The Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) on Saturday responded to the accusations levelled by the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its opposition to how foreign law firms are being allowed to establish practice in India. .In a response sent to BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, SILF President Lalit Bhasin stated that BCI's accusation that corporate, transactional and arbitration work in the country has been monopolised by a small group of Indian law firms is devoid of logic and is factually incorrect. The letter states,"Does BCI want to bring in foreign interests to demolish Indian entities?"SILF has questioned the BCI’s justification that the entry of foreign law firms would benefit smaller firms by dismantling the monopolies of big law firms. “Firstly, there are no monopolies. Even young and emerging law firms are engaged in big corporate and transactional legal work. These young firms are technology-driven and very competent and knowledgeable. Further, thanks to the policies and initiatives of the government under the leadership of Prime Minister Modi, there has been, due to India's position as one of the top four economies in the world, a significant surge in legal work resulting in more and more emerging law firms getting a big pie of the legal work. Indian law firms are more cost-effective, a consideration which is vital for foreign clients,” SILF said. .SILF reiterated that while it supports the entry of foreign firms, it is concerned with the way the changes are being implemented. .SILF and BCI have been sparring over the changes in the rules to allow the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms into India. On June 18, BCI responded to reservations expressed by SILF, accusing it of preserving the interests of only a bunch of big law firms. It also said that a registry of all Indian law firms and their lawyers will be set up to establish a democratically elected pan-India body..In its reply, SILF said that attacking the so-called big law firms is unfortunate because they have attained that position through sheer merit, hard work, knowledge, experience and expertise, and they have modernised the Indian legal profession.SILF drew a parallel with the state of the profession of accountancy, where no worthy Indian firm exists, and the sector is dominated by the Big Four foreign firms. It further said that there is no comparison between the size and revenue of the big law firms like Kirkland & Ellis, which has an annual revenue of nearly US$7 billion. The aggregate revenues of the entire corporate practice in India are a minuscule fraction of the annual revenue of just one of these "big" firms, SILF said. “If BCI envisions a place under the sun for the Indian profession, then BCI should recognise the role of India's law firms, whether big or small, and BCI should create conditions in which Indian law firms can dream "big" of becoming global law firms. Do not dismantle our law firms on the alleged ground of being "big" or "monopolies". "Big" is a relative term.”.SILF stated that it is the only body of its kind and its status has been recognised by the government, the judiciary and even the BCI itself. It added that the election to its various posts are being conducted and the rules provide for preserving young and emerging law firms. Further, SILF reiterated that it favours the opening of the legal services market, but the same should be done in a regulated, phased and sequenced manner. “I would like to reiterate that over the last 10 years, SILF has maintained a consistent stand and expressed consistent concerns, as outlined in our meetings with IMG and BCI, and documented in our representations to BCI since 2015.”In the end, the letter states that this is only SILF’s response to the BCI’s accusations and that they will send a detailed response to the rules as well, which contain many lacunae. .[Read SILF response]
