Latest news with #SILF
India Gazette
29-06-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
BCI rebukes SILF over opposition to foreign law firm entry, reaffirms commitment to legal reform
New Delhi [India], June 29 (ANI): The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a detailed response to the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), rejecting its claim of representing the collective voice of the Indian legal fraternity and calling out its opposition to the regulated entry of foreign law firms into India. In a strongly worded statement, the BCI stated that SILF represents less than 2% of the country's 15,000+ law firms and functions as a private, self-appointed body with no statutory or democratic authority. Describing SILF as an elite group shielding narrow commercial interests, the BCI stated it does not speak for the broader legal community. Reinforcing its mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI clarified that it is the sole statutory authority responsible for regulating legal education and practice in India. It emphasised that the 2025 Amended Rules, which permit foreign law firms to advise on foreign and international law (but prohibit them from practising Indian law or appearing in courts), were crafted in compliance with Supreme Court rulings and international standards. The BCI dismissed SILF's claims that there are no monopolies in the Indian legal sector, pointing instead to how a few large firms have cornered corporate and arbitration work through exclusive networks. It called SILF's continued resistance a protectionist stance, aimed at preserving existing advantages while excluding young and emerging firms from global opportunities. Criticising SILF's recent public statements, the BCI warned that some language used amounts to professional misconduct under the Bar Council Rules, especially provisions prohibiting misleading publicity and improper conduct by advocates. It announced that disciplinary action may be initiated against individuals responsible for such misrepresentations. The BCI reaffirmed its commitment to inclusive reforms, aimed at unifying law firms under a new democratic and representative platform. It welcomed feedback from law firms nationwide, extended its public consultation deadline, and announced plans to convene a large-scale meeting in Mumbai to finalise its policy decisions with inputs from all stakeholders. Rejecting SILF's claims that foreign entry would harm Indian legal interests, the BCI noted that many countries--including the UK and Singapore--allow foreign lawyers to offer advisory services without impacting domestic legal sovereignty. The BCI's model follows this globally accepted approach. In response, SILF President Lalit Bhasin recently claimed that BCI's allegations were unfounded and questioned whether the move would harm Indian law firms. While reiterating its support for the phased entry of foreign firms, SILF expressed concern over the implementation and alleged that Indian law firms--especially younger ones--are already thriving due to economic growth and digital advancement. The BCI maintained that its reforms are intended to level the playing field, modernise the legal profession, and position India as a global arbitration and legal hub. It emphasised that public sentiment and media support overwhelmingly favour the move and that obstructionist rhetoric from narrow interest groups will not derail progress. (ANI)
Time of India
29-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
BCI rebukes SILF over opposition to foreign law firm entry, reaffirms commitment to legal reform
New Delhi: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has issued a detailed response to the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), rejecting its claim of representing the collective voice of the Indian legal fraternity and calling out its opposition to the regulated entry of foreign law firms into India. In a strongly worded statement, the BCI stated that SILF represents less than 2% of the country's 15,000+ law firms and functions as a private, self-appointed body with no statutory or democratic authority. Describing SILF as an elite group shielding narrow commercial interests, the BCI stated it does not speak for the broader legal community. Reinforcing its mandate under the Advocates Act, 1961, the BCI clarified that it is the sole statutory authority responsible for regulating legal education and practice in India. It emphasised that the 2025 Amended Rules, which permit foreign law firms to advise on foreign and international law (but prohibit them from practising Indian law or appearing in courts), were crafted in compliance with Supreme Court rulings and international standards. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Direct Shopping From Adidas Franchise Store, Up To 50% Off Original Adidas Shop Now The BCI dismissed SILF's claims that there are no monopolies in the Indian legal sector, pointing instead to how a few large firms have cornered corporate and arbitration work through exclusive networks. It called SILF's continued resistance a protectionist stance, aimed at preserving existing advantages while excluding young and emerging firms from global opportunities. Criticising SILF's recent public statements, the BCI warned that some language used amounts to professional misconduct under the Bar Council Rules, especially provisions prohibiting misleading publicity and improper conduct by advocates. It announced that disciplinary action may be initiated against individuals responsible for such misrepresentations. Live Events The BCI reaffirmed its commitment to inclusive reforms, aimed at unifying law firms under a new democratic and representative platform. It welcomed feedback from law firms nationwide, extended its public consultation deadline, and announced plans to convene a large-scale meeting in Mumbai to finalise its policy decisions with inputs from all stakeholders. Rejecting SILF's claims that foreign entry would harm Indian legal interests, the BCI noted that many countries--including the UK and Singapore--allow foreign lawyers to offer advisory services without impacting domestic legal sovereignty. The BCI's model follows this globally accepted approach. In response, SILF President Lalit Bhasin recently claimed that BCI's allegations were unfounded and questioned whether the move would harm Indian law firms. While reiterating its support for the phased entry of foreign firms, SILF expressed concern over the implementation and alleged that Indian law firms--especially younger ones--are already thriving due to economic growth and digital advancement. The BCI maintained that its reforms are intended to level the playing field, modernise the legal profession, and position India as a global arbitration and legal hub. It emphasised that public sentiment and media support overwhelmingly favour the move and that obstructionist rhetoric from narrow interest groups will not derail progress.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
