The Bar Council of India (BCI) has turned its glare on the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF), accusing it of crossing a professional red line with what it described as “sensational and misleading” commentary on the contentious entry of foreign law firms into India’s legal market.
In a strongly worded statement released Sunday, the BCI accused certain SILF office bearers of using the profession to further private interests, alleging that their public remarks were less about legal integrity and more about preserving elite monopolies.
“These individuals,” the BCI said, “are issuing press releases that cloak commercial anxiety in the language of public concern. That is not advocacy; that is professional misconduct.”
The Council is now actively weighing disciplinary proceedings against those behind the statements—ranging from formal reprimands to suspension or even removal from the rolls.
The rift between SILF and the BCI has deepened ever since the BCI introduced revised regulations to cautiously allow the entry of foreign law firms, albeit only for non-litigious advisory work. While SILF claims it supports the idea of liberalisation in principle, it has publicly questioned the manner and pace of its implementation—most recently suggesting the BCI’s intent might be to “demolish” Indian law firms altogether.
BCI’s reply? Sharp, dismissive, and unyielding.
It called SILF’s stance a mask for self-preservation, describing the group as a “pocket society” that represents just 2% of Indian law firms—primarily large players already reaping benefits from foreign tie-ups, all while blocking younger firms from similar opportunities.
“Many SILF members have long had unofficial arrangements with foreign legal entities. Their current outrage is hypocrisy dressed in concern,” the BCI asserted.
Pointing to broader support from both the public and legal professionals, the BCI defended its reforms as essential steps toward global competitiveness. It underscored that foreign firms are still barred from practicing Indian law or appearing before courts—a safeguard embedded in the very rules SILF has called “ultra vires.”
“There’s no breach here—just resistance from those who fear losing their dominance,” the BCI added, warning that continued obstructionism from a “handful of individuals” is costing the legal profession, and the nation, valuable opportunities.
The Council also signaled more regulatory changes in the pipeline, including reforms on legal advertising and limited liability partnerships—moves it says are designed to put Indian law firms on stronger footing globally.
A final call on the foreign law firm rules is expected after a national-level consultation in Mumbai. The BCI plans to convene a large meeting of representatives from law firms across the country before issuing its concluding stance.
Until then, one thing is clear: the gloves are off, and the battle for the soul—and market share—of Indian legal practice is now being fought not in the courtroom, but in the court of regulatory power.
