Introduction: Global Law Firms and The Indian Market
Global law firms have long desired access to the Indian legal market, but the central barrier to their setting up in India has historically been the Advocates Act, 1961, which limits the “practice of law” to Indian citizens who hold law degrees from recognized Indian universities.
This issue has been argued, in the courts and outside, many times over the course of three decades.
Most recently, it’s come up in the context of amendments proposed on May 13, 2025 by the Bar Council of India (BCI) – which regulates the Indian legal profession under the Act – to its Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022 (“2022 Rules”).
The 2022 Rules were first notified in March 2023. The 2025 amendments to the 2022 Rules (“2025 Rules”) clarify practice boundaries, introduce new categories, and strengthen oversight.
Ronin Legal analyses the 2025 Rules, compares them to the 2022 Rules, and assesses their impact on India’s legal market.
Background: From Lawyers Collective to Narendra Sharma
Before the introduction of the 2022 Rules, the BCI had made no move to allow global law firms to enter the Indian legal market, and a group purporting to represent the interests of Indian lawyers had even challenged the establishment of liaison offices in India by a few international law firms as illegal (see Lawyers Collective versus Bar Council of India WP 1526 of 1995 before the Bombay High Court).
A.K. Balaji vs. Union of India
The issue came to a head in the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Bar Council of India v. AK Balaji.
The Court held that the Advocates Act’s expression “practice of law” includes both litigation and non-litigation work, and that foreign law firms and lawyers could make “casual” visits to India for a temporary period on a “fly-in, fly-out” basis to advise on foreign law.
However, if a dispute were to arise as to whether such activities amounted in substance to the “practice of law” under the Advocates Act, the Supreme Court clarified that the matter could be determined by the Bar Council of India, which was “at liberty to make appropriate rules in this regard.”
The Court also noted the BCI’s right to frame rules with regard to foreign lawyers coming to India to conduct arbitration proceedings in respect of disputes arising out of a contract relating to international commercial arbitration.
The 2022 Rules
In March 2023, the BCI introduced the 2022 Rules, allowing foreign lawyers to practice foreign law, international law, and arbitration on a reciprocity basis. These rules aimed to boost foreign direct investment and position India as a hub for international arbitration.
It was met with immediate criticism. Some highlighted ambiguities in the 2022 Rules, particularly on registration and scope of practice. Others questioned the BCI’s authority.
Narendra Sharma vs. The BCI
In 2023, advocates Narendra Sharma and others filed a writ petition challenging the 2022 Rules in the Delhi High Court.
The petitioners argued that the BCI lacks authority under Section 29 of the Advocates Act, which limits legal practice to Indian advocates, to permit foreign lawyers to engage in non-litigious matters like foreign law or arbitration.
They claimed the Rules circumvent the AK Balaji ruling, which prohibits foreign lawyers from establishing offices in India and restricts them to temporary “fly-in, fly-out” advice on foreign law, arguing that registered practice threatens young Indian lawyers by exposing them to competition from established foreign firms.
On February 9, 2024, a division bench comprising Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued notices to the BCI, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, questioning how the BCI reconciles its Rules with AK Balaji’s restrictions.
The court adjourned the case to April 8, 2025, for further hearings, with no final ruling as of May 2025.
In early 2025, the Law Ministry proposed the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, suggesting government oversight over the entry of foreign law firms, but withdrew it after opposition from the BCI and legal community, who defended the Bar’s autonomy.
Now, in the latest turn of events in this long running saga, the BCI has just notified the 2025 Rules.
Key Features of the 2025 Rules
Scope of Practice: Non-Litigious, Foreign-Focused
The 2025 Rules limit foreign lawyers and law firms to non-litigious practice, explicitly prohibiting appearances before Indian courts, tribunals, or statutory authorities.
Permitted activities include advising on the law of their home country, international law, and non-contentious international arbitration.
For example, a U.K.-qualified lawyer can advise on English law for a cross-border merger but cannot represent clients in Indian courts. This aligns with the 2022 Rules but clarifies that arbitration must involve foreign or international law and foreign clients, addressing prior vagueness.
Foreign lawyers cannot engage in conveyancing, title investigations, or drafting documents for Indian court proceedings. The BCI emphasizes reciprocity, allowing practice only from jurisdictions granting Indian lawyers similar rights, such as the U.K. or Singapore.
Mandatory Registration and Fees
Registration with the BCI is mandatory for any regular legal practice in India, except for “fly-in, fly-out” (FIFO) arrangements.
