This article has been authored by team Ghostline Legal.
Imagine a big Indian law firm teaming up with a global player, and then the regulator stepping in. That’s exactly what’s happening with IndusLaw, a prominent Indian law firm, and CMS, an international network of law firms. Their alliance, branded as CMS IndusLaw, has drawn the ire of the Bar Council of India (BCI) – and it’s become a bit of a legal drama. In this post, we’ll break down in simple terms what the IndusLaw-CMS vs BCI fiasco is all about, why it matters, and where things might go from here.
IndusLaw and CMS: A Global Tie-Up in the Spotlight
IndusLaw is a well-known full-service law firm in India. Earlier this year, it entered into an exclusive partnership with CMS, a large international law firm network with presence across many countries. Essentially, IndusLaw became a member of the CMS network, and the firm started using the combined name “CMS IndusLaw” for this alliance. According to IndusLaw’s co-founder Gaurav Dani, “This is an exclusive arrangement between CMS and IndusLaw and all CMS work will go to IndusLaw.” In other words, if a CMS client needs legal assistance in India, IndusLaw will handle it, and they present themselves under a unified banner.
This tie-up was big news in the legal industry because it signaled a new level of cooperation between Indian firms and foreign firms. Not long before, another Indian firm, Link Legal, had formed a similar partnership with global law giant Dentons (branded as Dentons Link Legal). These alliances came on the heels of BCI easing rules in 2023 to allow foreign lawyers and firms to operate in India in a limited way. It seemed like the Indian legal market was cautiously opening up to the world.
However, the celebration was short-lived. The Bar Council of India – which regulates legal practice in India – soon made it clear that it had serious reservations about such tie-ups.
Why Is the Bar Council of India Upset?
The BCI isn’t just upset – it’s concerned and taking action. In early August 2025, the BCI issued a public notice singling out the IndusLaw–CMS alliance (and the Dentons–Link Legal alliance) for allegedly flouting BCI’s rules on partnerships with foreign firms. The heart of the issue is that BCI believes these arrangements create an integrated legal practice across borders without the proper approval.
Here’s the crux of BCI’s objection in plain language:
Unified Branding Concern: IndusLaw and CMS are presenting themselves under a combined name “CMS IndusLaw.” The BCI says that using a unified brand and marketing as a single entity across India and abroad makes it look like a de facto merged firm operating in India. In BCI’s view, this portrays to clients that the firms are functioning as one integrated practice in India, which is not supposed to happen unless rules are followed.
Registration Rule: Earlier in 2023, BCI introduced rules to allow foreign lawyers/firms in India in a regulated manner. These rules (amended in 2025) specifically require any “Indian-Foreign Law Firm” combinations to register with the BCI before operating. BCI asserts that if a firm like IndusLaw is effectively combining with a foreign firm like CMS, they must get prior BCI approval and registration – which hasn’t happened in this case. As the BCI’s notice put it, “such structures, if implemented and operationalised without prior registration… are impermissible.”
No Loopholes (Supreme Court’s stance): The BCI also reminded everyone of a clear ruling by the Supreme Court of India. The court had held that **foreign law firms cannot do indirectly (through an alliance or arrangement) what they are prohibited from doing directly in India. In simple terms, if foreign lawyers aren’t allowed to practice Indian law on the ground, they shouldn’t be able to sneak in by partnering with an Indian firm and effectively doing the same work under a joint name. BCI suspects that alliances like CMS IndusLaw could be a way to get around the rules, and it is not okay with that.
Show-Cause Notices Issued: Acting on these concerns, BCI has sent formal notices to IndusLaw (and the others) asking them to explain their arrangement in detail. The BCI is demanding documentation about how the partnership is structured, who controls what, and whether they disclosed everything properly. It also came with a warning: If the firms fail to justify that they’re within the rules, they could face action under the Advocates Act and BCI rules – this might include being found guilty of professional misconduct or other penalties.
“Stop Using That Name – For Now”: In its statement, the BCI even cautioned that continuing to publicly use the combined brand names (like “CMS IndusLaw”) without approval could itself be seen as a violation. In other words, BCI is effectively saying “pause the co-branding until you get our green light, or you’re in trouble.” This is a strong message for the firms to not carry on business-as-usual under the joint banner while the issue is being adjudicated.
