PDF: 2962 pages, 5.2 MB - Bay Area Council Economic Institute

Global Reach
Market Opening
Under the terms of its membership in the World Trade Organization, India has officially
committed to opening its legal services market to foreign law firms in 2009. A four-year
review of the current system is due to conclude, but U.S. attorneys familiar with Indian
politics are skeptical. Raj Judge, an attorney with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati who does
extensive cross-border work, says “there’s a lot of talk about India opening, but I don’t see it
happening in the foreseeable future because the Indian lawyers aren’t going to let it happen.”
The Indian legal community is divided on market opening. Young attorneys and law school graduates
see greater opportunity and more challenging work in joining a global firm but would prefer
not to relocate abroad. Long-established family-owned law firms and state bar associations are deeply
opposed, fearing a sudden easing of rules and open competition. They have so far effectively
persuaded India’s High Courts to constrain even the liaison office activities of foreign law firms.
Bay Area Connections
Opportunities for Bay Area law firms to develop India practices and generate business have been
limited but are gradually expanding. Foreign lawyers (except graduates of Commonwealth law
schools) and Indian nationals employed with foreign firms are barred from practicing or interpreting
Indian law. Foreign firms may establish “liaison offices” in India and advise foreign or
Indian clients engaged in cross-border business, but even that activity has been constrained by
the Mumbai High Court. Bay Area firms maintain exclusive, preferred vendor, or ad hoc alliances
with Indian law firms, similar to what is customarily done in China.
To date, key differences with China have been: (1) the relatively slow development of cross-border
M&A and venture-funded entrepreneurial startups in India; and (2) the larger indigenous talent
pool of bilingual accountants, attorneys and management consultancies in India to structure deals
and undertake due diligence in commercial transactions without looking abroad for support.
Snehal Patil joined Perkins Coie LLP in Menlo Park in 2009, after coming to the U.S.
in 2004 and working with The Chugh Firm in Santa Clara and then Thelen Reid Brown
Raysman & Steiner in San Francisco. Patil’s work in India included litigation and transaction
work involving corporate law, trademark and copyright protection, and real estate. His
India work with Perkins and other firms has extended to include representing U.S. companies in
their joint ventures and strategic partnerships with Indian entities; assisting an Indian firm with a
$20 million acquisition of a Silicon Valley startup; assisting U.S. and Indian companies in structuring
M&A transactions and offshore entities; negotiating technology licensing and distribution
rights; assisting India-based companies in establishing U.S. subsidiaries; and representing media
and entertainment firms with copyright and trademark registrations in the U.S. and India.
Patil acknowledges that there is still a clear separation of cross-border work done by Indian and
U.S. attorneys, although Indian-origin firms in the U.S. are able to hire naturalized NRIs and
compete here for business, particularly in the startup and middle-market segment. As opposed to
international arbitration, he says, litigation in court is the favored route of most Indian businesses
for resolving commercial disputes, particularly if there is a possibility of obtaining a favorable
92