A thinktank said that any plans for economic reforms may have lost momentum as the Congress-led government is preparing for the state elections, lacks consensus and would struggle forcing through legislation, reported the Economic Times . Legal market liberalisation was not expressly mentioned in th...

T

he Bar Council of India’s (BCI) ambitious weekend meeting decided to introduce draft lawyers’ ethics guidelines in two days and how to begin decreasing the number of law colleges in India. But due to time constraints the body had to postpone its decision on the entry of foreign law firms in respect of the Chennai writ petition, as well as Trilegal’s queries about converting to a limited liability partnership (LLP).

Senior advocate and parliamentarian Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Dua Associates-led group of US firms in the Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign law firms today, asking the court to adjourn until after the Bar Council of India (BCI) would take a decisive stance this weekend.

The government appears to have scrapped plans to move the Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign law firms to the Supreme Court, as law firms Dua Associates and Kachwaha & Partners alongside a raft of senior counsel appeared for nine US firms, Slaughter and May, the LPO Integreon, and two Australian firms.

The petitioner’s plea for an injunction against the foreign firms was stayed for two weeks until the government and foreign firms could formulate responses.

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.

Clifford Chance senior partner Stuart Popham is the law firm representative on British prime minister David Cameron’s India delegation this week, representing the UK legal and financial professional services community as head of a new trade body.

It appears there is just no winning in India for foreign law firms.

As though the opposition to them practising law here is not enough, the Indian Revenue Services (IRS) too are making their life hard.

The Indian government will attempt to move the Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign firms to the Supreme Court in order to take a “broader perspective” and make a “final decision” on the entry of foreign law firms said law minister Veerappa Moily, according to newspaper reports.

As the Madras High Court decided on Wednesday (7 July) to serve 31 foreign law firms with the petition that seeks to prevent them from operating in India, respondent firms and local corporate lawyers have expressed confidence that firms’ India businesses would remain largely unaffected.

The 31 international law firms and one legal process outsourcing (LPO) company will now be served with notices to defend the Chennai writ petition that aims to prevent foreign firms practising any law in India.

Today, as the petitioner pressed for an injunction against the foreign firms, the government respondents’ counsels asked for time to file responses while the law ministry and Bar Council of India would “frame guidelines” on the issue.

The Union law minister Veerapa Moily has publicly said for the first time that the entry of foreign law firms was more of a “transitional problem” rather than “perennial” and that minds should not be shut to “big ideas”, while reasserting the need for “proper capacity building”.

All government respondents have now formally filed their representations through senior counsels in the Chennai writ petition case against foreign law firms when the matter was listed for hearing on 9 June after the end of one month of Madras High Court vacations on 7 June.

The entry of foreign law firms into Singapore has been a long and rocky road, littered with failed experiments and moderate successes. So what can India learn from Singapore’s incremental legal market liberalisation, Legally India asked Indiana University law professor and Asia law firm expert Jayanth Krishnan.

Legal process outsourcing (LPO) companies have come under the spotlight after the the recent Balaji Chennai High Court writ petition and the Bombay High Court’s decision in the Lawyers Collective v. Ashurst case. The cases have created significant uncertainty, argues SDD Global’s Sanjay Bhatia, although for the most part it has been a false alarm for LPOs.

The first hearing in the Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign law firms has run into the Madras High Court holidays and will not be heard for at least another month, although several other interested parties have now also pledged to file affidavits in support of the petition.

Few things showcase the globalisation of India’s legal industry more than this week’s volcano eruption in Iceland, which kept at least three Indian managing partners best known by their first names out of India and stuck in New York.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has been pivotal in the debate on the entry of foreign law firms. The Solicitor general and newly elected BCI chairman Gopal Subramaniam tells Legally India about what has to happen before foreign lawyers can practice here.

A Tamil Nadu advocate has reportedly filed a writ petition against 30 foreign law firms and legal process outsourcing (LPO) company Integreon for “illegally practising” law in violation of the Advocates Act 1961, according to unconfirmed media reports, although no notices have been served on the respondents yet.

Ashurst has decided to close its Delhi liaison office following the outcome of the Lawyers Collective case. However, the office closure was already on the cards two months before the judgment, according to the firm.

This week J Sagar Associates (JSA) partner Nishith Dhruva left the firm to set up his own practice. And on good terms too, throwing a party last Friday where most of the firm and partners put on their dancing shoes.

Now that is what is called “amicable”.