•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi: ‘I want to extend protection’ for Indian lawyers, want more US visas

Lekhi: First BJPword on foreign law firms
Lekhi: First BJPword on foreign law firms

Supreme Court advocate, Lok Sabha member and BJP spokesperson Meenakshi Lekhi, speaking at a legal conference of the US India Business Council (USIBC) in Delhi yesterday, said that she would ‘extend protection’ for Indian lawyers against the entry of foreign law firms to India.

She began her talk by saying that the USIBC was in India to lobby for the entry of foreign law firms, that lobbying was not permitted in India, and then talked about the need for more H-1B visas for Indian lawyers who want to work in the US. “You're welcome [in India], but I need the same work visa for my friends to operate in the US, there can't be a difference that when it comes to giving work visas to lawyers from India you decline that,” she said.

After Lekhi’s talk, a USIBC member told the assembled audience, which consisted primarily of Indian lawyers, that the USIBC’s mission was not to lobby for the entry of foreign law firms but to increase cooperation between Indian and US law firms and industry.

“There's no surprise that India is competitive and we have gone to great lengths to protect our legal practice and lawyers,” Lekhi added in her talk. “I want to extend that protection, because if even this business goes out, what are my gains. And you won't blame me, it is important for you to enter Indian market.”

She said:

At the same time, all the nice things that you talk about India if they are to be worked practically, then that opportunity must be extended to Indian lawyers as well. Because if India is competitive, because of low income and so on and so forth, the US needs to make some amends so that the Indian business can mean something.

And it is here that far greater cooperation needs to be done, market is large, we are opened up insurance sector, we have opened up FDI in defence, we have increased the caps to 49%, but the ownership and the control definitely has to be Indian. And maybe on similar terms, if Indian lawyers are given the facilities in terms of work visas, moving the money etc, things are workable […]

And on a note, on a positive note, that we look forward to cooperation and better treatment in coming times. And that is possible only when we lobby hard for transparent equitable and just system, because lawyers are nothing but all about justice system. It's not just plain commerce we're dealing with.  […]

It doesn't make a commercial sense to the Indian lawyers if they don't get the share in the pie. So pie has to be shared greater number of lawyers need to get benefits and all that transaction needs to be made more lucrative, and I'm sure all of us can put our heads together and arrive at certain decisions [inaudible] from insurance act, to companies act, to securities - we can pick up anything and all of us can put our heads together, how to make our system more transparent so that everyone benefits.

Lekhi noted that she believed no US lawyers were looking to practice litigation in India but were only focused on corporate and commercial practice.

She also said that Indian students studying abroad to her was a business proposition, with “money going out of the country, which is fine in a give and take relationship”, though students going abroad did pick up useful skills.

Lekhi cited figures by UK-based RSG Consulting on foreign law firms, as reported by Legally India in 2013, which she said showed that UK law firms made more revenue in India while US firms had more volume, and that “American firms which are coming to the country are mid-level to low level, not the top notch”. She also cited statistics collated by Legally India and published in Mint in 2011 about the GDP per lawyer in various countries, to establish that India was competitive with other jurisdictions.

Lekhi’s talk was preceded earlier in the afternoon by BJP national spokesperson and lawyer Nalin Kohli, who, responding to a question asked by Legally India at the end of his speech, said that the topic of liberalisation of the legal market had not come up yet within the current government.

Audio file (10 minutes, 10MB mp3, excluding beginning of speech)

Full transcript (excluding first few minutes)

... you're welcome [in India], but I need the same work visa for my friends to operate in the US, there can't be a difference that when it comes to giving work visas to lawyers from India you decline that. And WTO, we have a different set of norms. We need to have the same norms for people all across.

Whether, and again, your [inaudible] is very very kind, when talking about students who are finding a great number of seats in the US universities, she looked at it as collaboration, I looked at it as business proposition, because that much money is going out of the country, which is fine in a give and take relationship, those things are very welcome and would change - because end of the day if student get exposed to international practices, that exposure always helps.

But those who do not get those opportunities as students and are studying here - and I was listening to the conversation that the earlier panel [on the future of the legal profession] was having and the gentleman [Kian Ganz] was saying that we see the legal practice is not up to the mark, etc, etc. I feel when it comes to the software, as I always say, I always say, when it comes to developing the software in the country in India or the intelligence network, I think you're dealing with India. And I may sound like an arrogant proud Indian, but I think I'm a proud Indian, not arrogant.

In terms of intelligence and intellect, we can beat anyone anywhere in the world, or be on par with anyone anywhere in the world. It's just that the systems are very different, and when you're moving from one system to the other system, that accommodation has to be mutual.

When it comes to the business practices, there are about - the numbers which are with me - there are - RSG, a consulting firm in London, released a report in 2013, with rankings of foreign law firms with India practices, and as per this, all of the top 5 firms were from UK. All 5 firms are from UK. But if we look closer, we find 53% of the foreign firms active in the country are from the US.

