BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra said: “I had already withdrawn that [16 December] decision and asked the office not to send that letter [received yesterday by law school registrars and principals]. They sent it by mistake. That is why I have asked them today to send a letter retracting that resolution. That resolution was not final.
“The council will do nothing before discussing with all the colleges. It is not feasible,” he added.
A BCI official confirmed that the letter retracting the request was sent to various law schools from the BCI’s office today.
Yesterday, law schools had received the BCI’s letter stating that on 2 December 2012, on the proposal of the BCI’s executive committee member TS Ajith, the BCI had resolved to ask them to provide the reservation, and that the BCI’s general body had accepted this resolution on 16 December 2012.
BCI legal education committee member and former NLSIU vice chancellor NL Mitra said yesterday that the legal education committee was not party to the resolution, while a national law university vice chancellor promised to strongly oppose it.
Comments
How can such an organisation be expected to regulate the legal education or lawyers.
There is an urgent need to take examine the structure of the BCI and given the changes in profession we should aim to bifurcate the regulation of the advocates and lawyers involved in corporate advisory and transactional work and a joint committee of these two regulators should regulate legal education. This would also help prepare the Indian legal market for opening to foreign competition.
How can such an organisation be expected to regulate the legal education or lawyers.
There is an urgent need to take examine the structure of the BCI and given the changes in profession we should aim to bifurcate the regulation of the advocates and lawyers involved in corporate advisory and transactional work and a joint committee of these two regulators should regulate legal education. This would also help prepare the Indian legal market for opening to foreign competition.[/quote]
Agree with all, but bifurcating advocates vs. "corporate lawyers", bloody stupid.. its all interconnected, just different areas of practice, can't transactional lawyers appear in court or vice versa sometimes advocates draft agreements for companies, we are all the same notwithstanding our area of expertise.
frankly, it will be good for solicitors (so called çorporate' lawyers) to be regulated separately and away from the regional and casteist politics of the court going lawyers.
Whats need is simply good administration and a governing body that ammends its regulations with the times.
Whats need is simply good administration and a governing body that ammends its regulations with the times.[/quote]
Since when did the Bombay Incorporated Law Society start regulating solicitors in India? It regulates solicitors in Bombay and its merely a self-regulating society (like a club regulating people who choose to be members). It neither has jurisdiction over the whole of India, nor can it regulate Mumbai solicitors who undertake solicitor work under the Advocates Act as an "advocate".
frankly, it will be good for solicitors (so called çorporate' lawyers) to be regulated separately and away from the regional and casteist politics of the court going lawyers.[/quote]
Totally agree buddy. Good point.