Does the Indian legal system provide an equitable mode of development for legal practice? My experience of innovating in the Indian legal research environment.

Over the past few months, I have been researching on a matter concerning the form of entrepreneurial setup I can devise, being a person who wishes to work only with their legal research skillset. Considering that the constitution provides freedom to engage in trade and commerce, I considered that operating as an individual legal consultant would befit my individual capabilities in exercise of this freedom. However, it is to my dismay that I find that the law does not provide me with such an opportunity, due to a multiplicity of constraints. But before I outline these constraints, I will take some time to explain the benefit of allowing such entrepreneurial innovations, and why it is coming to be a cause I have now come to believe in.

The massive output of legal interpretations by the Courts of Record in India made accessible to the advocate of every prospective litigant via “Online Legal Databases” in recent times, opens up this “re-statement”, if we can call this massive influx of information to the lawyer that, as an opportunity for first-generation or fresher lawyers.

I speak of lawyers who find that after having learnt from a senior about how to practice, they do not have the resources to spend on hiring another associate for research on a particular point of law, or an argument that they need to back themselves up with precedent for. They may use a judgment delivered in recent times alongside their technological skills for a truly convincing argument on law before any court to mostly apply the law laid down by the Courts of Record, but also, to read into the system of common law that is applied in Indian contexts by trial courts and Courts of Record alike. The former being a necessary function of the legal system that many a time may be amiss, and the latter being an innovative way of argumentation.

Hence, this opportunity is one that is ripe for entrepreneurial innovation. One that has already been taking place, with websites providing query-resolution to advocates through social media and blogs. Some, like the well-established, Legal Services India also have advocates providing legal advice online! Hence, although I have not conducted a survey on the presence of such lawyers, the fact that such services exist in different forms was compelling enough to me.

Considering the above, what were my entrepreneurial aims to utilise this opportunity for the legal sector?

Like any other field of business, it was to create an investment that returns a profit over a period of two-three years. Not unlike other entrepreneurs, I did not want to divulge my idea at first, but it is not entirely original, being inspired by other people’s endeavours in this context.

To return a profit, I realised that I need to grow in scale, but as a part of a network of similar service providers providing legal services. I hoped to benefit from the popularity of such assistance seeking, as already described briefly above.

My idea being to provide a legal advice solution to independent lawyers, I found myself confronted with the problem of whether “disrupting” India’s legal system in this manner is really possible.

What are my constraints as an entrepreneur in the Indian legal system?

Whether providing the kind of research assistance I seek to provide is “legal advice” has not come up before Courts of Record in these terms, opening myself up to legal proceedings for breaching the law. This is because “legal advice” in India is the sole domain of advocates, as it constitutes legal practice under the Advocates Act, 1961. Another constraint is that most State Bar Councils and Bar Associations resisted the passing of the Advocates Act (Amendment) Bill, 2017 when it was brought before Parliament on the recommendation of the 266th report of the Law Commission Of India. This act provided for a definition of “legal services” and allowed the Bar Council of India to frame rules in this regard. It could have possibly opened up the doors for research firms such as mine to operate, but news reports suggest that Advocates in most State Bar Councils and Bar Associations are averse to such a development.

To then open up an Advocate’s chambers to provide a simple non-litigation service would be apposite to entrepreneurial intent.

If I had to buttress these points before the legal community, I would argue that the stance practising advocates took when it concerns the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2017 could indeed be to their detriment, notwithstanding that a part of the reform has been accepted by the Bar Council of India due to the fact that Foreign Law Firms are now permitted to practice here

These foreign law firms will come equipped with help from the legal services sector and research assistance provided by a litany of consultancy firms and smaller organisations that can give services resembling legal advice in those jurisdictions. I do not wish to suggest that an entrpreneurial research solution is the only solution and that it comes part and parcel with the permission of Foreign Law Firms being allowed.

However, in the age of globalisation, I find myself struggling to see how accepting only one part of the above stated bargain can allow for equitable growth. I may be the only one affected by these policy causes in this specific manner, but I do not think I am the only one who could benefit from a legal services industry that serves none other than Indian practising advocates.

Twitter  Email