PROJECT WORK

(Professional Ethics)

GATS and the Legal Profession.

SUBMITTED TO : Mr. Neeraj Tiwari

SUBMITTED BY : Aakanksha Kumar

Roll no. 1

Semester X

SUBMITTED ON: March 12, 2012

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

On the completion of this project I find that there are many persons to whom
I would like to express my gratitude, since without their help and co-
operation the success of this educative endeavour would not have been
possible.

I welcome this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to my teacher

and guide,Mr. Neeraj Tiwari, Faculty of Professional Ethics, who has been
a constant source of encouragement and guidance throughout the course of
this work.

I am grateful to the IT Staff for providing all necessary facilities for carrying
out this work. Thanks are also due to all members of the Library staff for
their help and assistance at all times.

I am also grateful to all my friends and colleagues for being helpful in their
differences and for their constant support.

I express my deepest gratitude to my parents Ms. Richa Kumar and

Mr.Rakesh Kumar, who have been the real driving force for this work.

Aakanksha Kumar

ii
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

SUBJECT: Professional Ethics

TOPIC: GATS and the Legal Profession.

The method of research opted by me to complete this project was

doctrinal research from primary and secondary sources. Major part of
the project has been researched Articles and reports available in web
databases on the topic by scholars on the subject. Books and
Commentaries on Trade in Services and GATS have also been referred
to.

iii
 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
This project seeks to look at the way Indias non committal in the legal services sector in
the GATS Schedule of Commitments and the increased pressure on the government to
liberalise the legal service sector has influenced trade in legal services. The project also
takes a look at the present law on allowing entry of foreign law firms and foreign lawyers
and advocates in India and the extent of permission to advise/ represent clients in India.

iv
 CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. GATS : SERVICES, MODES OF TRADE IN SERVICES AND
THE LEGAL SERVICES SECTOR 2
3. THE LIBERALISATION OF LEGAL SERVICES SECTOR IN INDIA 4
4. ENTRY OF FOREIGN LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS IN INDIA
THE LAWYERS COLLECTIVE JUDGMENT 6
5. THE PRESENT POSITION THE A.K. BALAJI MADRAS
HC WRIT DECISION 10
6. CONCLUSION 13
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY 14

v
 INTRODUCTION
The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) was the first world trade
agreement to apply to services and includes legal services within its coverage. The GATS
framework provides the negotiations for various services including the legal services
sector. In due course of time, these negotiations may lead to further liberalisation of trade
in legal services and the imposition of regulatory measures to the legal services at the
International level. The legal services at the international level have acquired importance
and increasing demand at the international level due to certain developments like
corporate restructuring, privatisation of trade, cross-border merger, IPRs etc. However,
the growth in legal services in not free from obstacles like understanding of individual
national laws and religious law, visa permits, permits to practise law in a foreign nation,
recognition of qualifications etc.

The most hotly debated issue in the legal world in India these days, is the entry of foreign
law firms into India. The debate commenced in 1999 when the Law Commission of
India, under the leadership of the then law minister, Mr. Ram Jethmalani, and the Bar
Council of India prepared a review paper suggesting a series of radical measures
including amending the Advocates Act to introduce a legal consultancy regime for
foreign law firms in India. Since the foreign law firms are targeting the transaction side of
business, it is the law firms that are opposing them the most. The legal profession in India
is often nepotistic and it is these family run law firms that are making the loudest protest
against their entry.

With the Bombay HCs decision in Lawyers Collective v. Chadbourne and Park and
Others in 2009 and the very recent conflicting judgment of the Madras HC in A.K. Balaji
v. Govt. Of India and others we have judicial interpretations of the law in place today that
seek to clarify the position on entry of foreign law firms and legal practitioners in India.

