[quote]Errrrr…ALL of them have. Or at least, MOST of them have. It is not legal for anyone to “practice law” unless they are “advocates” licensed by the “Bar” Council of India. So, Brig. Joshi, do you think people working in law firms and doing corporate/non-litigation work practise law? Or something else?

If you think they practise law, then they HAVE “joined the bar”. If you think they do not practise law, then law firms and its associates and partners should be outside the scope of regulation by the “bar” council of India and should be free to do whatever they want, including tie up with foreign law firms.

You take your pick, sir. Are corporate law firms part of the “bar” or not? And when you do make that pick, please share with the BCI what your pick is as well :-)[/quote]

Reposted from Anonymous

[quote]I think joining the Bar means actually practising law in a court of law.People who join a law firm after obtaining a law degree from a esteemed law college cannot treated as having joined the Bar.

He is only doing desk job and giving his researched thoughts on which a client is satisfied.

Whether or not his opinion is legally tenable is to be argued by a practising lawyer (who has actually joined the BAR)and decided by a judge.

I think the scope of a law firm in the eyes of BCI requires to be debated upon and they should be allowed to do what they want in the field of law

Incidentally i am also holding a license issued by a state bar council and working with a law fifm.[/quote]

Response from Brig(Retd)Ashok Joshi, reposted.

I am intrigued - has this ever been argued before? In the UK for instance, there is a clear distinction between barristers and solicitors, who have different training, skills, etc.

But is there anything in India to prevent one from doing both types of work? Why is there this apparent gap between the professions?

“Really? Your views are very interesting to me. Why would you say a law firm lawyer is not legally capable of arguing in court to defend the tenability of an opinion he has issued as corporate lawyer working in a law firm? Is there a different licence issued to “those who have joined the bar” (i.e., litigators) from the ones issued to law firm associates who are ‘only doing a desk job”? I get very amused by this “desk job” angle that gets bandied about everytime people try to distinguish litigators from corporate lawyers…don’t litigating counsel draft pleadings? Don’t they do research? Don’t they issue opinions?

And like I said earlier in my post #3, if you are saying law firms, their partners and their associates are not a part of the bar and they are only doing desk jobs, then why should they be regulated by a regulator that calls itself the BAR Council of India? And a bunch of “desk jobbers” surely does not need ANY regulators then?”

(reply by anonymous, reposted from story)

“Let there be a clarification.

Guys who pass out from a law college/ NLUs and get LL.B., simply, per se do not become advocates. If the do not join the BAR and prefer being just a LL.B. degree holder, they cannot be governed by the BAR. So technically,

1) The are only LL.B.

2) That they are not Advocate on record, since they do not get enrolled.

3) They can do all other work permissible but cannot argue in capacity of an enrolled Advocate in a Court. Hence, they can research, draft and even advise/opine, but can never represent a client.

4) Since they are not enrolled, they can never be governed by the BAR.

But at the same time, if a law firm, which is run by LL.B. associates and not Advocates, undertakes any work or provides any services which is essentially of legal characteristic, essentially to be provided only by an enrolled Advocate, such firm has to be governed by the BAR.

A law firm, cannot escape the clutches of the BAR simply by saying that the associates are LL.B.s and not Advocate on record.

It is the service of the law firm which determines, not the capacity of the associates.

If the law firm undertakes functions of an enrolled Advocate, it has to be governed by the Advocates Act, and the BAR. ”

Reply by Just Curious to original story, reposted here.

“#6, we all understand the subtle distinction between “LLB Grads” and “Advocates”. Everyone who is working with a law firm as an associate is an “advocate” licensed by the BC anyway, so your distinction there doesn’t help much.

The point I was making was a reaction to the rather specious distinction that is often sought to be made by some people between litigators and non-litigating lawyers on the grounds that the latter are not a part of the bar. It is this argument that I was disputing, and raising the argument of regulation by the BCI to make the point that obviously, the BCI too considers corporate lawyers to be “advocates” as it wants to regulate them. If they are not “a part of the bar” because what they are doing is not real bar work, then the Bar Council ought not to be regulating them. As simple as that.

To me, the difference between litigators and non-litigating lawyers is a matter of classification based on expertise and orientation…both are obviously important parts of the “BAR” as the world today clearly needs both types of lawyers.”

From anonymous

In the UK, barristers argue in courtrooms and transactional lawyers who handle paperwork are solicitors. However, in India, the Advocates Act provides that there shall be only one category of lawyers, namely advocates. The law is clear on that and does not draw any distinction. So anyone with an LL.B. degree can register with the Bar Council, as an “advocate”, regardless of the type of lawyering they do. But then, the general layman perception in India is that lawyers practising in courts constitute the Bar and law firm “associates” are not a part of the Bar. In reality, all of them are advocates under law, practising in different ways. Many advocates do both types of work since there is no restriction but big law firms typically do not argue for clients before judges.

I think the title of the thread is wrong. What the person wanted to ask or many would want to know that how many people actually join the Bar i.e go into litigation or how many generally join or work in a law firm. There is no doubt that those who work in law firm are Advocates and are regulated by the Bar Council of India. They also have the option to leave a law firm and start practicing in the courts.

Though, I would like to know that how many people go for independent practice and how many generally join law firms ? What do you think are the Advantages and Disadvantages OR what are the good things and what are the difficulties faced by those who go for litigation ?

One should understand that Legal Practise comprise of soliciting and litigation practice. For example in UK there are solicitors and barristers. Solicitors are non litigationlawyers and barristers are litigation lawyers . Both are regulated and controlled by law society of england and wales .

Likewise in India also both these groups are under BCI . Now in India , the legal practice were in the past mostly considered as conducting cases and court appearance s. Off late lot of firms are coming up with legal consultancy practice and gradually Indian lawyers will embrace both forms of practice .

Please understand that a lawyer’s job is not only appearing in the court and conduct cases , but it includes providing legal advise and legal guidance to the clients to safeguard their legal interests and legal rights .

AM I CORRECT ????

advocates are those people who r enrolled in one of the bar council and they hav licence to appear in any court of law established by law in india n they r governed by advocates act, a central act,and the concerned bar council is a statutory body which control the actvities of the advocates,

whereas in a law firm the members need not be even a law graduate its just a partenship n mostly the law firm in india do soliciting work…

i dont think that is true. multidisciplinary partnerships, afaik, are barred by regulation in india. so a law partnership shall solely comprise lawyers.