The Bar Council of India has issued a fresh notice tightening regulations on foreign law firm collaborations. The move follows the Dentons Link Legal case and signals stricter compliance for cross-border partnerships in India’s legal market.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Bar Council of India (BCI) has released a new press statement clarifying its stance on collaborations between Indian and foreign law firms, following the withdrawal of an earlier release that had named Dentons Link Legal and CMS IndusLaw.
The revised communication follows the BCI’s undertaking before the Delhi High Court in Atul Sharma v. Bar Council of India & Another, where the regulator agreed to retract its August 5, 2025, press release and issue a fresh one after reconsidering the matter.
In late August, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recorded the BCI’s assurance that the earlier release would be withdrawn. The Court also extended its interim protection, preventing the BCI from taking any final action against Dentons Link Legal pending further submissions.
Dentons Link Legal had argued that the August 5 statement, which described it and CMS IndusLaw as examples of “unauthorised collaborations” was defamatory and prejudicial, since no finding or inquiry had yet been completed.
In its October 21 communication, the BCI clarified that neither the earlier nor the new press release should be read as a finding of guilt. Instead, they merely record the issuance of show-cause notices and restate the regulatory position under the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2023, as amended in 2025.
The Council urged all advocates and law firms to review their public materials, including websites, media statements, and social media content, to ensure compliance with the rules prohibiting misleading or promotional representations of international affiliations.
The BCI noted a rising trend of Indian firms presenting themselves as part of “global law firm platforms” through structures such as Swiss Vereins, exclusive referral partnerships, or joint branding arrangements. According to the regulator, these can mislead clients if they imply unified operations or shared control without proper registration.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in BCI v. A.K. Balaji, the Council reiterated that foreign law firms cannot indirectly practice Indian law by entering into such combinations. The Court had earlier clarified that the practice of law includes activities such as legal advice, contract drafting, and negotiation, and not just courtroom appearances.
The press release also draws a clear boundary for foreign lawyers participating in Indian-seated arbitrations. If an arbitral tribunal takes evidence on oath under Section 19(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, foreign lawyers cannot appear or cross-examine witnesses, as doing so amounts to practicing Indian law.
However, the BCI allowed for a narrow exception, foreign lawyers may address discrete issues of foreign or international law during arbitration proceedings, provided that segment is not recorded as evidence on oath and does not touch upon Indian law.
The BCI confirmed that show-cause notices have been sent to firms that appear to be violating the 2023 Rules. These firms have been asked to submit details regarding their ownership, governance, and operational structure. Failure to respond or continued operation under combined or foreign-linked branding may attract professional misconduct proceedings under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The Council also indicated that more notices are likely, and firms continuing to use international branding without registration could face aggravated penalties.
Reinforcing Rule 36 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, the BCI warned against launch events, marketing campaigns, or social media promotions that depict Indian firms as part of global networks. Such publicity, the Council said, will be examined under both Rule 36 and the Foreign Lawyers Rules to determine whether it constitutes solicitation or advertising, both of which are prohibited.
The BCI further stated that its assessment will depend on the “pith and substance” of communications, meaning that even if the language is indirect, any portrayal suggesting unified global operations could still breach professional conduct norms.
While emphasizing compliance, the BCI reiterated that its regulatory system remains open and transparent, allowing foreign lawyers to practice foreign and international law within India in clearly defined parameters. The Council stated that these boundaries are intended to protect the independence and integrity of the Indian legal profession while facilitating international legal cooperation under a regulated framework.
BCI Press Release