All of this shows that the Bar Council is taking a firm stand. From BCI’s perspective, rules are rules – if foreign collaborations are allowed at all, they must happen strictly under the regulatory framework. BCI’s stance is also about protecting the integrity and sovereignty of India’s legal system. They have explicitly stated that while they don’t oppose cross-border legal cooperation, it has to be ethical and lawful. Foreign lawyers can practice in India, but only in non-Indian law matters (like international arbitration or foreign law consulting) and only under BCI’s oversight. What they absolutely won’t tolerate is any sneaky attempt to let foreign firms practice Indian law or control Indian legal business by attaching themselves to local firms without following the rules.
What IndusLaw (and CMS) Have to Say
IndusLaw’s reaction to the BCI’s notice was basically: “We haven’t broken any rules, this is a misunderstanding.” The firm expressed dismay and surprise at the BCI’s stance, indicating they believe the regulator got it wrong.
From IndusLaw’s point of view, their alliance with CMS is within the letter of the law. Here are the key points IndusLaw (now CMS IndusLaw) and its partners have emphasized in their defense:
Still an Indian Firm: IndusLaw insists that despite the CMS network branding, it remains an independent Indian law firm that practices only Indian law. They have not merged into a foreign firm; they are simply part of an international network. In an official statement, the firm said, “We strongly refute any imputation that rules have been breached. We are an independent Indian law firm practising only Indian law.” The message: we’re not letting foreign lawyers do Indian lawyer work under our roof.
No Foreign Lawyers in India (and Vice Versa): IndusLaw also clarified that its arrangement with CMS does not enable any foreign lawyer to practice law in India, nor any Indian lawyer (from IndusLaw) to practice foreign law abroad. So, they claim there’s a clear boundary – CMS’s international lawyers aren’t coming to argue in Indian courts or advise on Indian legal matters, and IndusLaw’s team isn’t suddenly going to advise on, say, English law in London. The firms are just cooperating, not swapping roles.
Compliance with All Regulations: Both IndusLaw and the other called-out firm (Dentons Link Legal) assert that they are fully compliant with current laws and BCI rules. Dentons Link Legal’s leaders, for instance, stated that their combination is “fully compliant with all laws, including the Advocates Act” and that they’re owned and managed entirely by Indian lawyers. IndusLaw similarly maintains it “remains fully within the bounds of all applicable rules and regulations.” In short, these firms are adamant that nothing about their alliances breaks the rules, as they understand them.
It’s a Partnership, Not a Merger: The way IndusLaw and CMS likely see it, their tie-up is more of a referral and collaboration agreement. IndusLaw benefits from CMS’s global network and name, and CMS gains a trusted partner firm in India to send work to. There’s no formal merger where the two become one firm in a legal sense. IndusLaw is using the CMS brand, but it says it hasn’t allowed the CMS organization to actually practice law in India directly. This nuance is important to them – it’s how they justify that they haven’t triggered the “foreign firm practicing in India” rules.
IndusLaw and CMS, therefore, are pushing back against BCI’s implications. They feel BCI’s fears are misplaced, and that the arrangement stays on the right side of the law. Both the IndusLaw-CMS alliance and the Dentons-Link Legal alliance have indicated they will formally respond to the BCI and clarify all these points. In other words, they’ll try to convince the regulator that “Hey, we’re following your rules, there’s no need for alarm.”
It’s a tense situation: on one hand, the regulator is hinting at possible disciplinary action, and on the other, the firms are standing their ground saying we’ve done nothing wrong.
The Bigger Picture: Why This Fiasco Matters
This tussle between the BCI and firms like IndusLaw is more than just a procedural spat – it highlights the wider struggle of opening up India’s legal market. Here’s why this whole episode is important beyond the immediate parties involved:
Testing the New Rules: The BCI only recently (in 2023) started to gingerly allow foreign legal players into India, after decades of keeping them out. They put in place detailed rules, registration requirements, and limitations (like foreign firms can only advise on foreign law, etc.). The IndusLaw–CMS alliance is one of the first high-profile tests of how those rules will play out in reality. If BCI comes down hard on this alliance, it will set the tone for how strictly such partnerships will be regulated going forward.
Clarity for Future Alliances: Many Indian firms have been eyeing partnerships with global firms (for the brand, clients, and expertise it brings). But if alliances like CMS IndusLaw hit a regulatory wall, others will think twice. Everyone’s watching to see where the line is drawn. Can Indian firms simply join an international network and share a name? Or will they be forced to either formally register as a new joint entity or stay away from co-branding altogether? The outcome here will provide a blueprint (or a warning) for others.
