PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

PROJECT

NAME OF FACULTY-

NAME OF CANDIDATE – SHASHI RANJAN KUMAR

ROLL NO. – 2014002

8th SEMESTER
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take immense pleasure in thanking my constitutional law ii teacher for giving me this
opportunity to give a project on GATS AND LEGAL PROFESSION.

I thank my faculty DR. P. SHREE SUDHA, for extending his support in completion of
this project finally, this project would be incomplete without thanking the almighty who
has showered his blessings.

SHASHI RANJAN KUMAR

2014109

VIII SEMESTER

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 India’s 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 HC’s 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.

GATS : SERVICES, MODES OF TRADE IN SERVICES AND THE ‘LEGAL

SERVICES’ SECTOR

1
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
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

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
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 90’s, 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 India’s 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 Organisation’s (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 hasn’t 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 laws

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
shall have to be applied and for those entering in partnership with nation’s 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 origin14 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, including; prohibition on

14
Rule 5 of Res. No. 6/1997
15
Rule 3 of Res. No. 6/1997.
8
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 Lawyer’s 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 who have a global

10
presence and who require assistance from these law firms from an international law
17
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
& Case et al 18 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.

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
 iii. Moreover, having regard to the aim and object of the International Commercial
Arbitration introduced in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign
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
court’s ruling in the 2009 Lawyer’s 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 chairman’s
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)

14
 http://www.scribd.com/doc/30280626/Liberalising-Legal-Services-in-India-
through-the-GATS-A-Preliminary-Analysis-of-Issues-at-Stake
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