Indian law society attacks 'sell out to global players'

If the Indian law society does not want to open up their legal profession to global partnerships, then tough luck, don't force them, leave them alone and go to other countries. The African economy is in need of FDI in white collar professions, especially law. it will encourage legal transplants and spill-overs that will change their societies for the better at least, so their governments can make good laws that will improve the lives of poor people.The West has seldom looked down on African economies as a natural resource-only base and Asia/Americas as a human resource base - it is about time it went the other way round.

paralegal -02 Apr 2009 | 17:41

Opening up the legal market in India will seek to increase the overall legal pie for all and increase the competencies of the local India lawyers. This fear by the Indian law society is unfounded. Take for example China legal services, which have benefited from foreign law firms.

Anonymous -06 Apr 2009 | 15:22

A few facts why India would not want to open its legal sector to foreigners, especially to the UK... How many foreign lawyers would be able to speak or understand Hindi or for that fact any of the other 22 official languages of India other than English (I can assure you that many Indians are more than competent when it comes to English);Indians account for 2% of the UK population but almost none of the Judiciary despite having been part of the population for 5 decades;Indians find it almost impossible to get a pupillage to become a barrister, other than for low value PI work; and,whether we admit it or not, many 'traditional' lawyers have negative stereotypes about Indians.Therefore I regret to say that India should only play fair once you do.

Anon -06 Apr 2009 | 17:41

The Anonymous post about India playing fair once the UK almost implies that Indians are discriminated against in the British legal system in terms of employment. I wonder if the writer has any empirical evidence to substantiate his claims that it is 'impossible' for an Indian to get a pupillage. In the other side of the profession (ie solicitors), Indians seem to be doing very well. I am of Indian origin myself and had little trouble in securing a training contract - in fact a disproportionate amount in my intake are Indian.

MCTrainee -07 Apr 2009 | 11:41

The post about discrimination against Indians in the legal profession is no longer true (and has not been for some time). If anything, people of Asian origin are disproprotionately highly represented in the junior ranks and this will inevitably impact the senior ranks in a few years' time. Of Indian origin myself, I have never felt any discrimination.The stance by the Society of Indian lawyers is protectionist, pure and simple. The top Indian firms are afraid that their cozy partnership arrangements involving family members will not stand up to the scrutiny of modern management principles. There is also no doubt that, notwithstanding the technical expertise of Indian lawyers, there is a real gap in delivery standards, where Indian-trained lawyers can certainly learn from UK/US lawyers.

Anonymous -08 Apr 2009 | 12:10

I definitely understand the insecurity of the national law firms and their top counsels when the topic arises about international law firms entering India. This same Lalit Bhasin, a couple of years ago in an ASSOCHAM conference stressed the importance of international law firms entering India. But after a few high profile departures from Indian firms, e.g. the departure of Rahul Guptan from Amarchand to Clifford Chance, the Bhasins and the Shroffs are singing reverse. Besides, top professional service firms have large operations in India, top consulting firms operate here, lot of US and European Investment Banking operations are the vogue of the day, then why not international law firms? Besides, most of the top international players have considerable Indian presence, be it the US bigshots like Skadden or Sullivan & Cromwell or the UK Magic Circle, or other top players like Norton Rose, Ashurst, DLA Piper and so on. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to let them enter the Indian market, of course it will slash the monopoly of the Shroffs, Bhasins, Luthras and Modis.

National Law University -09 Apr 2009 | 20:48

Let the market do its work in a global setting. If the Indian Bar does not want to open the market to foreign firms, the clients may have to call the shots. By anonymous tendering Indian clients can get price transparency for legal services. In a country where bargaining is an art, all clients can pay a market price (fixed fee) for the services of outside counsel. The European/US experience is that legal fees can be reduced by 30%-70% compared to hourly billing. If the work goes to foreign firms so be it, but in this global world monopolies of the legal profession will not be everlasting.

Paul de Jonge, President, Legal BenchMarket, The Hague/Washington DC -14 Apr 2009 | 20:37

Let there be a quid pro quo. As that would be a fair and square way of dealing with this. Indian lawyers are not recognized in Europe/US and are required to pass certain exams before they can practise. Ditto in India. So, what is the issue about? Are we saying that a European/US lawyer is pre-equipped to practise in India (without any formal knowledge of Indian law!)??? There is no bar on foreign lawyers to practise if they take the bar exam - as Indian lawyers do abroad. So, what was the issue about then?

Seema -15 Apr 2009 | 06:54

Seema's comment is a frightening display of her ignorance of the issues involved!Firstly, India does not have any central or state-level bar exams for qualifying as an 'advocate'. The 'Solicitors' exams held by the Bombay Law Incorporated Society (which is a an association -again, not statutory, but like a guild - of advocates) are not a statutory requirement either. Secondly, the issue here is the setting up of foreign law firms to provide legal services in India, which has been simmering since the mid-1990s, when foreign law firms were allowed to set up liaison offices in India. Liaison offices cannot undertake revenue generating activities but can only undertake marketing, etc. Therefore, even if the market is opened up to foreign law firms to set up and operate in India (and not just as liaison offices), whether or not they can practise Indian law (as opposed to English/New York law) is a completely different question. Singapore, for example, opened up its shores for foreign firms to set up to practise foreign law in the 80s, and is only now considering opening up the practice of Singapore law to six foreign firms who have been granted limited licences to practise some aspects of Singapore law (not including litigation, family law, etc). Maybe India needs to follow the Singapore model? I can't see a problem with foreign law firms being permitted to practise foreign law and based in India (though this would only be for a limited clientele: large Indian corporates with overseas subsidiaries and therefore requiring foreign law advice). A second step could be opening up of the practice of limited aspects of Indian law to suitably-qualified lawyers of such foreign firms. The vast majority of Indian lawyers in India are sole practitioners in areas such as family law and civil litigation, and their interest is not affected if foreign law firms were allowed to practise sophisticated aspects of corporate, finance and banking law in India.

Indian lawyer -22 Apr 2009 | 08:31