1
 GATS : SERVICES, MODES OF TRADE IN SERVICES AND THE LEGAL
SERVICES SECTOR

The GATS was one of the key outcomes of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations. It
was the first comprehensive set of multilateral rules covering trade in services and
provided for successive rounds of negotiations under the rubric of the WTO, aimed at
progressive liberalisation of the services trade. The key objective of the GATS is to
promote the progressive liberalisation of trade in services as a means of achieving
economic growth for all countries and the development of developing countries.1

Services is a generic term used to encapsulate a vast and complex array of industries
from construction to computer services, from education to environmental services and
from telecommunications to tourism and travel services. One of the main characteristics
of services is that they are intangible and invisible.2 Indeed it has been said that services
can be defined as anything you can sell, but cannot drop on your foot. 3 For greater
precision, the WTO has divided these divergent activities into 12 sectors.Business
services is one of the sectors classified and it includes professional services which in
turn includes legal services.

At present, there is no set definition of legal services in the GATS. The WTO
Secretariat has commented that :

A broad definition of legal services would include advisory and

representation services as well as all the activities relating to the
administration of justice (judges, court clerks, public prosecutors, state
advocates, etc.). This second aspect, however, is effectively excluded from
the scope of the GATS as in most countries is considered a service supplied
in the exercise of governmental authority according to Art. I:3(c) of the
Agreement. The GATS covers all advisory and representation services in the
fields of the law and in statutory procedures.4

1
Preamble, 2, General Agreement on Trade in Services, Annex 1B, The Final Act Embodying the Results
of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Signed on April 15, 1994.
2
7 SCOTT GALLACHER, The General Agreement on Trade in Services and the International Trade in Legal
Services, in GATS : A LEGAL DEBATE 154( P. Satyanarayana Prasad, ed.)
3
New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Questions for a Trading Nation, Wellington, New
Zealand (2002) 14 in 7 SCOTT GALLACHER, The General Agreement on Trade in Services and the
International Trade in Legal Services, a f.n.no. 15 in GATS : A LEGAL DEBATE 154( P. Satyanarayana
Prasad, ed.)
4
World Trade Organisation, Legal Services Background Note by the Secretariat, 15. (July 6, 1998)
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/w43.doc
2
The United Nations Provisional Central Product Classification (UN CPC) sub-divides
legal services into a number of categories but most countries did not adopt this
classification as it did not reflect the reality of trade in legal services. 5 As such, countries
preferred to adopt (to varying degrees), the following distinctions :

Host country law (advisory/representation)

Home country law and/or third country law (advisory/representation)
International law (advisory/representation)
Legal documentation and certification services; and
Other advisory and information services.6

While the international trade in goods involves the physical movement of goods from one
country to another, trade in services can involve a number of modes of supply. For the
purposes of classification, GATS divides trade in services into four modes of supply-7

Cross border supply of services (Mode 1). In context of legal services, Mode
1 would be involved when lawyers create a legal product or advice, which is then sent out
of their home country into another country, with the delivery occurring by way of mail,
facsimile or electronically;
Movement of consumers to the country of service provider; i.e. consumption
abroad (Mode 2). In the context of legal services, Mode 2 would be involved when a
person purchases the services of foreign lawyers when he/she is abroad;
Establishment of a commercial presence in the country where the service is to be
provided (Mode 3). In the context of legal services, Mode 3 would be involved when
lawyers establish a permanent presence in another country, e.g. a branch office; and
Temporary movement of natural person to another country, in order to provide the
service there (Mode 4). In the context of legal services, Mode 4 addresses those
instances when lawyers enter another country in order to provide legal services. This is
frequently, though not necessarily, linked to Mode 3 because, if a law firm establishes an
office in another country, it will probably want to have some of its own lawyers staff the
office. This mode also applies to those cases when a lawyer temporarily visits another
country to provide legal services.
5
Supra note 2 at p. 159.
6
Supra note 4, 17.
7
Art. I:2, GATS
3
 THE LIBERALISATION OF LEGAL SERVICES SECTOR IN INDIA
The Indian legal system is one of the oldest in the world, tracing over 5,000 years of
evolution. Indian lawyers and jurists have held prominent positions and international
offices. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Balkrishna Gokhale and Mohammed Ali Jinnah
were all legal professionals who have contributed not only to the evolution of the legal
profession but to the creation of entire nation states. The former Chief Justice of India PN
Bhagwati held with great dignity, the office of the chairman of the UN Human Rights
Committee. Over the past five decades or so, the Indian legal profession has grown
tremendously in terms of size as well as diversity of practice areas8

