Top UK firms to appear before Indian Supreme Court as push for market liberalisation continues
Firms including CC, Linklaters and HSF to put forward argument for 'fly-in, fly-out' practice
January 12, 2018 at 07:06 AM
3 minute read
A line-up of top UK law firms including Clifford Chance (CC), Linklaters and Herbert Smith Freehills (HSF) are set to appear before the Supreme Court of India next week, in the latest round of the long-running battle to open up the country's legal market to foreign lawyers.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) argued this week before the nation's top court, appealing a 2012 decision that saw the Supreme Court reaffirm a lower court decision to allow foreign lawyers to visit India on a 'fly-in, fly-out' basis and give advice on non-Indian law matters.
Next week, firms including CC, Linklaters, HSF, Norton Rose Fulbright, Ashurst, Clyde & Co, Eversheds Sutherland and Bird & Bird will appear before the court to put forward their case.
The case of Bar Council of India v AK Balaji & Ors has been a major roadblock to progress in the push for liberalisation of the Indian legal market. The BCI has insisted that discussion about the forms in which foreign law firms can operate in the country must wait until the case is decided.
The Indian Government has reportedly been planning to allow foreign firms to set up in the country's Special Economic Zones, where they will be permitted to give non-Indian law advice.
The BCI's main objection against the AK Balaji decision, initially issued by the Madras High Court in Chennai, was that the court allowed foreign lawyers to handle international commercial arbitration work, as well as advising on matters in which Indian lawyers may not have expertise.
The BCI considered both activities as the "practice of the profession of law", and should be regulated under its rules and the country's Advocates Act 1961.
The origin of the case dates back more than two decades, when foreign firms such as White & Case and Ashurst were licensed to have offices in India.
In 1995, a Mumbai-based professional organisation called Lawyers Collective challenged the foreign firms' Indian offices before the Bombay High Court. The court decided against the foreign firms, citing the 1961 law which prohibited non-Indian citizens from being admitted to practice in the country.
The foreign firms appealed the decision the next year to the Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the Bombay court. Thirteen years later, in late 2009, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that foreign law firm offices were unlawful.
However, the 2009 decision did not address the issue of foreign lawyers practising foreign law in India without a physical office.
In 2010, a lawyer named AK Balaji filed a lawsuit challenging some 30 foreign firms – including the magic circle and US firm Davis Polk & Wardwell – over their right to practise any law in India.
In 2012, the Madras High Court ruled in favour of the 'fly-in, fly-out' arrangement for foreign lawyers to visit clients in India. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, which the Bar Council of India soon appealed. The proceedings had stalled until this week's hearing.
Meanwhile, while the AK Balaji decision was being challenged by the Bar Council, another organisation called the Global Indian Lawyers Association filed a petition in 2015 to challenge the 2009 Bombay court decision, calling for the liberalisation of the market. This case is now pending before the Supreme Court.
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 AllNew Frontiers: Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Launches in Cairo and Abu Dhabi
4 minute readTravers Gives Holiday Bonus, Ropes & Gray Reduces Time Off Allowance
1 minute readJapan’s Mori Hamada Joins Funder LCM for $150M Credit Suisse Bonds Claim
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