connecticut law firm
The opening of a legal firm from a Nigerian in Delhi has not only lawyers in the fight against the illicit practices, but also back on the decade-and-a-half-old debate about the further important question - should be the foreign lawyers Entry to India?

It is often said that India has the potential to become one of the world's major legal centers in the 21st Century, alongside London and New York. It has advantages in its innate "common law" and English language ability. But until recently, India had not recognized the role that legal advice has to play in attracting foreign investment and the development of a diversified services business.

India, a signatory of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which is an organ of the World Trade Organization (WTO) is under an obligation to open up the service sector in the Member Nations.

"" Services "would, inter alia, a service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of public authorities within the meaning of the GATS. "" A service in the exercise of governmental authority "is also determined that any service that is neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more sellers.

Advocacy is also one of the services in the GATS. With the liberalization and globalization policies in India, multinational companies and foreign companies are increasingly entering India. Foreign financial institutions and companies also entering India in a fairly large number. Doing business in India are of course by the Indian and foreign firms (FLF) and foreign legal consultants (FLC's) is not complete with the Indian laws require the assistance of lawyers registered and practicing in India. This has led to the idea for the admission of foreign legal consultants and the liberalization of the legal practice in India in accordance with the guidelines developed by the International Bar Association (IBA) and the GATS. If this idea is put into practice, the law favors, 1961, for the legal practice in India must be changed.

Legal "practice" is not in the act, but calls for a reading of Sections 30 and 33 indicates that the practice is limited to proceedings before a court, court or authority. It contains no legal advice, documentation alternative methods for settling disputes and other services. § 24 (i) (a) of the Act provides that a person, for the admission as an advocate on the State roll, if he is a citizen of India, provided under this Act the nationality of any other country can be admitted as an Advocate on the State roll, if citizens of India may be suitably qualified to practice law in that other country.

Section 47 of the Act provides that if a country by the Central Govt. in this behalf by notification in the Official prevents citizens from India practice the profession of law subjects to unfair discrimination in this country, not the subject of such a country are entitled to exercise the profession of the law in India.

The basic principles covered by the IBA on the question of the validity of FLC are fair, uniform and non-discriminatory treatment, the clarity and transparency, professional responsibility, reality and flexibility. The provisions of the IBA are as follows:

"" Legal Adviser is a person authorized to practice law in one country (country) and the wishes of licenses to practice law as a legal consultant, without having to by an agency or an authority to regulate the legal profession in a country (host country) Other than a country, such as a person responsible for the host authority for a license in accordance with the procedure for granting a license under reasonable conditions set by the host authority of the issuing of licenses. This license renewal is required. A legal consultant, a company alongwith his request not to accept, hold, transfer, dealing with customers found or assigned, unless the legal adviser not so in a manner by the host authority to agree to and from the Code of Ethics for hosts alongside responsibility to comply with all rules and regulations of the home and in the host country is responsible.

It is open to the host authority for the requirement of reciprocity and appropriate restrictions on the practice of FLC in the host country that the FLC may not be a lawyer or advocate in a court in the host country and the FLC may not be any preparation or documents, the preparation or implementation of other services, specifically by the host authority for the performance by the local members.

Many experts have their opinions about the entry of FLF and FLC's in India under the GATS. They are not against the idea, but it is suggested that some of these limitations, sufficient safeguards and qualifications should be given for the addition of reciprocity.

The restrictions, if any, must be reasonable. Obtaining Indian law degree and practicing Indian law for a period laid down for entry may be the only reasonable restrictions. Canadian model of university education, testing and articleship managed by a joint committee, approval may be a viable solution. To the principle of non-discrimination, it may not be possible to onerous restrictions limiting the clientele, the type of legal work, the fees to identify the form of fees (rupees or foreign currency), etc. As far as reciprocity is " level playing field and uniform code of conduct must be developed. Many western states do not allow their lawyers to advertise whereas in India the lawyers are not allowed to do. In California, the FLF's only so in the legislation is not specifically for California. Even in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan, the maintenance of FLC are only foreign companies. The treatment of the FLF and FLC in other countries and the rules, guidelines for their practice in a foreign country should be thoroughly examined before the entry into India.

