International firms Ashurst, Chadbourne & Parke and White & Case have lost the long-running case against the Lawyers' Collective, with the Bombay High Court having decided today that the practice of all law by foreign firms in India is illegal.The judgement and reasoning of the court has not yet been published but lawyers for both sides have confirmed the decision.
FoxMandal Little Mumbai litigation partner Guruprasad Pal, who represented White & Case in the matter, said: "We do not have the copy of the judgement but the court pronounced that the petition has been allowed."
"It's a victory for the Lawyers' Collective," he added.
Senior advocate CU Singh, who appeared on behalf of the Lawyers' Collective also confirmed the judgement.
He was arguing in the Supreme Court of India in Delhi today and was not present at the judgment but he was lead counsel on the case throughout and suggested several reasons for the court's decision.
"Apparently they've allowed the petition," said Singh, "so they've held that the permissions which have been granted by Reserve Bank of India to run liaison offices [by foreign firms] were illegal and those permissions have been quashed."
"They also held that the practice of law under the Advocates Act in India encompasses all forms of practice, not just litigation practice in court but also corporate practice, advisory practice, M&A and the whole works," he added.
"One of the main arguments of foreign law firms was that the Advocates Act covers only litigation practice in court but not advisory work pertaining to foreign law in India," explained Singh.
An Ashurst spokesperson confirmed that the Bombay High Court had handed down its verdict today but she added: "We haven't received the judgement yet and we will examine the details when we do."
The case against the foreign firms has been running since 1995, after Ashurst, Chadbourne & Parke and White & Case opened up liaison office in India but were accused by contravening the Advocates Act by practising law in India.
Read a summary of the reasoning, download the full judgment and join the debate on what it actually means.
reader comments:comments rss feedrefresh
Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.
Will legallyindia be able to publish a copy of this decision once it is available?
Well, our law firms (supported by the courts) like prohibition of competition, because they are retarded!
Debar the partners and the associates, I say.
Indian firms should irrespective open their eyes and adopt best practices! Fear of opening up of the sector should not be the catalyst for this.
Extending the logic of this judgment to LPOs, it appears that the LPOs are also involved in the practice of law. The consequential question is whether LPOs promoted by foreign firms be able to escape the rigours of regulations under the Advocates Act? At first sight, this judgment appears interesting as also thought provoking. A critical analysis of the aforesaid judgment and views for an against would really be an exciting affair. Hope more and more audience send in their comments.
It's plainly illogical to suggest that an Indian court has any jurisdiction over the professional practice of any other law, whether such advice is given in India or not. It is up to relevant foreign professional bodies to determine whether its law may be practiced from other jurisdictions and simply has nothing to do with the Indian courts.
The judgement also plainly flies in the face of of the outsourcing business. Are foreign companies who outsource their drafting to India technically practicing law? Arguably yes, if we follow the logic (or lack of) of this decision. It will be interesting to see what the judgement says about this, if anything.
Let's hope our new law minister metaphorically tears the judgement up by getting legislation through parliament liberalising the legal market, defeating the monopolists once and for all.
Mr Moily, Respected Sir! Please do the needful!
Jai ho!
There is just one SC for the Republic of India.
[Thanks, we meant to say SC in Delhi, have made the change. -Ed]
Like me i.e. litigators who are 'lawyers' and interpretors of 'LAW' today is a victory.
Liberation from goras and their 250 dollar an hour Indian servants I say!! Debar them I say!!
[Apologies if anyone has been offended, I was not aware it was such a contentious term. Please vote this comment up (green thumbs up icon below) if you want the word 'gora' censored from comments in future or down (red icon) if you don't mind.
Another thing to bear in mind is that not all foreign lawyers are white so 'gora' is not necessarily an accurate term if we are talking about foreign lawyers. -Kian]
1. Allowing the racists to use such language underscores that the debate is not about genuine issues of professional standards. There are indeed regulatory issues to discuss - but the real issue is "us" versus "them. And India is clearly not ready for a racially integrated bar like racially diverse and developed countries such as the U.S., where Manmohan Singh's daughter is a practicing lawyer. The Indian bar already allows foreigners to practice - it simply doesn't allow non-ethnic Indians to practice. One could name several foreign citizens admitted to the Indian bar without comment, but not a single non-Indian face among them.
