How do in-house lawyers see BCI's decision to open the Indian legal market?

Indian law firms are by and large in favour of the Bar Council of India's (BCI) move to allow the entry of foreign lawyers and law firms into the country..The BCI recently notified amended rules allowing foreign lawyers and law firms to practice foreign law in India on a reciprocity basis.The rules make it clear that the work of foreign lawyers will be strictly confined to non-litigious areas involving foreign law, international law and arbitration matters, particularly concerning cross-border transactions and international disputes.The newly amended Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022 notified on May 13 prescribe the areas these firms are allowed to practice in, registration requirements, the fees they have to pay and the disciplinary action they may be subject to for non-compliance..Like the law firms, the in-house lawyers' community has also welcomed the move. However, the General Counsel Association of India (GCAI) has raised a few concerns..Compliance burdens a revenue-generating move?.Sanjeev Gemawat, Founder of GCAI and Group General Counsel of Essar, said that the move could give better access to global talent. "The amendment is a positive and overdue recognition of India’s growing legal maturity and commercial relevance. By allowing foreign lawyers and law firms limited entry to practice non-litigious, advisory work relating to foreign and international law, the BCI signals an openness aligned with India’s ambition to become a global hub for legal services. From a General Counsel’s standpoint, this move could enable better access to global legal talent and foster higher standards of service delivery in cross-border matters," he said. .The fees, periodic renewals and oversight mechanisms could be interpreted as revenue-generating instruments for the Bar Council, rather than true enablers of cross-border collaboration.Sanjeev Gemawat.He also observed that the new rules appear to have some restrictive compliance burdens that are perhaps driven by revenue considerations. "Though the stated objective is to liberalise and standardise legal services, the registration regime, layered processes, and compliance burdens created by these rules appear, at first glance, to be more restrictive than facilitative. The fees, periodic renewals, and oversight mechanisms could be interpreted as revenue-generating instruments for the Bar Council, rather than true enablers of cross-border collaboration," he said. "General Counsel would caution that unless the compliance framework is streamlined, this could deter serious global players from engaging in India — the very outcome these reforms seek to avoid.".He further noted that there are some concerns also regarding how the rules will be implemented. "The execution reveals gaps that reflect deeper structural challenges. India cannot aspire to be a legal services hub while neglecting its own institutional inconsistencies. A more inclusive and balanced reform — one that recognises all forms of legal practice and provides a level playing field — is necessary for India’s legal ecosystem to be truly global," he opined. .Will increase competition, stimulate innovation.Sapan Gupta, Group General Counsel at Arcelor Mittal, said that the amended rules could increase competition and elevate professional benchmarks."This welcome, long-awaited decision is an opportunity for an exchange of ideas and best practices between Indian legal practitioners and their counterparts from around the world. It is likely to increase competition, which could elevate professional benchmarks, stimulate innovation and foster professional development to benefit the legal community and its clients. India’s prominence on the world stage is increasing, and opening of the legal market will break barriers for Indian lawyers and law firms to showcase their skills of collaboration, out of the box thinking, and leadership in legal practices and jurisprudence," he said..Good for them and good for us.HUL Group General Counsel Vivek Mittal described the BCI's move as "visionary" and "a step forward". "It’s certainly a step forward towards a completely open legal market, which is there in many countries. But there is a reciprocity and because of it, foreign law firms may call it restrictive. It’s a good idea that Indian lawyers get the same treatment as foreign lawyers in our territory. At the same time, it will train those people who are staying outside India in those territories and then come back to India, because there is a pattern of people coming back to India. So it will also increase maturity in the system and cross-border knowledge in the system. It’s certainly good for them and good for us. We will have access to foreign lawyers sitting in India, though I’m not sure how soon it will happen. But people will at least start thinking of setting up shop here, which has been going on for some time but has not materialised," he observed. .It remains to be seen whether foreign law firms see value in it, and whether foreign territories provide reciprocity which is required to have it implemented fully.Vivek Mittal.He also noted that the entry of foreign lawyers in India could shape the way multi-jurisdictional legal work is tackled in India."In terms of choices, we will probably have better access. If this turns out in the right direction, we may possibly have more synergies. For example, if we have to do a multi-jurisdiction transaction, then we will have to hire an Indian law firm for Indian law and an international law firm for international law. We have done multiple transactions like that, where we sometimes struggle to coordinate between two law firms. I am envisaging that that piece of struggle may be reduced. It remains to be seen whether foreign