The first hearing in the Chennai writ petition against 31 foreign law firms has run into the Madras High Court holidays and will not be heard for at least another month, although several other interested parties have now also pledged to file affidavits in support of the petition.
The writ petition was filed by Chennai advocate AK Balaji on behalf of the newly-formed Association of Indian Lawyers against 31 foreign law firms and legal process outsourcing (LPO) provider Integreon, claiming that they are practising law illegally in India.
The case was originally listed for its first hearing on 8 April after having been admitted on merits for the filing of replies by the Government and Bar Council respondents.
However, the matter has been subject to a string of delays since then.
Part of the delay in a first hearing has been due to Madras High Court Chief Justice Hemant Laxman Gokhale having being elevated to the Supreme Court last week and he was therefore focusing on adjudicating his other pending cases.
Since the end of last week (30 April) the Madras High Court has now been closed for the summer vacations. Hearings are set to restart on 7 June 2010 while advocates are awaiting the appointment of the court’s next Chief Justice, according to sources with knowledge of the case.
Sources have also said that the outcome and success of the petition would depend on the stance adopted by the new Chief Justice.
It is understood that the petitioners also wish to add further law firms and LPOs as co-respondents to the case at its first hearing.
Meanwhile, the Madras High Court Advocates Association of 12,000 members and the Women Advocates Association of 2,000 lawyers led by its President D Prasanna have stated that they wish to file affidavits in support of the petition by the time of first hearing.
The Madras High Court Advocates Association president RC Paul Kanagaraj told Legally India that the organisation was going to implead itself in the case along with the other petitioners, although the body was yet to conclude the submissions it would make.
“The reason why we’re opposing the entry of foreign law firms is an indirect approach of the foreign lawyers to step into the courts of India,” he said, setting out the reason for the Assocation’s opposition to the entry of foreign lawyers.
“Today they say they’re starting a law firm and there will be only consultation and the lawyers from abroad will prepare the cases and they will not appear,” he noted but added that this was only a first step. “The companies of course have a right to consult with their own lawyers - they will prepare things and will have a consultation with their lawyer… But we don’t believe it because once the entry is given, tomorrow they’ll say we’re not happy with the work given and we’ll ourselves do our case.”
He also explained that to date foreign lawyers active in Chennai were acting through Indian law firms and through local Tamil Nadu firms, of which there were many.
Photo by Roby Ferrari
Comments
Advocates set up law firms through which they practice law. Hence, the focus should really be on the individuals operating behind the names. If the foreign law firms have qualified Advocates manning their India office, how is it violative of the Advocates' Act?
As a simple example - take the case of my good friend, Nandan Nelivigi. Nandan is presently a partner with White & Case at its New York office. He is also on the Karnataka State Bar Council rolls, having enrolled as an Advocate before he joined White & Case.
Hypothetically, lets assume that Nandan resigns as a partner with White & Case; migrates to Bangalore; sets up his own law firm named White & Case (with the consent of his former employer); and happens to argue a matter before the Karnataka High Court. Arguably - there is nothing illegal here. White & Case did not "practice" law - Nandan did, and he was eligible to do so.
The Mumbai High Court failed to draw a distinction between the foreign law firms in India, and the people behind their operations. The concept of "best friends" relationship is similar. As long as qualified Indian Advocates are manning the operations of a foreign entity, they are arguably operating within the legal framework, and should be allowed to do so.
Sanjay Bhatia
India is a crony capitalist fake free market economy. We are not fit to lick China's boots. South Korea and Singapore were once third world countries, today they are first world. India will continue to be third world forever.
What LPO do is Transactional work.And; secondly India is a faker Market Economy; the Govt. is a sham; there a Cartel of Senior Counsel in the courts; I hope or Guess " Competition law should be applied to them" for unfair trade practices. And; yeah ; India should honor it's WTO commitments.