Advertisement

  • News
  • Columns
  • Interviews
  • BW Communities
  • Events
  • BW TV
  • Subscribe to Print
BW Businessworld

Exclusive: Celebrated Int'l Lawyer John Quinn On Foreign Firms' Entry In India

John Quinn, Founder, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan is in India to explore growth opportunities for his firm which has 31 offices across the world

Photo Credit :

1679484640_UBxyzT_Inetrview_John_3.jpg

The Bar Council of India's (BCI) move to allow foreign law firms and lawyers in India has the potential to be very positive even as finer details of the rollout are yet to be studied, said John B. Quinn, Founder, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP on Wednesday.

"There are a lot of questions about this regime, how it will be rolled out, and what it means. So, I think it remains to be seen exactly what the contours of it will be. But I think it has the potential to be very positive," said Quinn in a conversation with BW LegalWorld.

Quinn is in India to explore growth opportunities for the firm, which employs over 1,000 lawyers in 31 offices across the world.

Raising Level Of Practice

Addressing concerns around reciprocity and level-playing field, flagged by some players in the Indian legal industry, Quinn cited the example of Japan and how similar apprehensions surfaced when it allowed entry of foreign firms.

"When Japan first opened its market to foreign law firms, 25 plus years ago, there was a huge hue and cry among the large Japanese law firms that this will decimate their business and that foreign firms will take over," said Quinn.

He said that such apprehensions did not play out and the market there is still dominated by Japanese firms, adding that it is not a foregone conclusion that the move would trigger a loss of market share for Indian firms.

Quinn stated that the move would actually see a cross-pollination of best practices between Indian and foreign lawyers and could potentially raise the level of practice for everyone.

Playbook In India

On how the playbook for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP would look in India, Quinn said it would not be too different from other countries.

Citing an example of his firm's office in China, Quinn said, "In China, if you join an international firm, you cannot give advice on Chinese Law. We cannot appear in court, so we are not litigating there. As I understand, the proposed regime in India has the same features."

Quinn said that the Indian Bar does have an interest in maintaining the quality of the Indian legal practice, and that is understandable.

"Just because somebody is a successful litigator in another jurisdiction doesn't mean that their career has prepared them to successfully and professionally litigate in India," Quinn reckoned.

Consistency In Service Delivery

Highlighting the success of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP across the globe and how they have maintained consistency in the delivery of services, Quinn stressed hiring the right talent.

"They must be outstanding lawyers, to begin with, and they must be people who would be great representatives of the firm. Every lawyer you hire is a message to the marketplace about who you are, who you think you are, and what your standards are. So that is the most important thing," Quinn asserted.

He added that his firm has a culture of sharing best practices and learnings, and partners are constantly brainstorming, which helps maintain quality and consistency in service delivery.

Explaining the working relationship in their present jurisdictions, Quinn explained that they do not have relationships with many law firms, and they work with multiple offerings in each jurisdiction.

Above law firms, Quinn stated they look for lawyers who would be in the best position to help the client.

The BCI had last week allowed foreign law firms to practice foreign law, advise on international legal issues and participate in international arbitration matters.

Indian law firms are, however, contending that the latest BCI rules on registration and regulation of foreign law firms and lawyers are inconsistent with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court (SC) pronouncement.