In Possible Reversal, India Considers Allowing Big Four Accounting Firms to Practise Law
Just two months ago, the Bar Council of Delhi said Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC should "refrain from engaging" in law practice.
July 17, 2019 at 12:51 PM
3 minute read
Photo: Shutterstock.com
A scheduled hearing in India regarding the Big Four accounting firms' practise of law has been cancelled amid negotiations with regulators and the government that could lead to the auditors gaining permission to practise law in India.
In May, the Indian operations of Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers all received letters from the Bar Council of Delhi, alleging that the auditors are illegally practising law in the country and informing them they are barred from doing so until further notice. All four said they had not been practising law in India.
A hearing was set for July 12 at the Delhi Bar Council but it was cancelled "at the last minute", said Lalit Bhasin, the New Delhi-based president of the Society of Indian Law Firms, a professional association representing the interests of law firms in India. A 2015 petition from Bhasin led to the directive barring the Big Four from practising law in India and the scheduling of the July hearing. Bhasin said no reason was given for cancelling the hearing. "[The] status quo remains," he said.
K.C. Mittal, the chairman of the Delhi Bar Council, said the hearing will be rescheduled, though no date has been set.
In his petition, Bhasin alleged that the Big Four engage in the practise of law in violation of the Indian Advocates Act. All four auditors offer legal advice, mainly in relation to tax, compliance and regulatory matters, he said. It is also well known in the Indian legal community that EY and KPMG have exclusive alliances with Indian law firms PDS Legal and Advaita Legal, respectively.
Surya Prakash Khatri, a member of the Council and a former chairman, said the Council is still in talks with the Indian government regarding whether the four accounting firms should be able to practise law in India.
However, according to Vishnu Sharma, the Delhi Bar Council's honorary secretary and the man who sent the May letters to the Big Four barring them from practising law, the Indian government intends to give the accounting firms permission to offer legal services in India – despite objections from the Bar Council of India.
In May, lawyers in India told Law.com's The Asian Lawyer that the Delhi Bar Council may have barred the Big Four from practising law due to concerns about increased competition, which was affecting small and midsize law firms.
Foreign law firms are barred from practising local law in India and similar restrictions are supposed to also apply to the Big Four.
Related Stories:
The Big Four Face Uncertainty in India
Big Four Barred From Practising Law in India
Big Four Hit Back At India Law Society Over Bans
Law Firms Uneasy as the Big Four Make Their Big Push in Asia
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
© 2025 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 All
X Ordered to Release Data by German Court Amid Election Interference Concerns
Compliance With the EU's AI Act Lags Behind as First Provisions Take Effect
Quinn Emanuel's Hamburg Managing Partner and Four-Lawyer Team Jump to Willkie Farr
Trump ICC Sanctions Condemned as ‘Brazen Attack’ on International Law
Trending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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