It is widely accepted that the legal services sector especially corporate legal services
has grown by leaps and bounds in the last 20 years. The legal market boom in the country
is undoubtedly attributable to the liberalisation of the economy and relaxation of the FDI
norms in 1991. There were not more than 7-8 leading law firms in 1991-92 in India to
deal with conventional corporate legal activities. 9 Since the opening up of the Indian
economy in the early 90s, there has been an enormous growth in the number of national
and foreign entities, doing business in almost all the sectors of the country. May it be
banking, commercial, agriculture, hospitality or educational sector, India has become a
prime destination for the conduct of business by entities all across the globe. However,
contrary to above, it is interesting to note that one of the most vital sectors of the Indian
socio-economic structure, namely the legal sector, is still aloof from these developments
and is by and large dominated by national players. Moreover, with Indias acceptance of
the GATS, doors were opened, though not completely, to the legal profession, which
within the country remains one of the most lucrative career options today.

The opening up of legal services debate had once again gained momentum in 2005..There
was continuing apprehension that with the World Trade Organisations (WTO)
commitments coming into force(earlier slated for end 2006), the Government of India
will be under obligation to liberalise legal services, thereby allowing foreign law firms to

8
Parvez Memon, Zulfiquar Memon and Ganesh Iyer, Legal Practice Developments In India, Business
Crime Defence (February, 2011) http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/28893/legal-
practice-developments-india
9
8 ANANYA DASGUPTA AND VIDYA RANGAN, Liberalising Legal Services under GATS, in TRADE IN
SERVICES AND INDIA : PROSPECTS AND STRATEGIES 211 ( Rupa Chanda, ed.)
4
practice in India. There is no statutory obligation under any international treaty or
convention, which imposes an obligation on the country to open-up, its sectors. Under the
WTO, with a view to achieving progressively higher levels of liberalisation, member
states are expected to enter into successive rounds of negotiations to broaden the range of
sectors for investment. However, the WTO is a political process as well where pressure
and pull tactics sometimes rule more than economic considerations. For India, the legal
services sector is such an example with the government being under immense pressure
from the developed countries to do away with most restrictions regarding the entry of
foreign law firms in the country. So far, India has not included legal services in its
schedule of commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS).Therefore the domestic regulations and restrictions in relation to legal services
still remain. But this situation might change in the near future and analysing its
implications is crucial. India tops the list of developing countries being pushed to open
their legal services sectors under the GATS. A burgeoning corporate business sector,
dominated by multinational corporations (MNCs) has made the country a target for
foreign law firms seeking to establish base on Indian soil. The implications of such a
move are now being seriously considered by domestic interest groups including small and
medium law firms, individual litigating lawyers and institutions like the Bar Council of
India.10

Despite advantages, the concept of foreign firms hasnt been given warm welcome in
legal sector. Since these firms target transaction side of business they have been opposed
widely by law firms. The conflict also includes ethical issues. The risk of ethical breach
is more at bottom as compared to top in professional pyramid. As foreign firms provide
services in accountancy, management etc. in addition to legal, they enter into partnerships
in different fields. Such partnerships pose danger of leaking confidential information to
non lawyer professionals. Foreign firms not only affect clients but also the lawyers.

