UK-headquartered magic circle firm Allen & Overy, which used to have a best friend relationship with Trilegal but gave up because it saw no prospect of the Indian legal market opening up, is set to open an office in Myanmar, which recently liberalised its economy, following Baker & McKenzie having announced an office in February and US firms Duane Morris and Herzfeld Rubin Meyer & Rose opening in the traditionally protectionist Indian neighbour in late 2013, reported the American Lawyer (paywall).
Comments
In addition: "Way to go Myanmar (!): UK magic circle firm Allen & Overy opens office in Myanmar (before India)"
this status update by legallyindia on facebook looks like a post from some first year. Understand that this is no competition.
1. Do you think creation of 1000 jobs would outweigh the possible reduction in entrepreneurism?
2. If someone had asked 5 years ago whether A&O would open an office in Myanmar or India sooner, what would most have said?
On the second point, why does it matter if A&O opened in Myanmar first? I don't think foreign law firms would bring a phenomenal change to our country.
All the debate on entry of foreign law firms has been limited to how their entry won't affect the litigators in India, but this issue requires a deeper analysis into whether the lawyers (and not just NLU alumni), the system, and the nation at large would profit from the entry of foreign law firms.
Agree partly though, that the benefits of corporate firms entering would probably be fairly limited across the board, though some would argue that the entry of foreign firms could improve bureaucracy, corruption etc at least a little bit because they'll have a harder time competing in a Jugaad-based economy and will work hard to streamline the system...
And it would also make the legal market a little bit more diverse and competitive, rather than the current system where a handful of lawyers are dominating corporate law.
Finally, foreign firms would argue that there's also a trickle down effect to the bar, in that they would instruct more local lawyers directly and insist on quality there, rather than going through the gatekeepers of the Big Six, as they currently are...
What will happen is that such lawyers will jump firms, thereby creating space with the others. Assuming the work in the market is constant and that the foreign firms eat into the kitty of the indian firms, they will only hire so many as are required to support the work that they generate. The work they generate will be out of the existing pie of the indian firms. So, assuming that A was the total work with the indian firms before FF came and B is the work that the FF eat away from the IF's. and X were the number of people with IF and Y number jump to FF. Then in order to service the (A-B) remaining with the IF's, the number of lawyers i.e. (X-Y) will suffice. So basically, the number of employment remains more or less the same. Hence, I dont think there will be any marked change in the number of jobs. Just repositioning of work and jobs.
What will happen is that the FF will cross subsidise their work in India with their billing abroad (coz they are more consolidated as a single partnership than big indian firms). Billing rates will go down, salaries will go up. This will screw up the market, without any marked benefit vis a vis jobs.
Smaller firms will die. Startups will be more difficult to start and sustain. The domino effect will be that most lawyers will continue in a naukari (including the ones who had plans of starting up new ventures)
In most jurisdictions, foreign firms bill more than domestic firms already, and often foreign firms' overseas offices in less expensive markets are already a drain on their partnership profits and billings.
I don't think any foreign firm could convince the entire partnership to subsidise billing rates in a place like India beyond their already low baseline. That wouldn't make any business sense, whatsoever.
Most observers would expect foreign firms to charge more than domestic firms (look at Linklaters' Indian best friend or Freshfields' close ally Platinum, which don't come cheaply) because they want to only do the cream-of-crop deals for big MNCs and domestic conglomerates...
Now, billing rates could theoretically go down across because of the increase in competition, but that'd be another factor, and most domestic family firm owners would expect the entry of foreign firm to raise rates across the board. Which might not be so great for clients, though would make some happy lawyers.
As for liberalization in India, while Modi gives us hope my fear is that you-know-who will speak to Adani.
Also, why has LI stopped covering the foreign law firms issue? What happened to the SC case?
Second, Burma does not have the Rule of Law. It runs according to military dictates. One wonders what a law firm would do there. What is the point of a firm of solicitors opening an office when there is no one to instruct at the bar, cause most of them have been jailed or killed?
Lastly, you can never give a foreigner a right of audience before your courts. You shouldn't. Advocates are officers of the court. The practice of law is a constitutional function. We stand at the bar to assist the court in understanding the position of law. How can someone who does not pledge allegiance to our Constitution stand at the bar and attempt to administer justice in India?
This is a nobel profession. We are not a bunch of service providers trying to serve the best legal hamburgers at the cheapest price. Its a calling and its a duty. No foreigners at the bar simple as that. An alien cannot exercise functions relating to the administration of law and order in a nation.