2. "Gora" is clearly considered a racially charged slur (check out the Racial Slur Database at www.rsdb.org/). The only people in India who use such language in the normal course of conversation are North Indians, specifically, Punjabis and others in Delhi. Others in the Hindi belt, where men keep female illiteracy rates at about 50%, also use such language in regular conversation. If the site editor is insufficiently knowledgable about Indian vernacular usage and its implications, it calls into question the editorial insights in other stories. No respsonible news outlet would routinely allow a clearly racially charged, editorially irrelevant perjorative in its reportage. I recall that "ferengi" was also routinely used for some time too. Allowing use of a racial slur marks the site as racially partisan. I'd love to post that on "Above the Law."
3. The use of "Gora" is reflective of the regional and ethnic tensions that are further dividing India today. The attacks against North Indians in Mumbai, the complaints of Telegana activists against "outsiders" taking jobs in southern AP are further examples of such biases. The Indian bar is both comfortable and proud that its lawyers go abroad and do well. But heaven forbid that the door swing both ways.
So, please, I vote that those who think in racist terms be allowed to express themselves fully. "Gora" should stay.
And you likely know, as the site monitor does not, that "firang" is never a complimentary term. And a native speaker would almost never use it to refer to an ehtnically Indian foreign citizen. It's a half-step back from "gora," but hardly a polite term.
Manmohan Singh's daughter is a member of the New York bar and has been a vigorous and successful foe to two U.S. presidents. I don't recall any U.S. lawyers objecting to her presence or referring to her race in commentary on the merits of her work.
Even the Brits allowed Gandhi-ji and Ambedkar-ji to practice at their bar. Even the South African bar allowed non-whites to practice. There are plenty of foreign citizens of Indian origin enrolled at the Indian bar. But the Indian bar is a racially closed club.
And as for patriotic Indian, don't crack me up. Why should this be a victory for you true (and self-proclaimed) interpreters of the law? Have you been having sleepless nights worrying about "goras" flooding the Indian courts and eating into your book of business.....ooops.....I mean.....your noble service to society and pursuit of sainthood? Don't worry, that is not too likely to happen even if there were no legal bar on it :-)
So, does anyone have any idea if the foreign firms in question plan to appeal? Kian, would you have any info on this?
[I think foreign firms are still trying to figure out their options but we are following up of course and will report when we find out. -Kian].
Not trying to be nitpicky dear editor, but just a gentle reminder to rectify the same to read as the Supreme Court. Kind regards..
bombayhighcourt.nic.in/.../OSWP8152695.pdf
"The only people in India who use such language in the normal course of conversation are North Indians, specifically, Punjabis and others in Delhi"
And you had a problem with 'racial comments'? I bet you also like Hagen Dazs ice cream, don't you? You sir, are an A grade jackass.
Also, Kian, its judgment and not judgement. You seriously need to get atleast one post right. Not a single post on this site is free of errors.
What's the beef with Kian? He is only posting verbatim what people are blogging.
My two cents.
[Thanks Anonymous. We did use both judgment and judgement in the article accidentally. Technically both are correct and it is a matter of style which one to use. However, we should have been consistent, whatever spelling we adopt. Will fix shortly. -Kian]
bombayhighcourt.nic.in/.../OSWP8152695.pdf
I'm sure Kian appreciates your correction. FYI, it's Haagen-Dazs.
And there is nothing racial in my objective observation that "gora" is a Hindi word and most often deployed in common parlance in conversations in North India.
Unlike race, which is immutable, language is a choice, and we can discuss the implications of that choice. And I doubt you'd argue that there are many people walking around the Madras High Court complaining about "goras." One, they're typically too polite to deploy such slurs, and secondly, they are highly unlikely to use a Hindi word if they did. But I suppose you know best in this regard. But you seem unwilling to address the substantive point - that "gora" is a racist slur, and that this is being used by posters such as yourself to characterize the foreign lawyer debate in racial terms.
legaldevelopments.blogspot.com/.../...
India Corp Law has this analysis... The author says that the reasoning will be examned in further post later.
Yes, pointing out the misspelling of Haagen Dazs as 'Hagen Dazs' is a devastating rebuttal to the certifiable proposition that you're racist. And thanks for humouring us with your attempts at reasoning. Didn't work though. To paraphrase Kanye West, I'm real happy for you Rustomji and Im'ma letchu finish, but the KKK were actually the biggest racists of all time. Of ALL TIME!
The comments here have been intelligent so far. Please keep it that way. You can do so by not posting here anymore. (supra Post 21, 2nd para, last sentence.)
@22
To begin with, read this article first.
Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.
refresh comments rss feed