If allowed entry in India, various amendments in rules and regulations have to be made
by Bar Council of India. They make seek license for full time and regular practice which
will prejudice interests of Indian lawyers. In addition to it, immigration and citizenship

10
Liberalising Legal Services in India through the GATS :A Preliminary Analysis of Issues at Stake,
EQUATIONS (July 2006) http://www.scribd.com/doc/30280626/Liberalising-Legal-Services-in-India-
through-the-GATS-A-Preliminary-Analysis-of-Issues-at-Stake
5
laws shall have to be applied and for those entering in partnership with nations law firms
it would be easy to practice without any scrutiny from organized legal profession.11

As the law currently stands, the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules,
1975 are the rules which regulate the legal services sector in India and the Bar Council
constituted under Advocates Act acts as the final regulating body. In India, Legal services
can be provided only by natural persons who are citizens of India, who are on the rolls of
the advocates in the states where the service is being provided. In order to be eligible for
enrolment as an advocate, a candidate has to be citizen of the country or a country which
allows Indian nationals to practice as per the reciprocity treatment, has to hold a degree in
law from an institution/university recognized by the Bar Council of India and be at least
twenty one years of age.12

11
Munmun Garg, Entry of Foreign Firms in India (September 29, 2009)
http://blogs.siliconindia.com/munmungarg/Entry_of_Foreign_Firms_in_India-bid-6o9R741r77635514.html
12
The Advocates Act, 1961, S. 24
6
 ENTRY OF FOREIGN LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS IN INDIA THE
LAWYERS COLLECTIVE JUDGMENT

The Bombay High Court passed a significant judgment in December 2009, which
virtually denies foreign law firms entry into India on the basis of the existing laws.

The Division Bench of the High Court, comprising of then Chief Justice Swatanter
Kumar and Justice J.P. Devadhar, in the matter of Lawyers Collective v. Chadbourne
and Park and Others, 13 held against the right of foreign law firms Ashurst (UK),
Chadbourne and Parke Associates (US) and White and Case (US) to set up offices in
India. The Court, inter-alia held that the words 'practising the profession of law' under
Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 1961 include giving legal advice in non-litigious
matters. As per Section 29 of the Advocates Act, 'advocates' are the only recognized class
of persons entitled to practice law in India. However, it was alleged that these firms,
although comprising foreign nationals (not advocates), were providing consultancy legal
services through their offices in India. The Division Bench also held that the permission
granted by the RBI to the foreign law firms to establish their places of business (liaison
offices) in India was illegal and invalid.

The above-mentioned firms had in the 1990s set up liaison offices in India, after
obtaining permission from the RBI under Section 29(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973. 'Lawyers Collective' had previously filed a petition in the High
Court alleging that that instead of merely operating as liaison offices, these firms were
indulging in active legal practice, in breach of the statutory requirements. In 1995, at the
interim stage, the Bombay High Court had held that as the words 'to practise the
profession of law' have very wide mandate, and include advisory services; hence the
foreign law firms, by providing such services, were in fact practising law in India. The
High Court noted that only an Indian citizen could be an advocate under the Advocates
Act. The matter was subsequently appealed, and it came before the Supreme Court of
India in March 1996. The Supreme Court did not, however, decide on the substantive
issue but remanded back the matter to the Bombay High Court.

13
Lawyers Collective v. Chadbourne and Park and Others, (December 16, 2009)
http://www.legallyindia.com/images/stories/pdf/Lawyers%20Collective%20v%20Ashurst%20&%20Ors%
20Judgement%2016%20Dec%202009.pdf
7
In effect the latest judgment of the High Court reaffirms the earlier decision of 1995 by
declaring the RBI's original grant of licences to the foreign firms illegal and ruling that
the foreign firms were practising law and should therefore be bound by and enrolled
under the Advocates Act. The decision is broad and largely unambiguous, and appears to
prohibit conduct that most foreign law firms had assumed was legal, i.e., the temporary
practice of giving advice in non litigious matters on behalf of Indian or foreign clients.

