The issue of legal practice by foreign law firms,
lawyers, legal process outsourcing (LPO) providers and others like
chartered accountants is a bone of contention between Indian legal
fraternity and these persons.
It seems the matter is on the verge of being decided
by the highest court of India. In a recent interim
order by the Supreme Court of India, the court held that
till the matter is finally decided by it, the Reserve Bank of India
shall not grant any permission to the foreign law firms to open
liaison offices in India under Section 29 of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 ( now FEMA 1999).
The Supreme Court of India also clarified that the
expression "to practice the profession of law" under
Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 covers the persons practicing
litigious matters as well as non-litigious matters other than
contemplated in para 63(ii) of the impugned order and, therefore, to
practice in non-litigious matters in India the foreign law firms, by
whatever name called or described, shall be bound to follow the
provisions contained in the Advocates Act, 1961.
This means that foreign law firms and LPOs cannot
practice either litigation or non litigation related issues in India
anymore. This also means that Indian
LPO service providers like Perry4Law
would witness an enhanced role in the LPO segment of India.
Of course, the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers
can visit India for a temporary period on a “fly in and fly out”
basis, for the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients in
India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse
international legal issues. However, foreign LPO or an LPO having non
legal personals have to close their shops in India immediately.
This also means that chartered accountants (CA),
companies secretaries (CS), etc who are in full time practice cannot
engage in either litigation or non litigation related activities in
India. If they engage in such activities that would clearly be
illegal.
All companies, individuals, etc, whether Indian or
foreign, who engage the services of such persons would be doing
the same at their own risks as such services would not be recognised
by Indian law. This should be avoided till the matter is conclusively
resolved by the apex court of India.
The matter would be again reheard after a gap of 10
weeks and let us see how the developments would take shape from here
onwards.
