Indian court dismisses challenge to presence of international law firms
International law firms should not be prevented from visiting India to advise local clients on foreign law, an Indian high court has confirmed. The ruling comes in response to a petition questioning the legality of 'fly-in, fly-out' legal practices by foreign law firms as well as legal process outsourcing operations based on the ground in India.
February 22, 2012 at 07:40 AM
3 minute read
International law firms should not be prevented from visiting India to advise local clients on foreign law, an Indian high court has confirmed.
The ruling comes in response to a petition questioning the legality of 'fly-in, fly-out' legal practices by foreign law firms as well as legal process outsourcing operations based on the ground in India.
The case was brought by Association of Indian Lawyers representative AK Balaji against the Government of India, the Bar Council of India and a list of more than 20 law firm defendants, including all of the UK's magic circle.
The judgment, handed down by the high court in Madras yesterday (21 February), concluded that foreign law firms or foreign lawyers cannot practice law in India either on the litigation or non-litigation side, but that there is no bar for foreign firms or lawyers to visit India on a temporary basis to advise locally-based clients on foreign law issues.
The court also said that foreign lawyers can enter India to handle "arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration."
In a statement, Clifford Chance said: "We think it is unclear whether the court is saying that foreign lawyers cannot otherwise practise non Indian law in India. If that is the case, we consider it to be unnecessarily and unreasonably restrictive and we believe would be a misreading of the Advocates Act, which we do not believe was ever intended to address the question of the practise of non Indian Law. We will be considering whether an appeal to get clarity on these points is appropriate.
"What also remains to be addressed by the Indian authorities is the bigger issue of collaboration and partnership between Indian lawyers and international law firms, and of international firms advising on Indian as well as non Indian law."
The news comes after the Bar Council of India last year agreed to set out a timeline for the liberalisation of its legal market, prompting the Law Society of England and Wales to proclaim it was confident that the long-awaited process was finally underway.
The liberalisation of the Indian legal market has been long-awaited by UK firms with international ambitions, with many firms having been forced to walk a regulatory tightrope with regards to what foreign lawyers are permitted to do in the country.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on the 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLetter From Asia: Will Big Law Ever Bother to Understand Asia Again?
Simpson Thacher, Nishimura, Mori Hamada Assist on KKR's $4B Winning Bid in Japan
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250