Clifford Chance expects to have an office in India by late 2012 said the firm’s senior partner Stuart Popham, vowing to keep pushing the liberalisation agenda in India despite a lack of “overnight” results during his visit as part of the UK prime minister’s delegation.
“If I said 18 months I would probably be optimistic, if I said 2 1/2 years I would be unduly pessimistic,” Popham said in an interview with Bloomberg in New Delhi yesterday.
“Banks that are looking to expand their business in India need international law firms,” Popham (pictured) said. “They will need the comfort of internationally experienced lawyers who know what kind of documents they have written in China, in Africa, in America, in Russia, which Indian lawyers don’t do.”
Popham was the only private practice lawyer who is part of a UK delegation that included 39 business leaders and Cabinet members during Prime Minister David Cameron’s visit to India this week, as first reported on Legally India.
Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) chairman Lalit Bhasin reiterated in a press release on the eve of the U.K. delegation’s visit that SILF continued to oppose the entry foreign firms.
“Revival of interest on the part of the government is the result of insurmountable pressures being exerted on the government by the British lobby,” Bhasin said in a July 23 statement. “Every month there are delegations from U.K. visiting India with one point programme of getting legal services in India open up to the foreign law firms. The British Prime Minister is visiting India soon and one of the topmost priorities is to discuss opening of legal services sector in India.” (see box below for full statement)
“Legal profession is too sacrosanct to be polluted by deep pockets of foreign governments or foreign lawyers,” added Bhasin. “Unlike our foreign counter-parts we are not into the Business of law – we are a profession. And our Profession is not for sale.”
The U.K. delegation was well received, Popham told Bloomberg, although he did not expect “overnight” results.
Cameron had urged India on 28 July to reach an agreement with the European Union on free trade by the end of the year, reported Bloomberg.
“The question of how well this visit will go down will be judged in six months or 12 months,” Popham said.
“If in six months’ time or 12 months’ time none of the restrictions on banking, on insurance, on legal services, on cross-border investment, if the free trade agreement with the EU hasn’t been signed, then I think there would be room to harbour doubts as to what it is going to take to pursue the Indian avowed policy of liberalisation,” he said.
Popham will step down as Clifford Chance senior partner after new elections for the post are held this autumn, reported The Lawyer magazine yesterday.
A shorter, edited version of this article was first published on Bloomberg.
Lalit Bhasin press release excerpts dated 23 July
| Bhasin also criticised Veerappa Moily’s proposal to move the Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign law firms to the Supreme Court because the Bombay High Court judgment in the Lawyers Collective case was the current law. “This judgment has not been challenged either by the aggrieved 4 top foreign law firms or by the Government of India which had aligned itself with the foreign law firms by filing an affidavit that practice of law only means litigation work under the Advocates Act – thereby implying that foreign law firms are free to open their shops in India if they do not appear in Courts. This untenable stand was categorically rejected by Bombay High Court. Dr. Veerappa Moily the present Law Minister had publicly dissociated his Ministry from the affidavit which was filed during earlier regime. “There is now a thinking again that somehow the matter should be brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by a device of getting a Madras High Court Petition which raises almost same issues as are already covered by Bombay High Court judgment transferred to the Supreme Court. Why should Government of India take this initiative since it has not challenged Bombay High Court judgment which has become final? Case can be sought to be transferred to the Supreme Court if two or more High Courts are seized of the same issue of law. In the present case there is only one petition which is pending in Chennai – unless yet another device is adopted of getting yet another writ petition filed in some other High Court.” “There have been exchange of visits by top government functionaries of India and the U.K. very recently. U.K. Government is fully backing its legal profession for seeking greener pastures due to negative growth in the U.K. China and India are the markets they are looking at. Govt. of India, instead of supporting and protecting India’s legal profession appears to be supportive of these moves by U.K. Government. We have still not learnt lessons from the havoc played by foreign accountancy firms on the accountancy profession of our country. “Our regulatory body – the Bar Council of India has totally and unequivocally opposed the entry of foreign law firms. Our Society has opposed the entry of law firms from overseas. “Indian legal profession and Indian law firms are second to none. They are involved in billion dollars deals, acquisitions and transactions. It is too late in the day to say that Indian law firms are not equipped to handle multinational corporate deals and they do not have the necessary expertise. This is a bogey being raised to justify allowing foreign law firms into our country. “Indian Judiciary’s role has been lauded all over the world – this is an acknowledgement of Indian legal profession’s brilliance because lawyers make judges. “Moreover in India, legal profession is an integral part of our system of Administration of Justice. We have also a legacy to protect. Can foreigners be inducted into our legislatures or in the executive – then how and why in our justice administration and delivery system. “Legal profession is too sacrosanct to be polluted by deep pockets of foreign governments or foreign lawyers. “Unlike our foreign counter-parts we are not into the Business of law – we are a profession. And our Profession is not for sale. “Lest it be misunderstood, we are not opposed to our brethren in other parts of the world. We have extremely cordial, mutually rewarding and beneficial relations as with the American Bar Association, the Law Society of England and Wales, the French, the Australian and the Japanese Bars. We have exchange of delegations, sharing of information and developments in law and organizing and hosting joint conferences and events. […] “This is the kind of respect India’s legal profession enjoys. There is need for mutual cooperation, assistance and sharing of knowledge which is required among legal fraternities in the world and not taking over or acquisition of Indian legal profession. These maneuvers are resorted to in business and not in professions.” |
|---|
Comments
India is a far more developed jurisdiction than china or africa... indian lawyers in corporate firms servicing banking clients are well versed in the sort of legal documentation that their banking clients expect and require, not to mention having the experience of dealing with regulators in India and advising on Indian law matters (which all financing deals have an element of-particularly in relation to security and its enforcement). how does mr. popham expect that the so called "international lawyers" from CCs to deal with these issues?
besides, most top Indian firms have foreign educated/experienced/qualified lawyers with international experience of working in other jurisdictions - how can popham make the statement that Indian lawyers do not have the experience?
typical British arrogance!
