Bar Council of india.
SILF-Bar Council of India Dispute-Entry of Foreign Firms in India: New Delhi – The simmering dispute between the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) over the entry of foreign law firms into India has intensified, with SILF firing back at the BCI’s accusations of monopolistic practices within the Indian legal sector. In a sharp rejoinder, SILF has questioned whether the BCI’s policy aims to “bring in foreign interests to demolish Indian entities,” raising serious concerns about the implications for the domestic legal profession.
The latest salvo came on Saturday from SILF President Lalit Bhasin, who, in a letter addressed to BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, categorically refuted the BCI’s assertion that a select group of Indian law firms has monopolized corporate, transactional, and arbitration work. Bhasin labeled the accusation “devoid of logic and factually incorrect,” directly challenging the BCI’s stated justification that foreign firm entry would benefit smaller Indian firms by breaking up these alleged monopolies.
“Firstly, there are no monopolies,” Bhasin asserted in the letter, highlighting that “even young and emerging law firms are engaged in big corporate and transactional legal work.” He further emphasized the growing opportunities for Indian firms, stating, “Thanks to the policies and initiatives of the government under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi, there has been, due to India’s position as one of the top four economies in the world, a significant surge in legal work resulting in more and more emerging law firms getting a big pie of the legal work.” Bhasin also pointed out the cost-effectiveness of Indian law firms as a crucial factor for foreign clients.
This exchange marks a deepening rift between the two prominent legal bodies. On June 18, the BCI had responded to earlier reservations expressed by SILF, accusing the organization of primarily serving the interests of a “bunch of big law firms.” The BCI had also announced plans to establish a registry of all Indian law firms and their lawyers to create a “democratically elected pan-India body.”
SILF, in its latest response, deemed the attack on “so-called big law firms” as “unfortunate,” arguing that their current standing is a result of “sheer merit, hard work, knowledge, experience and expertise,” and that these firms have been instrumental in modernizing the Indian legal profession.
Drawing a stark parallel, SILF referenced the accountancy profession in India, where, it contended, “no worthy Indian firm exists, and the sector is dominated by the Big Four foreign firms.” This comparison underscores SILF’s apprehension about a similar outcome for the legal sector if the entry of foreign firms is not managed judiciously.
SILF also highlighted the vast disparity in scale between Indian and global legal powerhouses. It noted that the aggregate revenues of the entire corporate practice in India are a “minuscule fraction” of the annual revenue of a single “big” foreign firm like Kirkland & Ellis, which reportedly boasts nearly US$7 billion in annual revenue.
“If BCI envisions a place under the sun for the Indian profession, then BCI should recognise the role of India’s law firms, whether big or small, and BCI should create conditions in which Indian law firms can dream ‘big’ of becoming global law firms,” Bhasin’s letter stated, urging the BCI not to “dismantle our law firms on the alleged ground of being ‘big’ or ‘monopolies’.” He concluded this point by stating, “‘Big’ is a relative term.”
While consistently affirming its support for the opening of the legal services market, SILF has maintained that such changes must be implemented in a “regulated, phased and sequenced manner.” The organization reiterated that its consistent stand and concerns have been documented in its representations to the BCI since 2015.
SILF also emphasized its unique status as the only body of its kind, with its recognition extending from the government and judiciary to the BCI itself. It noted that its internal elections are underway, with rules designed to protect young and emerging law firms.
The letter from SILF concluded by stating that this communication serves solely as a response to the BCI’s accusations and that a more detailed response to the recently notified rules, which SILF believes contain “many lacunae,” will follow. The ongoing dialogue underscores the complex and often contentious landscape surrounding the liberalization of India’s legal services sector and the protection of domestic interests.
