have a look through our archives if you don't believe me:
http://www.legallyindia.com/tag/liberalisation
We're keeping our ears open about the Chennai case and other developments, but until something concrete happens, getting soundbites from politicians and the like to me seems more effort than its worth at the moment. Call it lazy, if you will, or call it prioritisation of limited resources. :)