19-06-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
To prepare a centralised registry of all lawyers, law firms, says BCI
The Bar Council of India (BCI) is in the process of preparing a centralised registry of all law firms and lawyers to establish a democratically elected, pan-India organisation of Indian law firms, the lawyers' governing body said. "This organisation will ensure that voices from every region and practice level are included in the policy dialogues," BCI said. The Council was responding to the Society of Indian Law Firms' (SILF's) opposition to the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms into the country. In its press release, the BCI said SILF did not represent the broad spectrum of Indian law firms. 'It functions primarily as a closed group dominated by a few large, well-established firms. Its stance and actions do not reflect the concerns or aspirations of more than 90 per cent of India's smaller or emerging law firms,' the BCI said in a press note. The Council, which is the apex lawyers' representative and governance body, had on June 14 constituted a high-level committee chaired by Cyril Shroff, the managing partner of law firm Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, to examine concerns around the May 2025 notification on the entry and operation of foreign lawyers and law firms in India. Shortly after this, on June 17, SILF formed a committee of lawyers, headed by Shardul Shroff of Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, to suggest changes to the recently notified BCI rules allowing foreign lawyers and law firms to work in India. The BCI said that the consistent feedback it had received indicated that SILF has historically acted to preserve its members' commercial interests at the expense of young, deserving Indian lawyers and new legal practices striving to grow in an increasingly competitive and global legal arena. The lawyers' governing body also alleged that law firms comprising SILF had maintained close affiliations with major foreign legal firms, enabling them to create a 'parallel legal services economy, wherein foreign legal work is funnelled through select Indian firms'. Corporate, transactional, and arbitration-related legal services in India have been monopolised by a small group of law firms, which has stifled the growth of smaller law firms and talented young lawyers, the BCI said. 'The BCI, through these regulations, seeks to democratize access to cross-border legal work, and dismantle the structural monopolies that have long existed within the Indian legal services sector,' the release said.
The Hindu
19-06-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
BCI hits back at Society of Indian Law Firms over foreign law firm rules
The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Thursday (June 19, 2025) pushed back against criticism from the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), the apex body of law firms in India, over its recent move to let foreign lawyers and law firms work in India in a limited capacity. Responding to SILF's public statements, the BCI — the regulatory authority for the legal profession — said the group does not speak for most Indian law firms, especially smaller and newer ones. 'It (SILF) functions primarily as a closed group dominated by a few large, well-established firms. Its stance and actions do not reflect the concerns or aspirations of more than 90% of India's smaller or emerging law firms,' BCI said. Also read: India warms to foreign law firms, but legal concerns simmer In May 2025, the BCI introduced a notification permitting foreign lawyers to function in non-litigious areas only. BCI said the decision was 'based on extensive consultations and overwhelmingly positive feedback from Indian law firms across the country'. 'Contrary to the misleading claims being circulated, these rules do not allow foreign lawyers to practice Indian law, litigate in Indian courts, or appear before any Indian tribunal or statutory authority,' it said. The rules restrict foreign law firms and lawyers strictly to advisory roles in non-litigious matters involving foreign law, international law, or international commercial arbitration, all subject to regulatory oversight and a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Government of India. Committee set up BCI said it has already constituted a high-level committee chaired by Cyril Shroff and comprising senior partners from leading law firms, who have been tasked with reviewing the rules and incorporating feedback from stakeholders, including SILF. The council has also resolved to individually engage with law firms nationwide and are working to convene a national-level conference of Indian law firms in Mumbai this September. 'Old win in new bottle' While speaking to The Hindu last month, SILF chairman Lalit Bhasin while welcoming the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers in India raised a few legal concerns. Mr. Bhasin said the BCI's move might go against a 2018 Supreme Court ruling. While the earlier 2023 BCI notification was put on hold, he said that the latest notification feels like 'old wine in a new bottle'. He also suggested that Parliament should step in and amend the law to avoid confusion. On the other hand, the BCI targeted SILF saying it has 'historically acted to preserve its members commercial interests at the expense of young, deserving Indian lawyers and new legal practices striving to grow in an increasingly competitive and global legal arena'. BCI alleged that many of the firms comprising SILF have maintained 'close, long-standing professional affiliations with major foreign law firms'. 'These affiliations have enabled a parallel legal services economy, wherein foreign legal work is funnelled through select Indian firms. This has systematically denied fair opportunities to the vast majority of Indian legal practitioners,' it said. It also stated that SILF has, for over 20 years, opposed any serious engagement with foreign firms — hurting Indian law firms that want to grow internationally.