Despite the above notion, there are no provisions permitting foreign lawyers to practice in
India under the existing laws. The Advocates Act in Section 24 provides that only an
Indian Citizen has the right to practice and be enrolled as an advocate in India. However,
a national of any other country may be admitted as an advocate, if citizens of India are
permitted to practice law in that other country. As stated previously, Section 29 provides
that an advocate is the only recognized class of persons entitled to practice law in India.
Section 30 therefore grants every advocate whose name is entered in the state roll the
right to practice throughout the territories to which the Act extends:

in all courts including the Supreme Court;

before any tribunal or person legally authorized to take evidence; and
before any other authority or person before whom such advocate is by or under
any law for the time being in force entitled to practice.

Section 33 further makes it clear that advocates are alone entitled to practice in any Court
or before any authority. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Advocates Act, as per the
Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 no foreigner is allowed to practice law in India unless
there is a reciprocal right of the same kind in the country of his origin 14 and he has
obtained a degree from a University recognised by the Bar Council of India. 15 There has
been talk of imminent amendments to the Advocates Act in order to permit the presence
of foreign law firms. However, as per the view of the High Court in the recent judgment,
it is apparent that the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules in their current
forms are insufficient for that purpose. However, concessions under the GATS or
amendments to the Advocates Act are unlikely until the inherent restraints faced by the
Indian legal profession are removed. These regulatory barriers faced by the profession,

14
Rule 5 of Res. No. 6/1997
15
Rule 3 of Res. No. 6/1997.
8
including; prohibition on advertising, partnership as the only form of collective legal
practice (now, with the possible exception of L.L.P.), limitation on number of partners,
nature of liability in partnership, bar on partnership with non-advocates, etc., may need to
be minimised to ensure a level playing field for everyone concerned. 16 It is also unclear
whether the present judgment affects the rights of other classes of professionally qualified
persons in India (such as Company Secretaries and Chartered Accountants) to appear
before fora in which they traditionally appear (such as the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal or Company Law Board).

16
Anirudh Hariani, Foreign Law Firms In India, (June 17, 2010)
www.hariani.co.in/newsletter_february_Foreign_Law_Firms_10.php

9
THE PRESENT POSITION THE A.K. BALAJI MADRAS HC WRIT DECISION

In April 2010, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in Madras High Court by A. K.
Balaji, an advocate and a member of Association of Indian Lawyers. The petition was
filed against 31 foreign law firms from USA and UK, including one LPO. The Petition
challenged the entry of foreign law firms into the country and sought a Writ of
Mandamus directing the Government to take action against foreign law firms practicing
'illegally' in India either on the litigation side or in the field of non-litigation.

The Petitioner claimed that these foreign law firms were allegedly violating provisions of
Advocates Act by providing legal services in India. The Petition was filed just few
months after the Bombay High Court judgment in the Lawyers Collective case. The
Petition not only dealt with the issue of entry of foreign law firms, but also on the modus
operandi currently adopted by these firms to provide legal services in India. The
Petitioner made several allegations against these foreign law firms including violation of
immigration laws, having offices and practicing law in the form of LPOs, treating
practice of law as business venture, not allowing Indian lawyers to practice law without
taking further set of educational courses and other tests and many more. The Petitioner
also challenged the mode of entry of the foreign lawyers into India. The Petitioner
alleged that these firms have already entered India indirectly and are operating out of
five-star hotels and most lawyers working at these foreign law firms visit India using
tourist visas and violate various taxation and immigration laws.

The foreign law firms denied these allegations of the Association in relation to violation
of immigration laws, stating that, firstly none of the representatives of the foreign law
firms have undertaken business opportunities on tourist visa in India. Secondly, none of
the practitioners of the said law firm have engaged in dispute resolution within the
confines of the hotels in India. Additionally, foreign law firms have also went ahead and
made it clear that the participation in seminars and conferences does not tantamount to
practice of law in India and most of the lawyers from these firms have been delegates to
India with International Associations. It has also been made clear by the foreign law
firms that lawyers are also frequenting India to meet old as well as prospective clients

10
who have a global presence and who require assistance from these law firms from an
17
international law perspective.

