INTRODUCTION
In recent months, Bar Council of India (BCI) cautioned the Indian law firms/advocates not to enter into unapproved or unregistered partnerships with the foreign law firms/advocates. On 21-10-2025, BCI withdrew its press release which was earlier given on 5-08-2025 and issued a revised statement after reconsidering the matter against the unauthorised “tie-ups”, co-branding and joint branding with the foreign counterparts. And such combinations are structured through “Swiss Vereins, strategic alliances, exclusive referral models, or joint-branding initiatives” and are publicly promoted as a unified global legal services platform.[1]
The BCI explained that any unregistered collaborations that claim to deliver integrated services across jurisdictions including India are in violation of rules. It reaffirmed that after registration a foreign law firms or group of firms may only practice “Foreign Law” or “International law”, but not Indian Law in any form in India, directly or indirectly and this prohibition extends to the brand, head, or identity, even if the work is carried out by an Indian firm “acting under that name.”[2]
Notably, Indian and foreign law firms and individuals who are allegedly involved in these collaborations have received show-cause notices from BCI (for instance, Dentons Link Legal and CMS IndusLaw were named in the earlier circular). A more robust regulatory stance is indicated by these enforcement actions.
THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Advocate Act, 1961, regulates the conduct and discipline of advocates. In the section 30 of this Act, grants that only advocates who enrolled with a State Bar Council are entitled to practise law throughout India, it means that an advocate can practice in any court and its tribunals including Supreme Court and High Courts without additional enrollment in different states. The foreign law firms are generally excluded from practising law in India. According to the press release, non-compliance may result in professional misconduct proceedings under Advocate act,1961, which could include suspension or the statutory consequences.
The Supreme Court in Bar Council of India v A.K. Balaji & Ors. held that foreign law firms cannot “do indirectly what they cannot do directly”. In particular, the Court emphasised that the “practice of law” includes not only advocacy in court but also advice, contract-drafting, negotiations and other connected activities.[3]
The Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2023, which were amended in 2025. Introduced by the BCI in response to globalisation and an increase in cross-border transactions. These regulations strictly restrict any involvement in Indian law practice, but they allow “foreign law” or “International Law” in non-litigious matters.
LEGAL ISUUES AND RISK FOR FIRMS
- Regulatory non-compliance
A foreign law firm or an Indian law firm collaborating and fails to register under Rules but participates in activities that constitute “practice of law” in India, it faces disciplinary action under Advocate Act,1961. Moreover, under Rule 36 (Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette) of the Bar Council Rules, public communications (websites, branding, launch events) that present a unified worldwide legal platform may themselves be considered professional misconduct.
- Brand and Client-risk
Clients may mislead by associations that present themselves as unified global firms into thinking that the foreign law firm has a significant presence or the authority to practice Indian law. Whether the foreign company is indirectly practicing Indian law will depend on the “pith and substance” of the agreement.[4] Clients could be at risk in this situation if the firm is later discovered to be non-compliant.
- Arbitration and litigation risks
The Rules (as well as the BCI’s statement) serve as a reminder that foreign attorneys are only permitted to participate in arbitrations held in India if the dispute pertains to foreign or international law and does not require the recording of evidence under oath. A foreign attorney may be considered practising Indian law if they cross-examine witnesses under oath or participate in an arbitration involving Indian law.
- Indirect models
The BCI emphasizes that an Indian law firm should not permit itself to be represented as a part of a foreign entity when operating under the name or brand of a foreign law firm.[5] Such branding could amount to a foreign company operating through an Indian company, which would violate regulations.
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR FIRMS
- Audit existing collaborations and branding
To ascertain whether registration under the Rules in necessary, firms should examine any current tie-up, partnership, referral, or branding arrangement with foreign law firms. Joint branding, the use of a foreign company’s name on-site, website descriptions of cross-border integrated services, exclusivity referral agreements, and any activity involving Indian law should all receive special attention.
- Check the scope of services
The services must be explicitly restricted to “foreign law” or “international law” and non-litigious if a foreign law firm or foreign attorney is involved. Only Indian law firms with the proper registration and enrollment should provide any advice, drafting, or involvement in Indian law or litigation. The “pith and substance” test might be applicable if the agreement includes cross-jurisdictional branding or shared client serving that blurs the boundaries.
- Ensures registration where required
Registration is required if a foreign law firm or a combined arrangement meets the requirements of the Rules to be considered an Indian-Foreign Law firm. Businesses should make sure that the all filings, disclosures, governance, compliance, and audits are completed on time. The 2025 Amendment to the Rules adds more comprehensive procedural prerequisites.[6]
- Avoid advertising that suggests unified platform
A foreign law firm and an Indian firm should not be portrayed in public communications (launch events, websites, social media posts) as a single integrated entity providing Indian law services unless they are fully registered. Such branding may constitute professional misconduct in and of itself, the BCI has warned.[7]
- Client transparency
Businesses should make sure that clients are aware of the collaboration’s status, including whether the foreign firm is registered, what kind of work it can do, and whether Indian-enrolled advocates are providing legal advice. Effective client communication reduces the possibility of misrepresentation or misunderstanding.
CONCLUSION
The rules governing the participation of foreign law firms in India are changing dramatically. While the bar Council of India is focusing on compliance, registration, and clarity in branding and operational structures, the amended Rules of 2023 (and 2025) reflect the liberalization of cross-border legal services. There is significant legal, regulatory, and reputational risk associated with unregistered partnerships between Indian and foreign law firms. It is crucial for both Indian and foreign law firms to carefully assess the nature of the partnership, guarantee compliance (including registration when necessary), match public facing branding with regulatory reality, and keep open lines of communication with clients. Global partnerships are encouraged in theory, but they must be structure with regulatory rigor, as indicated by the BCI’s recent strong insistence on “no indirectly what cannot be done directly.”
Author(s) Name: Alina Raza (SOA National Institute of Law, Bhubaneswar)
References:
[1] BCI issues warning on Unregistered Collaborations between Indian and Foreign Law Firms (SCC Times, 21 Oct 2025).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Bar Council of India v A.K. Balaji & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 379.
[4] Times of India article: “BCI no to foreign law firms, flags ‘joint’ entities as well”.
[5] ILMS Academy commentary.
[6] Bar and Bench: “Cross-Border Counsel” article.
[7] Indian Express article (22 Oct 2025) re audit of websites and urging removal of prohibited content.