Even if reciprocity were allowed, no Indian company would go abroad to legal businesses not because he is not a talent, competence and efficiency, but economically it would not be a strong statement. The Indian lawyers do not have the means to an establishment in any foreign country, nor the Indian government will make any assistance to them to promote their business in a foreign country. The majority of the population by non-resident Indians are not to patronize the Indian lawyers, although they may only experts in their field, as the resident lawyers with full knowledge of the law of the country would be to them at a reasonable price, as for the Jurists from India apart from the fees for legal advice / service they may have, for their travel costs. The legal advice by calling Indian experts would be very expensive for non-resident Indians and they can not fully effective since the Indian legal adviser may not be very familiar with the applicable legislation. It is only when all the Indian party in a dispute and the question also refers to Indian law that Indian legal advisers would be invited to a foreign country and not otherwise. Such occasions are rare. The picture is different in the case of foreign companies, transactions across national borders by globalization. They call foreign lawyers, because they like to call upon the services of professionals in their own country who are already familiar with the companies in the industry. If the foreign company carrying on business in India need advice right here at home that can be made available to them by the Indian law firms or the Indian legal advisers. They may also limit the legal documentation and advice for corporate restructuring, mergers, acquisitions, intellectual property rights or financial instruments issued by foreign companies. These aspects will be seriously considered, although the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity is therefore clearly defined and must be effective. It should be ensured that the rules and / or regulations should be strictly observed, otherwise the experience, the rules on paper and is practiced, which is quite different. The authorities either do not pay attention to the violations or they overlook or ignore them as in the case of foreign law firms in India in the Enron deal, the permissions for the firms to liaison offices came from the RBI, which reports directly to the Ministry of Finance. If these firms to comply with the conditions of the liaison offices of the RBI overlooked or ignored.

Some are of the view that, rather than as a threat to the lawyers, this should be considered as a step towards increasing the standards in the profession, but with mutual agreements. The lawyers, as it was practiced years before the legal stalwarts had a very high standard. But now that the quality of the work is nowhere to be seen or experienced. Advocacy is also completely commercialized without human and moral values. The standard has been substantial. But the fees are enormously increased disproportionately to the service for customers. No effort will be made in each corner to the wrong or maladministration, which crept into the legal profession. Against this background, what would be the "standards"? If all standards are raised, would the entire class of lawyers in India or will it benefit only a small proportion of lawyers who would be able to take advantage of the new situation? In this case, this step may be that in the interests of lawyers? The situation, as far as the FLC are concerned would be completely different, since all FLC's who want to come in India, the treatment whereas the Indian lawyers would be equality in the profession. In addition to the FLC have the desire to attract foreign customers, and even if they are to practice in India with a reasonable limitation of obtaining law degree in India, for some time they definitely have Indian lawyers for their work. With the resources at its end and with the higher exchange rate in the currency, they will be hired and keep young lawyers with substantial financial packages, although in comparison to the fees in their country, it is very much lower, with the result that a good reputable law firm / solicitor's firms in India would use their good hands and their work may suffer. Firms in the United States, funds in the amount of the annual budget of the state of Maharashtra. With such resources, in a short time, as FLF's would do with the goal of the existing laws of business in India. Against this background, our firms would be the competition and the quality of the service, is an important issue to consider.

The U.S. and some other developed countries have large law firms, at the international level, primarily the economy to promote the economic interests of their clients huge corporations. The size, power, influence and economic standards of large international law firms would be based on the law of our country negatively. We can not show up in whatever form we can use it well, their size, power, and especially economic standard. There is a restriction on the number of partners in a law firm / solicitor's firm. The number is limited to 20 under the Partnership Act, the limitation does not exist in a foreign law firm. To the unity of this restriction can be eliminated for more partners to increase the financial resources and personnel.

