Bar Council of India: In a press release dated 29-06-2025, the Bar Council of India heavily criticised the contentions raised by the Society of Indian Law Firms (‘SILF’) against the introduction of Foreign Law Firms and Lawyers in the Indian legal industry. The BCI also extended the deadline for receiving views on the Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2025 (‘the Rules’) by a month.
The BCI stated that SILF represented about 2 percent or less of the more than 15,000 law firms active across India, contrary to its contention that it embodied the collective voice of the Indian legal fraternity. It stated that SILF was a self-appointed body that spoke primarily for its exclusive circle rather than for the profession at large. It was a private, voluntary, self-selected group that had historically functioned as a closed, elite club rather than a democratic, representative institution. The BCI reiterated that SILF did not conduct internal elections, operated under an opaque leadership structure, and could not claim any statutory or constitutional authority to represent the legal profession as a whole.
The BCI further remarked that the contention that SILF had maintained a supportive stance toward the “regulated, phased, and sequential” entry of foreign lawyers was contradicted by its consistent opposition to every concrete move toward liberalisation. For over two decades, SILF had actively resisted initiatives aimed at integrating India’s legal profession with global standards and opportunities. Furthermore, the BCI rebuked the suggestion that SILF’s participation amounted to veto power over national policy.
For this reason, the BCI stated that it, being a responsible body committed to protecting the interests of lawyers and law firms, was keen to provide opportunities to several unorganised Indian law firms. Additionally, it would soon work to associate and unite all law firms into a democratic association or organisation.
Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2025
The press release elaborated that the Rules were carefully crafted in line with Supreme Court judgments and after rigorous legal scrutiny. They restricted foreign lawyers to non-litigious advisory work, explicitly prohibiting them from practicing Indian law or appearing before Indian courts and tribunals. The BCI expressed that this regulated entry did not encroach upon the practice domain of Indian lawyers but merely opened doors for them to advise on their own country’s laws and international matters. Such an approach was globally accepted.
The BCI contested the SILF’s assertion that there were no monopolies among Indian law firms was untenable. It reiterated that a few large firms had systematically monopolised corporate and arbitration work by leveraging informal relationships with foreign clients and networks. This concentration had deprived smaller, mid-sized, and regional firms, as well as young and dynamic advocates, of valuable cross-border legal opportunities.
The BCI also rebuked SILF’s suggestion that foreign entry would dismantle the Indian legal arena, stating that controlled foreign participation promotes a more competitive, modern, and globally integrated legal sphere, ultimately empowering clients, providing opportunities for young lawyers, and strengthening India’s international standing. It added that the claim that “young and emerging firms are doing big corporate work” did not negate the reality that many are systematically excluded from lucrative cross-border mandates. The opening of controlled, reciprocal opportunities was intended precisely to level the playing field and democratise access to global legal work.
SILF’s Misconduct
The BCI remarked that the language employed by SILF in its press releases amounted to professional misconduct, and it had been consistently attempting to undermine the authority of the BCI, a statutory body. The BCI commented, “The deliberate dissemination of misleading statements, intended to create a false impression among the legal fraternity and the public at large, is not merely an act of misinformation but also a clear violation of an Advocate’s broader duty to maintain the dignity and integrity of the profession at all times.” Additionally, the BCI Rules (specifically Rule 36) prohibit an Advocate from engaging in direct or indirect advertising or self-promotion through misleading public statements, personal communications, interviews not warranted by personal relations, or by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments. The BCI remarked, “Issuing sensational or deceptive press releases in the name of protecting law firms, when in reality aimed at safeguarding private commercial interests, constitutes using the profession for personal or sectional gain, which is strictly prohibited.”
Considering this, the BCI stated that it was seriously considering issuing notice to the individuals responsible for these press releases to explain their conduct. If found guilty, appropriate disciplinary action might be taken, including reprimand, suspension, or even removal from the roll of Advocates.
BCI’s goals, objectives, and functioning
The BCI expressed its commitment to strengthening Indian law firms, both large and small, which required building unity and promoting collaboration among all law firms by forming a resilient, broad-based organisation that genuinely represented and safeguarded their collective interests. In this regard, the BCI stated that it would convene a large-scale meeting of all law firms in India to better address future challenges and opportunities.
The press release also explained that the BCI’s regulations had been meticulously drafted to comply with domestic legal standards and international best practices. They included strict conditions such as government-issued NOCs, regulatory oversight, and compliance checks to ensure that the interests of Indian lawyers and law firms remain fully safeguarded.
The BCI also expressed that it was open to bona fide suggestions aimed at strengthening the legal profession. In this regard, pursuant to its resolution dated 12-06-2025 (‘the resolution’) and press release dated 18-06-2025, the BCI had invited views and suggestions from interested parties. The deadline for receiving these views was 02-07-2025, but vide this press release, it was extended by 30 days effective from the date of the press release. However, it was clarified that this extension would not affect the ongoing work of the BCI, which would continue its deliberations as scheduled and submit its report upon completion of the same.
The BCI stated that it would carefully consider all the letters and opinions received from law firms, following which a large meeting would be convened in Mumbai consisting of representatives of all law firms, and only after hearing their views would the BCI take any final decision on the matter.