Fees are set at USD 15,000 for individual lawyers and USD 25,000 for law firms, with renewals every five years at USD 8,000 and USD 15,000, respectively. The 2022 Rules had similar requirements but lacked clarity on multi-jurisdictional practice.
The 2025 amendments address this by specifying fees for additional jurisdictions (USD 5,000 per jurisdiction for individuals, USD 10,000 for firms).
Fly-In, Fly-Out: Tighter Controls
The FIFO provision, allowing temporary practice without registration, has been tightened.
Foreign lawyers can advise on foreign or international law for up to 60 consecutive calendar days in a 12-month period, counted from the first arrival, regardless of re-entries, unlike the less specific 2022 Rules.
Each visit requires a Form C declaration, costing USD 3,000 for individuals and USD 6,000 for firms, with renewals at USD 1,500 and USD 3,000, respectively, detailing the work, clients, and jurisdictions involved.
FIFO practitioners must comply with BCI’s Code of Ethics, and disputes over permissible activities are resolved by the BCI, enhancing regulatory oversight.
Indian-Foreign Law Firms: A New Category
The 2025 Rules introduce Indian-Foreign Law Firms (IFLFs), enabling Indian legal entities (partnerships, LLPs, companies) to register and practice Indian law (including litigation) and non-litigious foreign law, international law, or arbitration.
IFLFs face BCI supervision and must comply with ethical standards. This dual-practice model, absent in the 2022 Rules, allows Indian firms to form joint ventures with foreign lawyers.
Dual-Qualified Lawyers
Indian advocates with foreign qualifications can register as foreign lawyers, practicing Indian law as advocates and foreign/international law as registered foreign lawyers.
This provision, clarified in the 2025 Rules, was less explicit in 2022, promoting Indian lawyers’ global expertise while preserving domestic rights.
Dual-qualified lawyers must meet BCI’s registration criteria, including jurisdictional authorization.
Ethical Compliance and Disciplinary Measures
Foreign lawyers and firms, including FIFO practitioners, are subject to the BCI’s Code of Ethics, covering integrity, confidentiality, and professional conduct.
The 2025 Rules strengthen enforcement, allowing the BCI to suspend or cancel registrations for violations, such as practicing Indian law or ethical breaches.
Misconduct cases are referred to the foreign lawyer’s home jurisdiction’s disciplinary authority, with grave violations triggering immediate suspension and notification to Indian ministries.
The 2022 Rules relied more on foreign authorities, lacking interim measures.
How do the 2025 rules differ from the 2022 rules?
The 2025 amendments refine the 2022 framework in several ways:
- Clarity on Scope: The 2025 Rules explicitly define arbitration as involving foreign clients or law, reducing ambiguity in the 2022 Rules.
- IFLF Category: The introduction of IFLFs is entirely new, enabling Indian firms to compete globally while retaining litigation rights.
- FIFO Restrictions: The 60-day cap and mandatory declarations in 2025 are stricter than the 2022 Rules’ vague temporary practice provisions.
- Fee Structure: The 2025 Rules lower registration fees (from USD 25,000 to USD 15,000 for individuals) but add jurisdictional fees.
- Partnerships: The 2025 Rules allow formal partnerships only with registered Indian lawyers or firms, unlike the 2022 Rules’ looser referral arrangements.
- Enforcement: Enhanced penalties and BCI-led dispute resolution in 2025 strengthen compliance compared to the 2022 Rules’ reliance on foreign authorities.
These changes reflect stakeholder feedback, addressing concerns about market dominance by foreign firms and ensuring Indian lawyers benefit from global integration.
Singapore: A Comparison
Singapore allows foreign lawyers to practice foreign law and international law upon registration with the Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA) under the Legal Profession Act.
After passing the Foreign Practitioner Examinations (FPE), foreign lawyers can practice “permitted areas” of Singapore law, such as banking, corporate, intellectual property, and maritime law, but are barred from litigation, constitutional and administrative law, conveyancing, criminal law, family law, succession law, and trust law, which are reserved for Singapore advocates and solicitors.
Exceptions exist for the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), where registered foreign lawyers can represent parties in international disputes.
Unlike Singapore, which allows limited local law practice post-FPE, India excludes litigation, conveyancing, and all domestic law, prioritizing local advocates.
Conclusion
Given the tumultuous history of law firm globalization in India, it may be too early to say if the 2025 Rules will change the landscape for foreign law firms in India. For one, the Society of India Law Firms has already called the 2025 Rules premature, noting that the matter is sub judice before the Delhi High Court in the Narendra Sharma case.
For now, foreign law firms will simply have to wait and watch as they have for thirty years now.
Authors: Shantanu Mukherjee, Alan Baiju