India Gazette
19-06-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
Bar Council stands by foreign law firm policy amid SILF resistance
New Delhi [India], June 19 (ANI): The Bar Council of India (BCI) has initiated a nationwide consultative process led by a high-level expert committee to review feedback on its amended Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2025. The move comes amid criticism from the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), which the BCI has accused of monopolising access to international legal work and misrepresenting the broader interests of the Indian legal community. The expert panel, chaired by eminent corporate lawyer Cyril Shroff, includes senior legal figures such as Ajay Bahl, Suhail Nathani, Sandip Bhagat, Mahesh Agarwal, and Amit Kapur. It has been tasked with collecting and incorporating stakeholder suggestions while reaffirming the BCI's commitment to fairness, accountability, and legal sovereignty. The Bar Council has invited written submissions from law firms, professionals, and the public within 15 days. The points of reference for the consultation are available on the official BCI website, according to the BCI statement issued on Thursday... The BCI's response targets what it describes as SILF's 'obstructionist stance,' asserting that the group represents only a small clique of large, established firms and not the majority of India's 90-95% small and mid-sized practices. These emerging firms, the BCI argues, have long been excluded from cross-border legal opportunities due to the gatekeeping and foreign affiliations maintained by SILF's dominant members. The Bar Council emphasised that its amended 2025 Regulations are designed to democratise access to global legal practice, particularly for young lawyers and underrepresented law firms seeking international exposure. Contrary to SILF's claims, BCI clarified that foreign law firms are not permitted to practice Indian law, appear before courts or tribunals, or handle litigation-related matters. The 2025 Regulations, as clarified by the BCI, impose strict boundaries on foreign participation: No practice of Indian law in any form is allowed. No appearances in Indian courts, tribunals, or quasi-judicial authorities (Rule 8(2)(b)). Permitted activities are confined to advisory roles involving foreign law, public/private international law, or international arbitration. Prohibited activities include conveyancing, title verification, and legal drafting related to Indian proceedings (Rule 8(2)(c)). International arbitration participation is allowed only where disputes involve foreign law or non-Indian parties (Rule 8(2)(e)). All foreign firms must first obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Government of India (Rule 4(a)). In a bid to make policymaking more inclusive, BCI has also announced a National Conference of Indian Law Firms to be held in Mumbai in September 2025. The event will provide a platform for nationwide participation, particularly from regional and smaller firms traditionally excluded from SILF's centralised control. Simultaneously, the BCI is working to create a central registry of law firms and their lawyers, which will eventually enable a democratically elected national body to represent India's legal profession--a contrast to SILF, which the BCI notes has not held internal elections for decades. The BCI alleged that SILF's core motivation stems from fear of losing its exclusive foreign work pipeline. 'Many of these same firms already maintain foreign offices or unofficial tie-ups with foreign law firms,' said the Council. 'Their opposition is not to foreign entry per se, but to the possibility that foreign clients may choose to engage with newer and smaller Indian firms instead.' BCI has firmly rejected claims that the amended rules compromise India's legal independence. 'The Regulations explicitly protect Indian legal sovereignty. No foreign lawyer or firm will be allowed to interpret, argue, or practice Indian law,' the statement reads. Any attempt to circumvent the provisions by Indian or foreign entities will attract regulatory action, including monetary penalties, suspension of registration, disqualification, and possible disciplinary or criminal proceedings, the BCI stated in the statement. The BCI has reiterated that the Regulations are legally valid, currently in force, and not under abeyance or judicial challenge. They are designed to uplift the entire legal profession, especially young, talented advocates who seek a global presence. While the Council expressed its openness to genuine concerns, it condemned misinformation campaigns and fear-mongering. 'The BCI is committed to reform--not for the few, but for the many,' it stated. 'The future of Indian law must be inclusive, competitive, and global.' (ANI)
