The first hearing in the Chennai writ petition against foreign firms will be held today, after having been postponed from yesterday as the bench failed to convene for a post-lunch session.
The petition was filed by a Madras advocate A K Balaji on behalf of the “Association of Indian Lawyers” and alleges 31 foreign law firms and a legal process outsourcing (LPO) company are practising law illegally in India.
It was listed for its first hearing before a division bench comprising of Chief Justice Hemant Laxman Gokhale and Justice V Dhanapalan of the Madras High Court as item no. 94 yesterday (8 April).
However, the judges retired for the day after adjudicating 30 cases although the rest remained unheard during the first half of the court’s proceedings.
Balaji told Legally India: “[The hearing] is likely to come up for hearing either tomorrow or the day after. The writ petition was admitted and respondents 1 to 8 were issued notice. The rest of the respondents will be served notice based on reply filed by the Government.”
He explained that the petition was filed in his individual name on behalf of the Association of Indian Lawyers, which is still undergoing registration as a society in West Bengal.
The petition was listed for filing of the Government’s reply, which is one of the first eight respondents that also includes secretaries of various departments, the Reserve Bank of India, the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
Although respondents 1 to 8 have so far been served with notice, it is understood that none of the foreign firms have yet been served with a copy of the writ.
The general counsel of several of the named foreign firms are dealing with the writ petition and it is understood they have been liaising with each other to formulate a response, pending the outcome of the hearing and whether the writ will be admitted with the foreign firms as co-respondents.
Several of the foreign firms contacted declined to comment at this stage.
Senior counsel A R L Sundersan is the representing the petitioner and P Chandrasekaran is listed as representing the first six respondents.
Explaining his reasoning for bringing the writ petition, Balaji said that he and the Association of Indian Lawyers wanted to restore the “glory” of the legal profession.
“As an association of Indian lawyers,” he said, “we have taken this initiative and right now we’re focussing on opposing the entry of foreign law firms. Subsequently, we will file more of such [public interest litigations] PILs for the benefit the legal community.”
“Our members not confined to Tamil Nadu or Kolkata alone and more and more lawyers are joining us from all over India,” he said.
The writ petition is names 31 US, UK, French, Australian and other international firms, as well as LPO Integreon, as practising law in India in violation of the Advocates Act 1961.
Balaji argued in his affidavit submitted to the court that “some of the international law firms has their office in India and practices Indian law by calling themselves as LPO. They are running a law firm in India without obtaining any prior permission from Indian government and the concern authorities. Here they are taking protection under the guise of LPO. This is complete violation of our country’s Income Tax laws, Immigration laws, RBI rules & regulations, Bar council of India rules, Advocate’s Act, and etc. This kind of activities of foreign law firms have to be found and blacklisted.”
His affidavit continued: “So far as the Advocates on the rolls of the State Bar Council are concerned, [Indian firms] are subjected to various restrictions as the profession is treated as a noble profession in the country and is not treated as a trade or a business. However, so far as Lawyers and Law Firms from outside the Territory of India are concerned, they are treating it as a business venture, a trade and a money spinner rather than a noble profession which is intended to serve the society and the social cause.”
The firms mentioned in the affidavit are, in the order listed: Rouse; Ashurst; Kelley Drye & Warren; Kennedys; DeHeng Law Office; White & Case; Linklaters; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Allen & Overy; Clifford Chance; Wilmer Hale; Shearman & Sterling; Herbert Smith; Slaughter and May; Hogan & Hartson; Davis Polk & Wardwell; Eversheds; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison; Norton Rose; Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman; Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati; Arnold & Porter; Covington & Burling; Perkins Coie; Loyens & Loeff; Freehills; Clayton Utz; Mayer Brown; Clyde & Co; and Bird and Bird.
Integreon is the only named LPO provider on the list.
On 16 December 2009 the Bombay High Court had ruled in the Lawyers Collective case that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) should not have granted three foreign firms licences to open up liaison offices in India and that the firms had been “practising law” in violation of the Advocates Act.
Comments
Couldn't be arsed enough to comment on the petition itself. Any response would be dignifying the logic behind the petition. Absolutely absurd.