The court of chief justice MY Eqbal, with justice T.S Sivagnanam, presided all day on
February 1, 2012 in the matter AK Balaji v The Government of India, Ashurst LLP, White
18
& Case et al and reserved its judgement. The Chief Justice M. Yusuf Eqbal has
disposed of the writ petition with certain directions in his judgment of February 21, 2012.
This judgment clears the air on a long winded debate on what foreign lawyers and law
firms can and cannot do in India. The court stated the issue in paragraph 44 of the order:

[W]hether a foreign law firm, without establishing any liaison office in

India visiting India for the purpose of offering legal advice to their clients in
India on foreign law, is prohibited under the provisions of the Advocates
Act. In other words, the question here is, whether a foreign lawyer visiting
India for a temporary period to advise his client on foreign law can be
barred under the provisions of the Advocates Act. (emphasis supplied)
In a nutshell, the court answered the question in the negative. In other words, foreign law
firms can: (1) send their lawyers to India for temporary periods of time, (2) to advise their
clients on foreign law, and (3) without establishing a liaison office in India.

The court came up with a list of guidelines, some of which are as follows19 :

i. Foreign law firms or foreign lawyers cannot practice the profession of law in
India either on the litigation or non-litigation side, unless they fulfil the
requirement of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules.
ii. However, there is no bar either in the Act or the Rules for the foreign law firms or
foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a fly in and fly out basis,
for the purpose of giving legal advise to their clients in India regarding foreign
law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues.
iii. Moreover, having regard to the aim and object of the International Commercial
Arbitration introduced in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign

17
31 Foreign Law Firms deny all the allegations made by A.K. Balaji, Bar & Bench News Network
(August 1, 2011) http://barandbench.com/brief/2/1637/31-foreign-law-firms-deny-all-the-allegations-made-
by-ak-balaji
18
WP5614/2010. Judgment of February 21, 2012 at
http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=35290
19
Kian Ganz , Chennai writ losers: LPOs, CAs, secondments & logic. Winners: Invisible in-house &
pragmatism (February 24, 2012) http://www.legallyindia.com/201202242598/Analysis/editorial-chennai-
foreign-firm-ruling-ignores-in-house-endangers-indian-lpos-cas-secondments-a-common-sense-for-
pragmatism
11
 lawyers cannot be debarred to come to India and conduct arbitration proceedings
in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial
arbitration.
iv. The B.P.O. Companies providing wide range of customised and integrated
services and functions to its customers like word-processing, secretarial support,
transcription services, proof-reading services, travel desk support services, etc. do
not come within the purview of the Advocates Act, 1961 or the Bar Council of
India Rules. However, in the event of any complaint made against these B.P.O.
Companies violating the provisions of the Act, the Bar Council of India may take
appropriate action against such erring companies

The judgement has caused confusion as it seemed to be in conflict with the Bombay high
courts ruling in the 2009 Lawyers Collective case, BCI chairman Ashok Parija said.
The Bombay high court had said there is a total ban on foreign lawyers coming to India.
This judgement says fly-in fly-out is possible. To that extent we might have some
difficulty with this judgement, said Parija.20

BCI has called a meeting on 3 March to discuss the judgements and appeal to the
Supreme Court to resolve any conflict in the rulings. Maybe we will file (an) SLP
(special leave petition) so that the conflict between judgements is resolved, he said.21

20
Nikhil Kanekal & Kian Ganz, BCI may appeal Chennai writ ruling as foreign firms, SILF like judgment
(February 24, 2012) http://www.livemint.com/2012/02/24002628/Bar-Council-may-appeal-HC-ruli.html
21
Id.
12
 CONCLUSION

"The legal profession in so-called advanced countries is a product of Industrial

Revolution whereas in India it is a product of Independence Revolution"

-- Mr Lalit Bhasin

The above issues are not really about whether foreign law firms should be allowed to
have offices in India, but they should lie at the heart of the profession. For one, there
remains the lingering suspicion that the BCI does not fully understand, or has chosen to
wilfully misunderstand, many sectors in the modern Indian legal profession. To that
extent it has not been an effective regulator. Meanwhile, the poor Madras High Court,
following the example of the Bombay High Court, has done its best and bent over
backwards in trying to make sense of the legal market through the lens of the 51-year-old
Advocates Act.

