Last week British lawyers made a push for India again with Lord Chancellor and justice secretary Ken Clarke turning up with entourage and rekindling the liberalisation talks that had become a little tepid of late. But are they following the right strategy?

Exclusive interview: Following a high-powered UK delegation’s meeting with the Indian law minister and the Bar Council of India (BCI), ex-Allen & Overy (A&O) partner and current Law Society of England & Wales president John Wotton says he is optimistic about the progress of Indian legal market liberalisation.

He is not the first foreign lawyer to have felt that way.

Yesterday’s closed-door afternoon meeting between UK justice secretary Kenneth Clarke, Indian law minister Salman Kursheed and Bar Council of India (BCI) chairman Ashok Parija stopped short of reaching an agreement on the entry of foreign law firms but the countries would trial cooperation on the legal education front for the next six months.

In the seemingly never ending story of Indian legal market liberalisation a new player has entered the field.

Kenneth Clarke, the UK’s Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor who will visit India in the coming weeks, said at a speech today that it was in the interests of Indian business to open up the legal sector to foreign law firms or suffer because of “restricted domestic legal provision”.

The Bar Council of India’s (BCI) counter-affidavit filed in the AK Balaji Chennai case against 31 foreign law firms said that the BCI has decided not to relax the restrictions prohibiting foreign lawyers from practising and that the issue raised by the writ was “no longer res integra” because it had been settled in the 2009 Lawyers Collective case.

Legally India understands that the BCI’s thinking is that internal disparities at the Indian bar need to be eradicated through reform before making any decision on foreign firms.

The writ petition against 31 foreign law firms in Chennai has been adjourned to 19 April following the Bar Council of India (BCI) having failed to hold a meeting to discuss the legal position of foreign lawyers.

Law minister Veerappa Moily admitted that the entry of foreign firms could be good for business if local lawyers were allowed to build capacity before an “onslaught from the rest of the world” and that he had seen 80 national law school graduates prosper at London firms, in a revealing interview with the Mint paper today, adding that the door was still open to transfer the Chennai writ petition against foreign firms to the Supreme Court.

Arguing that legal education should be taken away from the BCI, he denied that the Bar Council of India (BCI) should feel threatened by the Legal Practitioner’s Bill.

In a letter to BCI chairman Gopal Subramanium, American Bar Association (ABA) president N Zack urged the Bar Council of India (BCI) to maintain “status quo” when discussing the entry of foreign law firms tomorrow (29 January).

Senior advocate and former additional solicitor general Abhishek Manu Singhvi yesterday argued for an early disposal of the Chennai writ petition against foreign law firms while the matter was once again adjourned after the Bar Council of India (BCI) counsel promised comprehensive guidelines regulating the activities of foreign law firms would be discussed at a meeting before the month-end.

Clifford Chance India head Chris Wyman has retired from the law after spending 16 months on secondment at the offices of Indian best friend AZB & Partners. Clifford Chance Singapore office head Geraint Hughes will succeed Wyman as India practice head.

The Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign law firms was taken up today after having last been heard on 5 October but has again been adjourned to 25 January 2011 following the Central Government’s plea to seek broader consultation with foreign firms and an impending all India bar councils’ meeting.

The proposed Legal Services Board has elicited mixed reactions from legal practitioners on CNBC-TV18’s The Firm last week, with Rajiv Luthra noting that state bar councils do need tighter regulation in some manner, Lalit Bhasin and Karan Bhosale arguing that the existing regulators can already do the job and MP Bharucha predicting that it could facilitate the entry of foreign law firms.

Responding in writing to a question in the Indian parliament law minister Veerappa Moily stated that there were no proposals to allow foreign firms into India.

Discussions to allow foreign law firms to operate in India were dropped during US President Barack Obama’s state visit to India, said two US law firm partners who were part of the delegation.

The Law Ministry has issued two statements on behalf of the Bar Council of India (BCI) that the regulatory body “has decided not to permit foreign lawyers into India” but was subject to “rational scrutiny”, despite the BCI not having discussed the issue at the BCI’s three previous meets.

The Solicitors Regulations Authority (SRA) has not yet received the completed survey for India to be included in the England & Wales Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) but the Bar Council of India (BCI) assured it was an “urgent matter” and would be completed “as soon as possible”.

Who are the players in the saga around legal market liberalisation? And do those in favour actually care enough to make a difference? Legally India talks to the opposing factions and finds out why no progress has been made - and if any is around the corner.

Indian qualified lawyers will currently not be able to apply to practise law in England and Wales under the new Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) since yesterday (1 September), due to an oversight by the Bar Council of India (BCI), said the countries’ Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA).

The law ministry is considering setting up a law firm regulator with a code of conduct to govern law firms in order to end the “free environment without any regulations”, reported the Hindustan Times.