So that lobbying is already happening. There are 53% firms which are working in India are American firms. But the top business in terms of revenue, it is from UK and not US.

And 53% of the the foreign firms in the country are from US and 35% are from UK, which indicates that the US may not be on top in volumes of deals. And it has been established practice that they are - but the presence of US is far greater, as compared to UK.

I would obviously think, in terms of GDP, American GDP is far greater, as compared to others. The American firms which are coming to the country are mid-level to low level, not the top notch. The finance and business in terms of volume, is not as good as it is for UK.

So I'm comparing the US with UK on purpose, because we share the similar legal system and we share the origins, which are common, and in terms of practice also, we have the same systems. Or, at least theoretical similarity exist, the administrative part may very well be different.

When it comes to those volume and the revenue generation, Indian lawyers generate something about 1.4m US dollar earnings, and the pie is much bigger as compared to, if we compare it to other countries. Brazil has 3.1m dollars. Brazil is comparable to India otherwise, but in terms of legal practice, it's 3.1m. China it is 30.9m dollars. And US it is about 10.1m dollars per lawyer. So there's no surprise that India is competitive and we have gone to great lengths to protect our legal practice and lawyers.

I want to extend that protection, because if even this business goes out, what are my gains. And you won't blame me, it is important for you to enter Indian market[ ...] At the same time, all the nice things that you talk about India if they are to be worked practically, then that opportunity must be extended to Indian lawyers as well. Because if India is competitive, because of low income and so on and so forth, the US needs to make some amends so that the Indian business can mean something. In terms of software companies etc we did well initially and gradually we feel foreign policy shifts in the business transactions shift to Philippines, etc etc.

Similarly when it comes to investment, the FDI goes to china, but we want to have in terms of manufacturing. So everything is linked, everything, from FDI in make-in-india, definitely you can think about more legal practitioners, FDI in terms of defence, if we can get some FDI in defence, not deals as Mr Dhir was earlier speaking, it's not about liaison with the government, or other things, that lawyers should be paid for. Lawyers should be paid for the agreements they draft, the fairness and just system they adhere to. And transparent mechanism which can be established between the countries. RBI guidelines can be followed, not to do away with them.

And it is here a cooperation is sought. It is here that lawyers should do the legal work. And not act as something else which does not belong to the fraternity. And it is here that far greater cooperation needs to be done, market is large, we are opened up insurance sector, we have opened up FDI in defence, we have increased the caps to 49%, but the ownership and the control definitely has to be Indian. And maybe on similar terms, if Indian lawyers are given the facilities in terms of work visas, moving the money etc, things are workable, Google was fined, because they refused to divulge certain details. We've heard the case of Flipkart. We are going through Aladdin. We are going through e-commerce because not made in India, but made in China, via US is coming to India.

We need to have clear understanding of all these issues and that's the job of lawyers. Let's set up systems which are convenient which are good, which are transparent and which promote best practices. The best practice needs to be promoted. It can't be that I will clean my own but dump the garbage out. It cannot happen that way. I need to clean up my system, you need to help me with it, let's cooperate on certain basics. Business is for you and me to share on equitable terms. Little here, little there - definitely someone who has more money or more economic [arm?] will be benefited. At the same time, somebody with maybe less money but greater value system or greater input, should also be recognised. And on a note, on a positive note, that we look forward to cooperation and better treatment in coming times. And that is possible only when we lobby hard for transparent equitable and just system, because lawyers are nothing but all about justice system. It's not just plain commerce we're dealing with.

It doesn't make a commercial sense to the Indian lawyers if they don't get the share in the pie. So pie has to be shared greater number of lawyers need to get benefits and all that transaction needs to be made more lucrative, and I'm sure all of us can put our heads together and arrive at certain decisions [inaudible] from insurance act, to companies act, to securities - we can pick up anything and all of us can put our heads together, how to make our system more transparent so that everyone benefits.

And I'm sure when it comes to litigators, because I've been a litigator, no American lawyer is interested in litigating here. All anyone is looking at is corporate commercial side of the business, which means all the legal field which in terms of corporate practice you share. You're looking at that part, which is not necessarily the litigation side.

But as a litigator I can just make a small suggestion that whatever you write, or decide in the piece of paper, needs to stand the test of litigation. What I'm writing today, what it will mean tomorrow. And face it constantly, how did you phrase this. Somebody sitting somewhere will - like Anand [Prasad from Trilegal] said - will sustain the wear and tear of litigation, is the one who's framing. It is in that sense the corporate practice also, needs to move a bit, to take on board the people who are going to be litigating all those varied paragraphs and clauses, and that goes for both sides.

And all the things is just one line and I conclude. Huge opportunity is knocking at the door. We need to be smart to take care of that. But the possibilities cannot be recovered fully or represented unless the foreign policy, the corporate practices and everything else moves simultaneously. It has to have a simultaneous impact, it can't be that litigation opens up but we have an issue in Pakistan. That will not work. So we need to take care of everything simultaneously. A fairer composition is always helpful.

Thank you very much.

Click to show 21 comments
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.