Balaji's insular mindset is evident from the first para of his petition, where he mentions his religion as "Hindu". What can you say of a lawyer who mentions his religion in a petition opposing foreign law firms?
and, of course, the communists, who law firm bigwigs vilify on CNBC for being "anti-reform"...haha what a ****ing joke
I want to visit this Territory of India... where senior advocates don't charge exorbitant fees running into lakhs...because they are serving the society and the social cause!!
I want to visit this Territory of India..... where corporate law firms dont charge thousands by the hour because they are all busy doing pro-bono work!!!
Balaji bhaiyya....jai ho !!!
"international law firms has(!) their office in India and practices(!) Indian law "
"They are running a(!) law firm"
"the concern(!) authorities"
"Advocate’s Act, and(!) etc"...by the way, what is etc.? Being a lawyer himself, shoud he not spell out which statutes are being violated?
"This(!) kind of activities of foreign law firms have to be found"...funny sentence, anyway
No wonder this guy doesn't want foreign law firms in India. With such superbly great quality of petitions drafted by him (and his association members), who would want to retain a foreign lawyer anyway.
In any event, using your own twisted and protectionist logic, LPO operations are carried out by Indian law graduates, who, you may be surprised to hear, are qualified to practice law.
If you insist on arguing that Law under the Advocates means all law, then only Indian qualified advocates would be able to practice New York law. Illogical isn't it?
Is your secretary practicing law when you give him or her a document to draft? Are bankers and company representatives practicing law when they negotiate a contract? Would you be practicing medicine if you administered a bandage over a cut finger? When are you going to see the logic?
As you are probably aware No. 7 - Indian law firms can practice Indian law in the UK and other jurisdictions for that matter, and have been doing so for many years, but that plainly has nothing to do with LPO operations in India.
If US and UK legal regulatory authorities are fine with components of their legal work being outsourced to India, which are then vetted by their own lawyers, then why should the Bar Council of India have any say in it? There are no Indian consumers at risk, and frankly, it has nothing to do with them.
On a policy level, it may be correct to say that the Indian legal profession needs to open up to foreign elements. However, in so far as courts are concerned, it is the existing law that is to be interpreted. It is fair that no one should comment upon the matter till disposal. Nonetheless, it is open to member of the legal profession and the political class to bring the necessary changes in the existing legislation to facilitate the entry of foreign law firms. I believe it is important that people lobbying for entry of foreign law firms should not be lose focus but work hard to achieve their objectives. Good luck to the ones opposing the entry of foreign law firms and also to ones striving to make that happen - after all it is interesting to see highly intellectual people debate and fight.
While petitions like this seek to prohibit the entry of foreign law firms in India, you cannot deny the fact that it provides a base for those in favour to voice their opinions as well. Eventually it is the legislature that can bring this to a meaningful conclusion.
tell me which provision of Indian law requires people not to comment upon a factual/legal situation just beacuse this PIL has been admitted? is that what #13 advises his/her clients?
BTW The SILF and its leaders (and not the BCI, mind you) will be in US next week to discuss opening up of Indian legal market to US firms. Maybe #13 should try to prevent his/her own SILF bretheren desist from discussing the opening up Indian legal sector with the Americans.
http://www.abanet.org/intlaw/spring2010/agenda_lawpractice.html
it's just not the Balajis of the country who need to open their mind. The self proclaimed leaders who portray themselves are "experts" too need to be told to live and let live.
poor balaji....lets not be too harsh no him.....he has been very nicely put up......the range as demonstrated in his petition from hinduism to Integreon to Bird & Bird are enough pointers that he was appropriately tutored.
But seriously, I don't think the matter is "sub judice" until the Court figures out what the petitioner's grievance is! And even then, what is to stop anyone from speaking their mind? Does anyone hold off on saying that "that %^&^ Ajmal Kassab should be hanged" because the "matter is sub judice"? I can see how the other branches of government should shut up so as not to cross the "separation of powers" line, but the general public? Come on!
