Writ Petition No. 1526 of 1995
In the High Court of judicature at Bombay
Parties: Lawyers Collective
Vs
Bar Council of India & 14 other respondents.
Brief Summary of Dispute:
Respondents No. 12 and 14, the foreign legal firms namely White & Case and Ashurst Morris Crisp established liaison office in India after obtaining approval of Reserve Bank of India under Section 29 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner challenged that these law firms can not carry out these liaison activities without being enrolled as an Advocate under Advocate Act, 1961. The petitioner further argued that even practicing non litigious matter shall amount to rendering professional legal services and these services can not be provided without obtaining registration under the provisions of Advocate Act.
Judgment dated 16th Dec, 2009:
Court held that Advocate Act covers the persons practicing the profession of litigious as well as non litigious matters. Further, Court said that it would be incorrect to hold that the Advocate Act is restricted to the persons practicing litigious matters only and does not apply to the persons practicing non litigious matters. There is no reason to hold that non litigious matters are unregulated in India.
The Court concluded that liaison activities of these foreign firms are nothing but practicing the profession of law in non litigious matters. The provisions of Advocate Act are applicable for non litigious matters; hence these firms are bound to follow the provisions contained in the Advocate Act.
View points of members are solicited on following:
1. Will this judgment obstruct the growth of legal profession in India (i.e. human capital may remain untapped due to lack of competition in the legal sector)?
2. Will the judgment be blow on foreign legal firms for making passive
entry in India before the sector is opened up?
3. Will this judgment be applicable to LPOs rendering non litigious
services to their clients?
If yes, How LPOs could be regulated under Advocate Act for
rendering non litigious services?
In the High Court of judicature at Bombay
Parties: Lawyers Collective
Vs
Bar Council of India & 14 other respondents.
Brief Summary of Dispute:
Respondents No. 12 and 14, the foreign legal firms namely White & Case and Ashurst Morris Crisp established liaison office in India after obtaining approval of Reserve Bank of India under Section 29 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner challenged that these law firms can not carry out these liaison activities without being enrolled as an Advocate under Advocate Act, 1961. The petitioner further argued that even practicing non litigious matter shall amount to rendering professional legal services and these services can not be provided without obtaining registration under the provisions of Advocate Act.
Judgment dated 16th Dec, 2009:
Court held that Advocate Act covers the persons practicing the profession of litigious as well as non litigious matters. Further, Court said that it would be incorrect to hold that the Advocate Act is restricted to the persons practicing litigious matters only and does not apply to the persons practicing non litigious matters. There is no reason to hold that non litigious matters are unregulated in India.
The Court concluded that liaison activities of these foreign firms are nothing but practicing the profession of law in non litigious matters. The provisions of Advocate Act are applicable for non litigious matters; hence these firms are bound to follow the provisions contained in the Advocate Act.
View points of members are solicited on following:
1. Will this judgment obstruct the growth of legal profession in India (i.e. human capital may remain untapped due to lack of competition in the legal sector)?
2. Will the judgment be blow on foreign legal firms for making passive
entry in India before the sector is opened up?
3. Will this judgment be applicable to LPOs rendering non litigious
services to their clients?
If yes, How LPOs could be regulated under Advocate Act for
rendering non litigious services?
