To all those who claimed that the Lala firms are lobbying against foreign competition, what do you think about this?

Interview: https://www.barandbench.com/news/delayed-opening-up-of-indian-legal-market-has-become-a-joke-cyril-shroff

1. First things first, would somebody mind reproducing the article here? It is behind a paywall.

2. Just taking the headline, I have this one observation: Seemingly, this guy arranged for his son to go study law in England, with that same son now working at his firm. Maybe he has finally engaged in some self reflection and realized how foolish this would make him look and that people were making fun of him for his hypocrisy?

Because Cyril needs to secure his grandchildren and great-grandchildren’s future and has seen the writing on the wall. As an analogy, let’s look at the Birla family in Kolkata (BM Birla group). For most of independent India’s existence, their company Hind Motors kept manufacturing Ambassador cars and opposed foreign players. The family successfully lobbied Nehru, Indira and Rajiv in Delhi and Jyoti Basu in Bengal. Every Indian rode an Ambassador car, for lack of choice. When liberalisation eventually happened in 1991, they were totally unprepared and began to lose market share to foreign cars. 23 years later, in 2014, the last Ambassador car was rolled out. The Hind Motors factory in Kolkata is now an abandoned ghost town which the government is going to take over. BM Birla’s descendants are still rich, of course, but just “regular rich” and not “uber rich”. On the other hand, had the Birlas diluted stake and collaborated with foreign carmakers in the 1990s, you could have seen Hind Motors manufacturing Honda or Hyundai cars, with the Birlas retaining a significant stake.

So Cyril is looking at the crystal ball…

Managing Partner of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas Cyril Shroff recently called for concrete measures to open up the Indian legal market to international competition.

Unless this is done, lawyers in India would remain part of a "cottage industry" and it would be difficult for India to claim that it is a leading economy when there is no access to globalised legal services, Shroff said in an interview to ET Circle.

Shroff made the observation while responding to a question on the legal structure in India, its system and its future.

"The legal profession needs to be reformed drastically. The Chief Justice also last year, in a speech, mentioned that the legal profession today is an old boy's club. It should be open to all, but it is not. So I think three things need to be done there. One is, I think the market needs to open up. I think we need to open it up to foreign competition. It has become a joke, internationally. Every time an international lawyer sees me and talks to me - he says, 'still two years away, right?' That joke has been going on for twenty years or more," he said.

Shroff also emphasised that efforts to open the legal market in India should be transparent and fair.

"It should be done in a fair and transparent way. We had a number of botched-up attempts to open up the profession and that's not going to happen that way. It has not opened up because it has just been botched up. There is no clarity - we don't even know who is taking that decision. A committee or a commission needs to be put in place to figure it out."

On the possible ramifications of opposing efforts to globalise legal services in India, Shroff added:

"Until we open up this profession to international competition, we're still going to remain a cottage industry. I am firmly of the view that we need more competition. You can't be the top country or one of the top economies in the world without access to global legal services - you are not going to create that confidence. Today, it (legal profession) has become a protection racket, in terms of all the lawyers associations and all - it is nothing but a protection racket."

Shroff went on to suggest that the time has come to allow lawyers in India to explore the business side of the legal profession in a better way.

"I think the business model needs to be turned around. We are the only profession or industry which is forced into a partnership model. I think it is time we should be allowed to look at a corporate model. Yes it is a profession; yes, its not a business. But I think the fact is that because there is also the element of business of law, there is a need for access to capital. For example, if we were to embrace big technology, where is all that capital going to come from? Only a corporate model will allow that. Secondly, just a business model in a pure, general partnership mode is basically a cash flow. And it has become a labour arbitrage. You are not really creating more long term value. We are too small for that," he said.

While calling for a complete revamp of the legal profession, Shroff further suggested that there needs to be shift in the way a lawyer's services are valued.

"The commercial model needs to change. The core for the last hundred years has been what's called the 'hourly rate model' - you charge for time. But the question is, does that really represent the value of what you get? It doesn't. And it creates a wrong incentive - it creates an incentive that 'why don't you just take your time and multiply the number of hours so you make more money?' The philosophy has to move towards more value-based compensation and AI is going to force that. You will get an answer out of AI in a matter of seconds - how are you going to charge for that? So these three things need to fundamentally change. I think somebody should look at it and revamp this profession from top to bottom. Otherwise, I think we are headed towards a big problem," Shroff said.

In the interview, Shroff also spoke of the need to ensure that laws are well-drafted and the potential use of technology in reducing delays that clog the judicial system.

He opined that while India has a world-class, sophisticated and intellectual legal system, efforts should be made to ensure that disputes are efficiently and promptly resolved.

"I think first there needs to be a deep focus in terms of just the laws that have been written, because the problem starts with ambiguous laws and the quality of many of them leave a lot to be desired...We need to figure out how to get quick justice. I think, at least in part, technology is the answer...A lot of the judicial bandwith is clogged up by process. A lot of that process could be taken over by technology. So I think we can end up saving a lot of judicial bandwith and time if we use technology wisely," he added.