law firms see value in it, and whether foreign territories provide reciprocity which is required to have it implemented fully," he said. .Why can't foreign lawyers have an office in India?.Akhil Prasad, General Counsel at Boeing, raised concerns over whether global best practices have been factored into the new rules regarding reciprocity."The Objects and Reasons speak about global practices and reciprocity. The rules do not elaborate whether BCI took into account best practices and reciprocity from the USA, EU, Australia, the Middle East or South East Asia. Only the UK has been mentioned, which may not be adequate for the globalisation of legal services," he observed. He added that there is a need to clarify certain provisions in the newly introduced rules. He has also questioned why the BCI has insisted that foreign lawyers can only operate in India on a fly-in fly-out basis, and not have any office in India. .On the fly in-fly out regulations introduced through the rules, he said,"Rule 3 of the Amendment - for fly in, fly-out foreign lawyers - emphasis is that they should not 'practice' as defined under Indian Law. The amendment should clarify what is meant by 'practice' under Indian Law. Also fly in fly out lawyers need to register under Form C. Why can't these people have an office in India? It's odd. Why is there a restriction for 60 days for fly-in, fly-out? Any international precedents? Not clear from Objects and Reasons? Why not up to 182 days, same as non-resident status?".A forward-looking reform.Jyoti Pawar, Group General Counsel Legal & Corporate Affairs at Microsoft CELA India, said that the decision to allow the entry of foreign lawyers is a forward-looking move that aligns with the contemporary needs of global businesses. "By allowing foreign practitioners to operate in advisory and arbitration roles, while preserving Indian advocates’ exclusive rights in domestic litigation, the framework strikes a thoughtful balance. It empowers in-house legal teams to access international expertise for cross-border matters within India. The reciprocity principle is particularly significant. It not only opens new avenues for Indian law firms abroad but also signals India’s intent to be a serious player in the global legal ecosystem," she said. .It empowers in-house legal teams to access international expertise for cross-border matters within India.Jyoti Pawar.India's potential as an international arbitration hub.Luv Tanwani, Senior General Manager (Legal) at Cummins India Limited, welcomed the BCI's move, noting that it would undoubtedly increase knowledge exchange and even boost India's potential as an international arbitration hub."From an in-house counsel's perspective, this move will surely have increased knowledge exchange which will help the ecosystem, increase professional standards, and provide more exposure to the best practices, tools, techniques, cost effectiveness and more options on subject expertise. If this move is followed and implemented in the right spirit, then it may also attract India as a venue for international arbitration," he said. .Enabling collaboration, raising competence, and building long-term capacity.Vineet Vij, Group General Counsel at Tech Mahindra said that this move promises to bring global best practices into the Indian legal system."In a globalised economy, this move is a natural and necessary progression. It promises to bring global best practices into the Indian legal system, while also deepening alignment with international legal standards, particularly in complex, multi-jurisdictional advisory matters. For organisations with worldwide operations, the ability to access such expertise locally can significantly streamline legal support, strengthen cross-border strategy, and enhance compliance agility in an evolving regulatory environment," he said. He added that the new policy reflected India's growing maturity as a legal market. "This policy shift reflects more than just openness—it reflects India’s growing maturity as a legal market. It’s not merely about fostering competition and a level playing field; it’s about enabling collaboration, raising competence, and building long-term capacity. In embracing this change, India positions itself as a preferred hub for international arbitration, ready to engage meaningfully with the global legal community.".This policy shift reflects more than just openness—it reflects India’s growing maturity as a legal market.Vineet Vij.Non-recognition of in-house counsel remains a concern.Sanjeev Gemawat has flagged concerns about the continued non-recognition of in-house counsel as legal practitioners, including under the amended rules."While the amendments rightly distinguish between litigation and non-litigation practice, they perpetuate a long-standing oversight — the non-recognition of in house lawyers as full-fledged practitioners under the Advocates Act. It is disconcerting that the rules continue to draw a line that favours lawyers in law firms over those in corporate legal departments, despite both being deeply involved in complex legal, regulatory and compliance work. The fact that lawyers working within foreign law firms are being officially recognised for advisory services, while Indian in-house counsel remain unrecognised under statutory frameworks, highlights a systemic inequity that must be addressed.".Akhil Prasad also voiced similar concerns, opining that it is high time that GCs are recognised as legal practitioners."The rules do not recognise the services provided by legal practitioners, such as General Counsel, and only speak of foreign lawyers or foreign law firms. In India, GCs should be recognised as legal practitioners as defined in the Advocates Amendment Bill 2025. Plus, foreign jurisdictions recognise GCs as lawyers, but not India," he said.