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
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:
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 AllCanadian Media Giants Sue OpenAI Over Alleged Copyright Violations in ChatGPT Training
3 minute readFormer Head of Finance at DLA Piper and Freshfields Quietly 'Struck Off'
2 minute readAshurst Bolsters Singapore Offering With A&O Shearman Hire
Trending Stories
- 1Where CFPB Enforcement Stops Short Curbing School Lunch Fees, Class Action Complaint Steps Up
- 2Appellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
- 3People in the News—Dec. 2, 2024—Marshall Dennehey, Pollock Begg
- 4How I Made Partner: 'Prioritize What Is Important to You, Do What Energizes You,' Says Sarah Wellings of Sullivan & Worcester
- 5'That Decision was Wrong:' Federal Judge Rethinks Consumer Protection Class Certification
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