Foreign Law Firms case: Datar appears for Ashurst, Clifford, Links, Eversheds, Clyde, Bird & Bird; Matter adjourned to Feb 27

More than, two years after the appeal was filed and notice issued, the Supreme Court today once again adjourned the case relating to the entry of foreign law firms and lawyers into India. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for six UK law firms today including Ashurst, Clifford Chance, LinkLaters, Eversheds, Clyde & Co and Bird & Bird. .The matter was heard by a Division bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh. The lawyer appearing for Bar Council of India (BCI) sought time to file rejoinder to the reply filed by the law firms. The Court allowed the same and posted the matter for February 27..Earlier, fifteen law firms were deleted from the list of respondents on February 4, 2014 after the BCI was unable to serve them notice. The following firms have been deleted:.Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Kennedys, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Wilmer Hale, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Hogan & Hartson, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Akin Gump Straus & Feld, Paul Weiss, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Arnold & Porter LLP, Perkins Coie LLP, Loyens & Loeff and Mayor Brown..Eleven law firms and one LPO have filed their response in the case. They are:.Ashurst, Clifford Chance, LinkLaters, Eversheds, Clyde & Co, Bird & Bird, Allen & Overy, White & Case, Covington & Burling LLP, Herbert Smith, Norton Rose and Integreon (LPO)..Below is a timeline of the events pertaining to the debate around the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms..1995: Lawyers Collective files a petition in the Bombay High Court against the opening of liaison offices in India by foreign law firms..December 16, 2009: Bombay High Court rules that practice of law envisaged by the Advocates Act includes both litigation practice in courts and non-litigious work in the nature of drafting and reviewing documents, advising clients, conducting negotiations etc. and the same cannot be carried out by foreign law firms..March 2010: Writ petition filed in the Madras High Court by advocate AK Balaji, representative of Association of Indian Lawyers. The petition is filed against thirty one foreign law firms and one LPO alleging that their work in India was in violation of the Advocates Act, 1961 and immigration laws..April 2010: More petitioners join the fray; Women Lawyers Association, TN Advocates Association oppose entry of foreign lawyers, join the writ petition in the Madras High Court..September 28, 2010: Law Ministry issues a press release reiterating BCI’s stand to not permit foreign law firms in India..February 1, 2012: Madras High Court reserves its judgment in the petition by AK Balaji..February 21, 2012: Madras High Court delivers judgment in the petition filed by AK Balaji; Holds that foreign lawyers and law firms cannot practice law in India without enrolling with the BCI under the Advocates Act. However, they can “fly in and fly out” on a temporary basis to advise their clients on foreign law. With regard to arbitration, the Court held that foreign lawyers can come to India and conduct arbitration proceedings in disputes involving international commercial arbitration..April 2012: BCI appeals against the judgment of the Madras High Court allowing “fly in fly out” and conducting arbitration. It contends that the judgment of the Madras High court is in conflict with the Bombay High Court judgment of 2009 which has attained finality as it was not challenged before the Supreme Court..July 4, 2012: Supreme Court issues notice in appeal by BCI, directs RBI to refrain from granting permission to foreign law firms..November 2014: Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) decides it will not oppose entry of foreign lawyers into India..January 6, 2015: Case adjourned to February 27..Interestingly, Central government has not appeared in the matter in Supreme Court since 2012 despite being a key respondent.