Commerce ministry Rajeev Kher held a press conference yesterday, saying that the government had begun talks about opening up the transactional legal services sector and India-based international arbitration, having drawn in law firm lobby group Society of Indian Law Firms (Silf) and the regulator Bar Council of India (BCI).
The PTI reported
“We have taken a note on legal services to Committee of Secretaries (CoS). The CoS will talk about it shortly,” Kher told reporters here.
The Hindu wrote that Kher said that the proposal could be approved by the COS by early July, after which it would get sent to the Union Cabinet headed by prime minister Narendra Modi.
“The Bar Council of India, which regulates the legal fraternity, and the Society of Indian Law Firms, which represents the interests of large law firms, have, in principle, agreed to the proposal.”
However, the Times of India added:
Kher’s comments, however, indicate that the discussions are preliminary in nature.
…
“There is a need to bring in certain amount of competition in the sector. But the area of litigation will not be opened up,” Kher said. He added that entities such as SILF were broadly converging on the idea that there was a need to open up the sector but in a calibrated fashion.
The Business Standard reported on reciprocity:
This also entails India clinching mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) with partner countries that will result in the latter recognising the qualification and licensing requirements.
“Unless MRAs are there, professional services do not take off. And, these MRAs get stuck on qualification issues,” Kher said.
According to the Hindu, the issue would also be discussed when for the first time in two years trade talks would resume, which would also include a number of other topics:
India and the European Union will resume negotiations in August on the proposed Free Trade Agreement. “Both sides have agreed that negotiators must meet … The EU chief negotiator will be available for negotiations sometime in August,” he said.
Society of Indian Law Firms (Silf) president Lalit Bhasin told PTI that Indian law firms should be allowed to have websites, brochure and advertise first: “We have suggested that the foreign law firms should be allowed in phased manners, which would take 5 to 7 years.”
Legally India reported with Mint in March that SILF dropped its long-standing unequivocal resistance to liberalisation after faced with the government’s strong stance to open up quickly, floating an extended five to seven year timeline in its draft roadmap for the process it submitted to the ministry.
Confirming Legally India’s March report, the Hinduwrote that “the government was keen on announcing the liberalised policy in January during the visit of U.S. President Barack Obama. However, the move was postponed after resistance from the domestic legal services industry”.
Comments
Also, the attitude of SILF is becoming nauseating. Just how much desperate for mountains of wealth can they be? These owners keep telling the junior lawyers to work hard to succeed, well now is the time for these guys to work hard at keeping their flock together. Threats and intimidation tactics to extract maximum work may not work for long...
do you know which all foreign firms have plans to open offices in India once the sector open up?
Although, something to consider - the first few ones to come here will likely face a writ petition or two, no matter what the new law might say :)
pretty please??
Was running out of obscure metaphorical pictures to use to illustrate these stories, we'll be going for a few cheeky pictures going forward :)
http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/legal-market-liberalisation-investigation-into-lobbying-and-policy
Even if they do implement reforms, there'll be at least 7 writ petitions filed in various parts of India for various reasons.
I think if they make a new Advocates Act and amendment or so that they have to get through parliament, it could actually end up being a very slow process of longer than 2 years, despite Modi's majority.
What would be faster is if the BCI decides to cooperate, because I think they have some powers under the Advocates Act to allow some countries' advocates to practice here (reciprocally etc). I.e., make the foreigners pass the AIBE or transfer test, or whatever. They could issue a blanket resolution for 20+ countries that allow Indians to become lawyers there if taking certain tests, and allow a reciprocal arrangement with India.
I don't remember anything in the AA includes anything preventing foreign lawyers sharing profits with domestic lawyers (though many often claim there is this restriction). Is it in case law or just general extrapolation of principles of the AA?
Also the BCI could issue the order allowing limited advertising or whatever else SILF requires, surely, just as the Delhi BC relaxed website-ownership for lawyers?
Government could make sure LLP 20+ partner rule recognised by all local Company's Registrars (Bombay is still holding out I believe but in Delhi you can already do LLPs and 20+ partnerships fairly easily, for instance).
Could any of these be workable, legally, or would a new law have to get passed?
Please do read the Advocates Act and let me know what you think:
http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Advocates-Act1961.pdf
Do you have any update on A K Balaji case?
Any update on the representation regarding CAs encroaching lawyer's area of practice? The last interview of Mr Lalit Bhasin was all about that.
Allowing Indian law firms to convert to LLP and to have a website is fine, many already have this, but lets not allow them to get too greedy!
To make a mockery of the system, they are [b]equating 'individual lawyers' to 'law firms'[/b], the so called phased manner note states that foreign countries should allow 'Indian lawyers' to practice in their countries then only foreign 'law firms' can be allowed. This basically means, while 'Indian law firms' continue to open law firms abroad, foreign law firms cannot be allowed on the pretext that 'indian lawyers' cannot (by default) practice in foreign countries.
This is like saying, KPMG/E&Y cannot open offices in India, until Indian Chartered Accountants and Cost Accountants can by default (without passing required specific exams of foreign countries)practice in that foreign country.
[b]Comparing apple (individual lawyers) to orange (law firms)!!! [/b]
One cannot expect much from SILF given that it is to protect vested interest of 'law firms' and not 'indian lawyers'. It is for this reason (read double standards) that [b]eminent lawyer Mr. Harish Salve is supporting Indian lawyers as against 'Indian law firms' [/b] on this nicely cooked up contention! see http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/harish-salve-entry-of-foreign-lawyers-will-make-indian-lawyers-better-only-some-domestic-firms-oppose
However a compromise solution can be this:
1. Foreign law firms cannot do litigation
2. They cannot poach junior lawyers from advocates. Or, a person joining a foreign law firm must first work for a trial court/high court advocate for 3-4 years.
3. Students from good law schools who join foreign law firms should pay back Rs 20 lakhs to the government, which is the real cost of education in the national law colleges.
Foreign firms ahoy!