But did the drafters in 1961 envisaged giant in-house legal departments, magic circle
lawyers flying in and out, CA firms doing law, international commercial arbitration, huge
Indian corporate law firms run as businesses and LPOs? No. But even if the Supreme
Court ultimately hears this case and it very well might according to the BCI chairmans
statement reported by Mint (as mentioned earlier), rumours that the Chennai advocates
camp or the foreign firms might appeal the fact of the matter is that the Advocates Act
still remains desperately unfit for its present-day purpose, no matter how hard it may try
to dodge the tough questions.

13
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES AND RULES

1. Advocates Act, 1961

2. Bar Council of India Rules, 1975

CASES

1. A.K. Balaji v. Government of India and Others, WP5614/2010. Judgment of

February 21, 2012 at
http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=35290
2. Lawyers Collective v. Chadbourne and Park and Others, (December 16, 2009)
http://www.legallyindia.com/images/stories/pdf/Lawyers%20Collective%20v%20
Ashurst%20&%20Ors%20Judgement%2016%20Dec%202009.pdf
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS

1. General Agreement on Trade in Services, Annex 1B, The Final Act Embodying
the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Signed on
April 15, 1994.
2. World Trade Organisation, Legal Services Background Note by the Secretariat,
(July 6, 1998) www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/w43.doc

BOOKS

1. GATS : A LEGAL DEBATE ( P. Satyanarayana Prasad, ed.)

2. TRADE IN SERVICES AND INDIA : PROSPECTS AND STRATEGIES ( Rupa Chanda, ed.)

ARTICLE

1. Ananya Dasgupta and Vidya Rangan, Liberalising Legal Services under GATS.
2. Anirudh Hariani, Foreign Law Firms In India, (June 17, 2010)
www.hariani.co.in/newsletter_february_Foreign_Law_Firms_10.php
3. Liberalising Legal Services in India through the GATS :A Preliminary Analysis of
Issues at Stake, EQUATIONS (July 2006)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30280626/Liberalising-Legal-Services-in-India-
through-the-GATS-A-Preliminary-Analysis-of-Issues-at-Stake

14
 4. Munmun Garg, Entry of Foreign Firms in India (September 29, 2009)
http://blogs.siliconindia.com/munmungarg/Entry_of_Foreign_Firms_in_India-
bid-6o9R741r77635514.html
5. Parvez Memon, Zulfiquar Memon and Ganesh Iyer, Legal Practice
Developments In India, Business Crime Defence (February, 2011)
http://www.whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/28893/legal-practice-
developments-india.
6. Scott Gallacher, The General Agreement on Trade in Services and the
International Trade in Legal Services.

NEWS REPORTS

1. 31 Foreign Law Firms deny all the allegations made by A.K. Balaji, Bar & Bench
News Network (August 1, 2011) http://barandbench.com/brief/2/1637/31-foreign-
law-firms-deny-all-the-allegations-made-by-ak-balaji
2. Kian Ganz, Chennai writ losers: LPOs, CAs, secondments & logic. Winners:
Invisible in-house & pragmatism (February 24, 2012)
http://www.legallyindia.com/201202242598/Analysis/editorial-chennai-foreign-
firm-ruling-ignores-in-house-endangers-indian-lpos-cas-secondments-a-common-
sense-for-pragmatism
3. Nikhil Kanekal & Kian Ganz, BCI may appeal Chennai writ ruling as foreign
firms, SILF like judgment (February 24, 2012)
http://www.livemint.com/2012/02/24002628/Bar-Council-may-appeal-HC-
ruli.html

15