Moreover, the FLF have "" services for single window "meaning that not only legal but also accountancy, management, financial and other advice to their customers. The multidisciplinary partnerships will focus on the needs of customers in the various fields mentioned above. Such partnerships may endanger the ethics of the legal professions, such as confidential information will be undertaken within the partnership to the non-lawyer professionals. This would prejudicially not only the customers but also to lawyers since the independence of lawyers would. Once the FLF and FLC are in India, the entry of the Bar Council of India, to rules and regulations for the multi-disciplinary partnerships or single window services. The multidisciplinary partnerships may look attractive, but the crucial question is whether the quality of services and accountability of the systems can be maintained? The code of ethics must be reviewed, to international legal practice and within their jurisdiction.

Foreign firms may license for a regular and comprehensive legal practice, as the Indian lawyers, or they can apply to a limited practice of consulting for foreign partner in their home country laws. In accordance with the rules and regulations are framed, these two situations. The FLF's, intending to opt for a regular practice possibly to a citizenship and immigration laws. Those who practice in limited partnerships with the native law firms without control from the organized legal profession. It is thus imperative that a transparent, fair and reliable system will be developed to regulate and the internationalization of legal practice.

With globalization and liberalization policies are not only foreign entrepreneurs have been in India for investment, but also to foreign goods and products, such as agricultural products and other goods in the Indian market. The Indian goods and products have to face a tough competition with foreign products, which are cheaper but may not be in a better quality. The result is that the Indian farmers and traders are seriously affected in their business. We also have the example of Enron, in the news, in which the Indian Act was amended, without the realization of the likely negative effects on the electrical company in the state. The agreement with Enron apparently not in the interest of the State or the Nation. However, these aspects of thought and not until later when the real action is taken. With this experience, it is of the opinion that we should not be carried out with the aim of the idea of raising our standards or are on a par with other developed countries, where the guideline of reciprocity may follow and the FLF's and FLC would be allowed to the country. We must be very alert and vigilant and think well in advance to do away with all the spaces or gaps in the rules and regulations to be introduced to protect the interests of lawyers in our country.
Another point that must be on the countries who would be interested in India. If these countries are members of the World Trade Organization or even the third countries, in India? If the entry is only available to members of the WTO and, where appropriate, third country wishes in India, would be refused entry solely on the grounds that it is not for membership in the WTO or whether the non-member entry to our fairness and Equality? How many countries could be of interest in the coming to India through liberalization, globalization and privatization policies in India, but the chances of Indian companies are from India, all foreign country would be remote. The principle of reciprocity can be introduced in the paper, but may not effectively followed.

It may be mentioned here that the "Lawyer's Collective" has a public interest before the Mumbai High Court questioning the words "exercise of the profession of law" under § 29 of the Act supports. The respondents in their petition include some of the FLF's, which has its own liaison office in India. It is unnecessary to point out that all the above points are discussed in the above petition, the result of which is expected.

The Indian legal profession has in recent years a significant change, to be very competitive and ready to work together with the ongoing wave of globalization. The interest of foreign law firms to business in India is therefore hardly surprising, since India offers a comprehensive range of legal services, of comparable quality, at literally a fraction of the price that would otherwise be payable. The more conservative, and if the word "protectionist" stand of the Bar Council of India in the matter has, however, prohibited foreign law firms, in India. A number of the incumbent, perhaps unable to resist the enormous potential of the Indian legal markets, and in anticipation of the "globalization of legal services" under the auspices of the WTO, are slowly (very discreetly) to establish their presence in India, in a significant number of cases, the form of input into the associations with Indian companies, and in the process, literally in India indirectly, in spite of the prohibitions against the same. One theme that has begun to attract the attention not only of Indian lawyers, but also law school graduates, is the probable consequences of the entry of foreign firms in India. Will this help an already growing Indian market, legal, or is it just a loss of jobs for Indian law grads?

The fact remains that India is in the process of economic globalization. In the process, the legal market opening to competition of the international legal order is not inevitable. Instead of discussions on the pros and cons of legal markets to open to foreign companies, it is perhaps useful to accept that the entry of foreign firms in India is only a matter of time. However, this should not mean that their actions will still be regulated, because otherwise they can only push the Indian company. For law school graduates, their presence in India could be in a growing range of employment opportunities, in addition to their presence in India significantly influence the way in which the Indian legal market is evolving in the 21st Century.