Report this comment to a moderator

Ashurst shuts Delhi branch in wake of Lawyers Collective judgment

To the first poster, the Law Society does allow foreign lawyers to practise (in England) the laws of their own jurisdictions as Registered Foreign Lawyers without having to sit any Law Society exams. The canard of absence of reciprocity has been often raised as a justification for keeping foreign firms out by those in the Indian legal fraternity who have a vested interest in keeing foreign law firms out of India. Some Indian lawyers seem to blindly believe this nonsense without bothering to check the facts. What is often lost sight of, however, is that foreign law firms do not want to practise Indian law (litigation, corporate or otherwise) - they simply want to be able to practise the law of their own country in India so all this talk of transactional law, litigation etc just obfuscates the real issue. Why are foreign law firms not being allowed to practise the laws of their own countries in India? "Law" in the Advocates Act can realistically only refer to the law of India since an Indian lawyer cannot possibly advise on the laws of another country. It is absurd to suggest that the Indian Parliament intended to create a monopoly in favour of Indian lawyers for the practice of all law - Indian or foreign. The court did not amplify the meaning of "law" as used in the Advocates Act but this is the key issue. If the Advocates Act only regulates the practice of Indian law, it follows that the Bar Council of India has no authority to regulate foreign law firms or the practice of foreign law in India. The court's basis for quashing the licences granted by the RBI to the three firms therefore still remains unclear.

2-Mar-2010

12:40 pm