The Bar Council of India (BCI) recently made good on its word to amend its rules to let foreign lawyers and law firms practice “foreign and international law” in India, provided they do not litigate. The BCI Rules have stirred considerable interest, and perhaps more questions.

Heralded by some as a bold step toward globalisation, and by others as a symbolic gesture wrapped in red tape, the 2025 Rules don’t promise a revolution. But they do signal something important: nearly three decades and a landmark Supreme Court decision later, India is finally taking steps to open its legal market.

Let’s be clear—this isn’t a free-for-all. The Rules are no open invitation to foreign firms to hang a shingle in Mumbai or Delhi. Instead, they mark a controlled, carefully worded opening with layers of regulation, procedural caution and unmistakable protectiveness toward the Indian legal profession. Still, considering that leading global economies like the US have a segmented state-wise patchwork of regulations for foreign lawyer accreditation, these BCI Rules are a start.

At their core, the Rules allow foreign lawyers and firms to practice foreign law and international legal matters in India, but only under specific conditions. There’s the “fly-in, fly-out” model, capped at 60 days a year (a provision which has been made stricter as the Rules introduce a requirement for submitting a compulsory declaration to the BCI for every visit), limited permission to engage in international commercial arbitration when the dispute involves foreign or international law, high entry costs and strict restrictions on directly practicing Indian law. Any foreign lawyer hoping to operate under these Rules must register with the BCI and secure a no-objection certificate from both the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of External Affairs. Not exactly a low-barrier or free-market entry.

Much has already been said about the legal and logistical knots embedded in these reforms. The Advocates Act, 1961 still stands as the foundational barrier, permitting only Indian citizens to practice law in India. Until that’s amended, any regulatory dance to enter the Indian market will remain largely symbolic. And then there’s the question of confidentiality. How will foreign firms reconcile India’s client disclosure norms with their own professional obligations abroad?

But beyond the technicalities, the real question is this: do these changes alter how foreign law firms view the Indian market? The answer, as always, lies somewhere in the business case.

The current trending view seems to be that opening an office in India is expensive, time-consuming and fraught with compliance; even for an otherwise generally expensive cross-border market. Opening an office in India doesn’t necessarily mean a strong commitment to building an India practice; given costs and still restricted measures under the Rules, firms can be committed to building an Indian client portfolio from anywhere else with minimal costs. For many global firms, especially those already working in India-related deals from London, Singapore or even New York, there’s little urgency to plant a flag on Indian soil. Why incur the cost and complexity of a local presence when there’s already a well-oiled framework to serve client needs from existing offices?

A strong reason could be to understand the cultural texture that shapes how business is done in India. Relationships matter, deeply. Whether you're a domestic or foreign firm, much of the legal work is rooted in long-standing trust and familiarity. Top global firms haven’t just popped up in India; they’ve invested years in nurturing meaningful partnerships with Indian counterparts and, through them, with Indian clients. This includes attending and sponsoring huge conferences, hiring Indian-qualified lawyers, long coffee chats or flying-in for a 10-minute client meeting; all of which is an expensive and time-consuming process. These established and existing pathways create a natural moat - an invisible wall that makes it harder for newer or less-connected law firms and other stakeholders to gain traction, no matter how capable.

The Rules can meaningfully help these newer foreign firms engage with Indian clients. Newer foreign firms which were hesitant to incur high costs competing with these existing big firms, can take advantage of the streamlined and almost fixed cost route given by the BCI. As stated above, relationships are key to building trust, and having even a modest presence in India can make a significant difference. A satellite office, even if limited in scope, may serve as a bridge - not to practice Indian law but to build relationships, understand client needs in real time and chip away at legacy dynamics that may otherwise keep them on the outside.

In fact, we’ve seen this approach before – just the other way. Prominent Indian law firms have set up shop in places like Singapore and Dubai, not to practice local law or complete with local law firms, but to deepen client relationships and be closer to cross-border business flows. The BCI Rules, though limited in their scope, offer foreign firms a similar foothold. While the prohibition on advising on Indian law remains unchanged, a real shift can be seen in visibility. Firms with a clear intention to work with Indian clients now have a pathway - albeit narrow - to begin building direct relationships and engage more naturally with outbound Indian transactional work.

The more substantive opportunity may lie in arbitration. The BCI has made it clear that foreign lawyers may participate in international commercial arbitration conducted in India, provided such arbitration involves foreign law or international law, “thereby promoting India as a viable destination for international arbitration without compromising the rights of Indian legal professionals.” It’s a small but symbolic gesture that attempts to position India as a potential hub for cross-border dispute resolution. Whether this will lead to a boom in arbitration centres across India remains to be seen, but at least a heavy lock to the door has been removed.

In essence, the BCI’s message to foreign firms is this: if you want to be here, really be here. No half-measures and no testing waters. The regulatory framework isn’t designed to make it easy; it’s designed to make it deliberate. Foreign firms must weigh their real business incentives and understand whether the long-term payoff is worth the short-term restraint.

Meanwhile, the Rules serve another, quieter purpose. They nudge domestic firms toward greater professionalism and international alignment. They acknowledge the growing demand for cross-border legal services and suggest that collaboration might be the way forward. Indian lawyers too are being given a chance to think globally without surrendering local control.

While the BCI’s Rules aren’t magic beans that sprout overnight success, they do plant a seed. And in a market as complex and fertile as India’s, even a small seed, nurtured carefully, can grow into something transformative.

While the first to enter can seem symbolic or experimental, what is truly meaningful is who adapts, who builds local partnerships and who has enough experience to navigate the Indian ecosystem. The real story isn’t about whether foreign law firms will rush in; but rather whether they’ll see enough value and find creative paths to stay.

Vaishali Movva is a Staff Attorney at Eimer Stahl LLP, a litigation firm headquartered in Chicago.

Jashaswi Ghosh is Counsel at Holon Law Partners, a New York-headquartered corporate and commercial law firm.