India's Legal Framework for Foreign Lawyers
In May 2025, the Bar Council of India (BCI) implemented the Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Law Firms in India. This has drawn criticism, especially from U.S.-based firms, alleging non-tariff barriers.
Criticisms Raised by U.S. Law Firms:
Non-tariff trade barrier – Procedural hurdles allegedly designed to block U.S. entry.
Lack of consultation – Alleged exclusion of U.S. views in rule framing.
Client confidentiality – Disclosure norms (e.g., nature of work, client identity) said to violate ABA model rules.
Fly-in, fly-out norms – Perceived as stricter than what Indian lawyers face in the U.S.
Surprise implementation – No transition time was given to adapt.
Impact on bilateral trade – May deter Indo-U.S. corporate legal collaborations.
BCI’s Legal and Constitutional Justification:
Not a trade issue – Legal profession is governed by Entries 77 & 78 of Union List (not under trade/commerce).
Personal service – As per Bar of Indian Lawyers vs D.K. Gandhi (2024), legal practice is a contract of personal service, not trade.
Consistency – India also excluded legal services from UK-India FTA despite global pressure.
Key Features of BCI Rules (2025):
Rule 3 & 4: Allow foreign firms to register and operate in India under set guidelines.
Fly-in, fly-out clause: Max stay of 60 days/year for temporary practice.
Reciprocity principle: U.S. lawyers face comparable regulatory barriers when Indian lawyers attempt to practice in the U.S.
Good Standing Certificate (Rule 4h): Criticised due to decentralised U.S. system, but Rule 6 allows case-by-case flexibility.
Disclosure requirements: Seek only general info, not specific confidential client details.
Wider Consultation History:
Long-term deliberation – Two decades of expert discussions.
Key cases:
Lawyers Collective vs BCI (2009)
BCI vs A.K. Balaji (2018) – formed legal basis for foreign law practice regulations,which have collectively laid the foundation for the present regulatory framework.