I wonder what the mood will be at the LCIA India inaugural in Bombay next week will be. I don't expect anyone to say, "Oh, we're fine with Bombay lawyers, thank you very much. We can do fine without English lawyers even when the governing law of the contract is English law because, err... we're India and only Indian advocates can practice law here".
The one thing that really riled me about the affidavit was its use of blatant lies and logical fallacies. It is claimed that it is the US and UK that discriminate against Indian lawyers, and not the other way around. Plus some rubbish about how Indians can't get visas to work in the UK. Hmm... makes one wonder how many English solicitors or US attorneys practise in India, and how many of them are UK / US citizens who are in India on work visas?! They must all share a name: Balaji Genghis Khan, and must come to life when Balaji goes to bed every night.
India has always produced great lawyers / judges ! True, however, the world is changing! We need structural growth with not just one name in the firm flourishing! Equal opportunity is something which Indian (family centric) firms may not offer. End of the day, it is a lawyer who is getting a better opportunity... right! Is is absolutely essential for all law graduates to work with a senior without getting paid for the first 2 years. How does he manage! He goes to law firm which offers him better amenities, better money, better growth! With foreign firms coming in, all of it changes degrees of superlatives. End of the day, it is a personal choice of the lawyer to decide where he wants to earn his livelihood!
Therefore techinically, the licence raj is still continuing in India, at least in the legal domain!
The call is for change, a progressive change wherein the market is left for the best people to manage! Good systems, good lawyers, happy lawyers is what a client expects for this work to continue and be handled perfectly!
I totally agree with you on the second point, but disagree on the first point. The fact that he still uses a vestige of colonial procedure is indicative of a larger antiquated swadeshi mindset -- how many young, westernised lawyers in Delhi/Bombay/ Calcutta use such language while writing petitions unrelated to personal law? In the the 1990s, the swadeshi (and communist) anti-reform lobby was relegated to the dustbin of history. Too bad the swadeshi lawyer lobby still exists...hopefully not for long.
Murali
You seem to have a closed mindset. Not all errants are unnoble. Our fight for independance was illegal but definitely noble. You need to understand that lawyers are not monthly salaried. You can therefore imagine how much they suffer during strike. Firstly I want to make it clear that I personally do not justify strikes because a person in need of justice may be delayed (Justice delayed is Justice Denied). But when you are talking of nobility its different my friend. It is funny that a learned person like you is not able to feel the plight of brothers and sisters in sri lanka. Will you keep quite if Govt decided that there are terrorists in Assam and therefore bomb and kill all the assamese if your family lived in assam. It is absurd to say the least. Is it right to rampantly kill humans just because someone feels that you may be a terrorist. Put yourself in their shoes, only then you will understand. The whole exersice was intended to pressurise the govt to atleast to exercise humanity and compassion to fellow humans. What is unnoble about it. However, It is illegal and the errants will be dealt with legally. If you have anything to say there is a method to address your grievances. Dont cast baseless aspersions.
Aberrations are everywhere. Likewise lawyers may have become greedy and money oriented. but then who is not. But never go against the lawyers love and compassion for fellow humans. That is one thing that they value the most. That is why you run to a lawyers and approach courts when somebody wrongs you.
What ridiculously inane arguments!! Do they have ANY authority to support what they are arguing?? If you have good legal arguments supported by primary or secondary authority - fine - raise them and the court will pay attention to you. But arguments like "we will lose our importance" and "legal services will become beyond the reach of common man" are arguments that an illiterate, ignorant non-lawyer or a middle school kid in a debate competition will make.
This reminds me of a similar incident over a decade ago before the Karnataka High Court. Another group of women lawyers had challenged a government notification making the wearing of helmets compulsory by two wheeler riders. In their petition, some of the arguments the women lawyers raised were that wearing helmets will affect their hair style, and that wearing helmets is extremely uncomfortable for women!!
I'm not trying to ridicule women here. Both - the Tamil Nadu Bar and the Karnataka Bar have some fantastic women lawyers. The point is - if you want to be taken seriously in a writ petition - you need to argue on the basis of law - not emotions.
Legal Dodo