We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Cyril:
"Whilst the devil will lie in the detail, I think this is a progressive development. India’s legal market is ready for change and will grow. I welcome the opening up."
Pallavi:
"We welcome the move. We are studying the BCI Rules."
I can think of possible causes for why legal services was left out:
a) Strong litigation lobby that has filed cases against BCI Rules on foreign law firms entry and even against the proposed amendments to Advocates Act 1961 that would have recognised corp lawyers as legal practitioners.
b) The entry of foreign law firms would have forced Indian firms to revise compensation structures
c) SILF does not want entry and therefore Partners can continue to charge foreign clients 1000 pounds for an email response on a widely known provison of Indian law