Do they have to be 'internationally experienced' lawyers?
Lets examine that argument now shall we? Without coming across as dismissive of lawyers who work abroad on India law (I think they're brilliant), how are they to be taken as more proficient in the matter of India law than the equally competent lawyers practising in India, when the courts/tribunals which interpret that law, the lawmakers who expound that law and the institutions which enforce them are in India? The best corporate lawyers anywhere have admitted that a significant component of a successful practice is knowing what the law intends and how it is likely to be interpreted by the judges. Getting a glimpse into how certain provisions are likely to be viewed gives you an advantage which all the money spent doing reasearch on international databases cannot. I wish there was a more efficient way of disseminating information about legal developments from India, but no matter how much anyone improves that mechanism, there will ALWAYS be an information asymmetry as long as you are outside India.
While experience anywhere helps, it is primarily experience in Indian law which is required to give Indian law advice. Why can't a law firm go to say a AMSS/AZB/Luthra/JSA and get advice from them? If I need advice on Russian law, I will go to the best Russian law firm and take advice from them. Why does it have to international law firms? It might be true that the fee quote provided might be more competitive if integrated advice was provided on one forum since that will eliminate the time and cost in liaising with different law firms and standardising the final product.
However, it would probably cost the same to have it done by the best firms in each of these countries including the cost a client would expect to have it standardised as the fee quoted by these law firms will be lesser.
International lawyers are special, but they are not the sole repositories of quality advice. It is this arrogant view that probably touches a raw nerve with the Indian law firms that oppose liberalisation. I think liberalisation should be done, but incrementally. And I also think that while SILF's legal arguments for keeping them out are incredible, but that they are right, although for the wrong reasons.
Salaries will NOT increase exponentially (they will not be too generous given that the current salaries are quite competitive), quality of work will most likely improve (as can be expected when competition increases), fees will probably remain the same (anyone that charges a premium over the current market price without offering a commensurate increase in quality will not be engaged by clients and anyone who engages in a price war will probably go under. Foreign law firms will not engage in a price war if they cannot eliminate their rivals within a couple of years and even then, if they cannot provide a reasonable price, then clients will not hire them.)
Clearly the status quo has to change, but not in favour of outright liberalisation. It should be on our terms and the foreign law firms should be made to give committments as to the kind of work they will do, the number of graduates they will hire, their plans for expansion in India and how they plan to use their office as not only a place to serve India but regions beyond so as to promote the development of India as not only a place to do business but also the promotion of India as a formidable hub. They should be made to have tie ins with Indian law schools and should be made to offer mandatory internships to a selection of A grade Indian a students.
We should extract our pound of flesh to ensure that the entry of foreign law firms is also turned into an opportunity to improve the state of legal education in India.
But why does LI always give so much publicity to the views of Mr Bhasin? Not all SILF members are opposed to liberalisation, such as Zia Mody and Som Mandal. There is clearly a split within SILF. Why don't you highlight this? This is biased reporting. It is also most unfortunate that Mr Bhasin has said that British firms will "pollute" the Indian legal system. Can I not highlight all the hostile witness cases and say that Indian lawyers are the biggest pollutants? And let us not fool ourselves into thinking that Indian lawyers are Gandhians who are not money-minded. Just got to the legal aid societies of the various NLUs and ask them how many law firms have contributed money to them. Indian lawyers are probably the most money-minded.
Macaulay taught us to talk English and reject our culture. If UK firms come our rich tradition of values will go. Youth will start demanding money from seniors.
I'll also call you 'beta' and hug you - okay, does that do it? Fine, you can get me chai while you are at it.
Deal?
*rofl* deadly ramblings, whateguy !!
"I have a very bad mouth and I abuse them in English, Hindi and Bangla! Though I slap them even now, earlier I used to beat them with their leather belt too."
http://kolkatamirror.com/index.aspx?page=article§id=9&contentid=2009102220091022165445265ca0c6036§xslt=&pageno=1
The foreign law firms will "pollute" our profession by giving better wages and treating juniors well. That is the real reason why SILF and the BCI oppose foreign law firms.
Shri Lalit Bhasin is totally right. Only a small elite section is against him. Remember even Gandhiji was opposed by elite Indians when he called for British to leave India. Indian lawyers should not think abotu money. Law is not a business. All elite lawyers are wanting big salaries. I feel Rs 10,000 per month is more than enough starting salary in a firm. It is wrong to expect any payment from senior advocates. The knowledge they will give you is best payment.
Two companies, based in India and incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 are entering into a contract, which will be performed in India. Lawyers based in India but working for a foreign-owned LPO are advising on this contract.
Is that allowed under current law? Esp. after the Lawyers Collective judgment. And if yes, then what is all the fuss Clifford Chance etc are making. They can do the same under the guise of an LPO.
Your comments/expert opinion welcome (see, I have an open mind!).