The Bombay High Court may shortly clear the way for foreign law firms to open offices in India, the Gazette has learned.


Legal proceedings begun in 1995 involving three top law firms which sought to practise in India - City firm Ashurst and US firms White & Case and Chadbourne & Parke - have been reactivated by the Indian government in an effort to seek a ruling that foreign lawyers can advise on foreign and international law in India.



The court ruled in 1995 that, under the Advocates Act 1961, only Indian-qualified lawyers could practise any kind of law in India, but the Supreme Court ordered it to reconsider because it had not taken enough evidence. This only began again last year when the Ministry of Law & Justice submitted an affidavit arguing that advising clients on foreign or international law is not governed by the Act.



'If experts on these fields are available in India, it would be beneficial to Indian clients as the advice would be available in India itself and may also be cheaper in comparison to advice available in foreign countries,' the affidavit said. 'It will immensely improve the knowledge of the Indian bar in the expertise of foreign law [sic].'



A hearing in January was stayed after the first day so that the Bar Council of India - which thus far has opposed the entry of foreign firms - could consider its position further. This was seen as a sign that it might change its attitude, and the hearing is set to resume at the end of February.



The government's interpretation of the Act is strongly opposed by the Society of Indian Law Firms, which is seen as wanting to keep foreign firms out.



The Law Society has also submitted an affidavit in a bid to 'clarify some misunderstandings' contained in other affidavits about the rights Indian advocates enjoy in England and Wales, and also counter the submission in one of them that the assurances of foreign law firms that they will abstain from practising Indian law in India are 'worthless'.



It said: 'No major international law firm would put multi-million-dollar contracts at risk by failing to ensure that they were immune from legal challenge on the grounds of a failure to use properly qualified legal advisers in the jurisdiction concerned.'



Neil Rose