Manan Kumar Mishra, Chairman, BCI.
BCI Considers Action Against SILF for Foreign Law Firm Comments: New Delhi, India – June 30, 2025 – The Bar Council of India (BCI) has intensified its ongoing public spat with the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), accusing its office bearers of professional misconduct and signaling a serious consideration of disciplinary action. The BCI asserts that SILF representatives have been issuing “misleading public information” through press releases concerning the contentious issue of foreign law firms entering the Indian legal market.
In a strongly worded statement, the BCI indicated that it is contemplating issuing notices to the individuals responsible for these press releases. “Issuing sensational or deceptive press releases in the name of protecting law firms, when in reality aimed at safeguarding private commercial interests, constitutes using the profession for personal or sectional gain, which is strictly prohibited,” the BCI stated. Should these individuals be found guilty, the BCI warned of “appropriate disciplinary action,” which could range from a reprimand to suspension, or even removal from the Roll of Advocates.
The escalating tensions between SILF and the BCI stem from the recently amended rules that permit the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms into India. While SILF has publicly stated its support for the liberalization of the Indian legal market, its primary concern, it claims, lies with the implementation details of these changes. Conversely, the BCI has openly questioned SILF’s motives, accusing the society of attempting to protect the monopolistic interests of a select group of established law firms.
The latest escalation was triggered by a detailed statement issued by SILF on June 28, which questioned whether the BCI’s push for foreign law firm entry was intended to “demolish Indian entities.” The BCI has vehemently rejected this assertion, declaring that the language used by SILF in its press release amounts to professional misconduct.
The regulatory body firmly reiterated its statutory mandate, emphasizing its constitutional and legal authority to regulate the legal profession in India. The BCI stressed that it is not obligated to yield to the preferences of what it termed a “self-serving private institution.”
Highlighting widespread support for its reforms, the BCI stated, “Public sentiment and media feedback overwhelmingly support the BCI’s reforms as necessary to modernize and globalize the Indian legal profession. The continued resistance of this Society, representative of negligible number of law firms is widely seen as an attempt to protect narrow monopolistic interests rather than the welfare of the legal community at large.”
The BCI further challenged SILF’s influence, arguing that the characterization of this “pocket society (representing only approximately 2% of Indian Law Firms) of big firms” as architects of modern corporate practice cannot justify “perpetual protectionism.” The council alleged, “It is a well-known fact that almost all the members of SILF have already established foreign offices and informal tie-ups with foreign entities while denying such opportunities to smaller and emerging Indian firms.”
The BCI reiterated its long-standing position that a few large firms have systematically monopolized corporate and arbitration work by leveraging informal relationships with foreign clients and networks, thereby depriving small and mid-sized Indian firms of valuable cross-border legal opportunities.
The regulator underscored that the amendments to the rules for market liberalization have been meticulously crafted, aligning with Supreme Court judgments and undergoing rigorous legal scrutiny. It specifically pointed out that the new rules precisely restrict foreign lawyers to non-litigious advisory work, explicitly prohibiting them from practicing Indian law or appearing before Indian courts and tribunals (Rules 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c)). Consequently, the BCI asserts that any claim of these regulations being ultra vires (beyond their legal power or authority) is “unfounded and without merit.”
Looking ahead, the BCI also revealed its plans to make important decisions soon regarding advertisements, Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), and other related issues, with the aim of enabling Indian law firms to compete effectively with their foreign counterparts. “There is ample scope and potential for this growth,” the BCI stated, but lamented that “driven by their vested interests, a handful of individuals operating under the name of SILF have actively sought to hinder the progress of thousands of law firms and lakhs of lawyers. This has also resulted in substantial financial losses to the government. Therefore, this is a serious matter, which the BCI views with utmost concern.”
Despite the strong accusations, the regulator maintained that it would consider the opinions of law firms across the country before making a final decision on the rules. The BCI announced, “The BCI shall carefully consider all letters and opinions received from law firms, following which a large meeting will be convened in Mumbai. Representatives of all law firms will be invited to this meeting, and only after hearing their views in this forum will the BCI take any final decision on the matter.” This indicates a continued, albeit strained, dialogue process amidst the escalating rhetoric.
