Recognise general counsel, in-house lawyers as legal practitioners: GCAI urges BCI

The General Counsels’ Association of India (GCAI) has urged the Bar Council of India (BCI) to recognise general counsel and in-house lawyers working in private, public and joint-sector organisations as “legal practitioners”.

In a representation concerning the Draft Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2026, the Association also sought changes to Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules so that advocates do not lose their professional status merely because they take up full-time salaried employment.

"GCAI welcomes the proposal to statutorily recognise and register Indian law firms. If the law expressly recognises that legal practice may be organised through institutional law firms, the same reform logic should extend to advocates and Legal Practitioners practising law within the institutional framework of the Corporate Sector," the release states.

The representation, dated July 21, was submitted by GCAI co-founder Sanjeev Gemawat.

The draft Bill proposes to include persons employed in a “Government organisation” within the definition of legal practitioner. As a minimum change, GCAI has suggested inserting the words “private sector, public sector or joint sector organisation” after this expression.

The Association said that there was no principled basis for recognising legal work performed for a government organisation while excluding equivalent work undertaken for companies, public-sector undertakings, banks, statutory corporations and other institutional employers.

“The decisive test should be the nature of the professional function: whether the individual is duly qualified and substantially engaged in performing legal functions,” the representation said.

GCAI has also proposed a broader definition covering advocates and law graduates, whether enrolled with a State Bar Council or not, who perform legal advisory, transactional, regulatory, compliance, arbitration, mediation, dispute resolution, litigation-management, drafting, documentation or governance functions.

It argued that modern legal practice extends beyond courtroom advocacy and includes corporate and commercial law, mergers and acquisitions, finance, competition, insolvency, technology, artificial intelligence, data protection, intellectual property and regulatory compliance.

The Association has further proposed amending Section 29 of the Advocates Act, which presently recognises advocates as the only class entitled to practise law. It wants this provision to instead recognise “legal practitioners” as the sole class entitled to practise the profession.

Under its proposal, in-house lawyers should be permitted to enrol or revive enrolment certificates surrendered upon taking up full-time employment.

Their period of employment in a legal role should also be treated as a period of legal practice. GCAI said that Section 33, which governs the right to practise before courts and authorities, would consequently have to be addressed.

The representation also called for the harmonisation of Rule 49. It proposed that an advocate should not cease to be professionally recognised merely because of full-time employment when the advocate’s principal duties involve bona fide legal work.

Such recognition could be subject to disclosure of the employment to the State Bar Council, continuing professional development requirements, professional ethics, disciplinary control and standards governing conflicts and confidentiality, GCAI suggested.

The Association said that recognising in-house practice would also create structured employment and professional-development opportunities for young advocates across companies, start-ups, banks, technology businesses and public-sector enterprises.

It proposed the constitution of a BCI-industry working group to frame consequential rules and professional standards for in-house lawyers.

[Read Representation]