Protecting the Home Turf vs. Globalization: On a broader level, this fiasco underscores the balance India is trying to strike. BCI’s job is to protect the integrity of the Indian legal profession – they don’t want a free-for-all where foreign firms dominate or local rules get bypassed. At the same time, globalization of legal services is inevitable, and Indian firms are seeking to expand their global reach. The IndusLaw-CMS partnership was a way to expand that reach without breaking the formal rules (at least from the firms’ perspective). The conflict shows the friction between a traditional protectionist stance and the modern collaborative approach in legal services. As one part of its statement, the BCI even emphasized it wants to protect the sovereignty of India’s legal system while promoting lawful cross-border cooperation. That’s a tough needle to thread.
Regulatory Uncertainty: The fact that BCI formed a special committee in June 2025 to examine foreign firm tie-ups indicates that even the regulators are still figuring this out. The committee, chaired by a senior lawyer (Cyril Shroff of CAM), is supposed to recommend how to address the concerns of Indian lawyers about foreign entrants. This means the rules might evolve further. For IndusLaw and others, there’s a bit of regulatory uncertainty – what was okay yesterday might suddenly be frowned upon today. Navigating this uncertainty is part of why this situation is delicate for law firms.
Immediate Implications for the Firms: In the short term, IndusLaw and CMS (and similarly Dentons Link Legal) have some decisions to make. They’ll be submitting detailed explanations to BCI to show that their arrangements are compliant. They might also need to tone down or tweak their branding in the interim (for example, not over-emphasize the “CMS IndusLaw” joint name in public materials until this clears up). Worst case, if BCI is not satisfied, these firms could face proceedings for misconduct or be forced to unwind parts of their collaboration. That could mean serious reputational and operational impact, given how much effort went into forging these international alliances.
What’s Next in the Showdown?
As of now, IndusLaw and CMS are in a bit of a standoff with the BCI. The BCI has thrown down the gauntlet with its notice and public warning. IndusLaw (and its partner CMS) will formally respond to BCI’s show-cause notice, defending their position and likely providing all the info BCI asked for about their deal. The ball will then be in BCI’s court to decide if those explanations pass muster.
A few things to watch for going forward:
BCI’s Decision: After reviewing IndusLaw’s response, the BCI could either accept it (maybe with some conditions or guidelines for the future) or reject it. If BCI is satisfied that no rules are actually being broken – for instance, if it concludes that in substance IndusLaw-CMS aren’t violating the foreign law firm ban – it might let the alliance continue as is (perhaps quietly). However, if BCI remains unconvinced, we could see formal action. That could range from asking the firms to stop using the combined name and officially register the partnership, to even pursuing penalties under the Advocates Act for misconduct.
Possible Legal Challenge: It’s also possible this matter doesn’t end with just the BCI’s internal decision. If IndusLaw or others feel the BCI is being unfair or overreaching, they might challenge the decision in court. We’ve seen legal battles in the past over foreign firms in India (the A.K. Balaji case is a prime example that went to the Supreme Court). A court might then have to interpret the new BCI rules and whether an alliance like this truly violates them or not. So, this fiasco could escalate into a courtroom fight, which would be quite precedent-setting.
Impact on Other Firms: Firms that were considering similar tie-ups are surely in wait-and-watch mode. For example, there were rumors about other global firms looking at Indian partners. The outcome here will either encourage those moves or scare firms off. If BCI takes a hard line, Indian firms might stick to loose referral arrangements without public co-branding to avoid trouble. If BCI takes a softer line or clarifies a registration path, we might see more alliances but done in a way that ticks the BCI’s boxes.
Regulatory Clarity: The silver lining of such a confrontation is that it can lead to clearer regulations. Right now, it’s a bit of a grey area what constitutes “practicing law in India indirectly.” The BCI’s committee and the feedback from these incidents could result in more explicit guidelines. We might see BCI issuing detailed criteria for what Indian firms can or cannot do when partnering with foreign firms (e.g., rules on naming, sharing of resources, etc.). In the long run, everyone in the industry is hoping for clarity so they know the boundaries.
In the meantime, it’s worth noting that IndusLaw-CMS has not been called off – the alliance is still in place, just under scrutiny. IndusLaw is continuing its regular legal work for clients in India, and presumably CMS is routing India-related work to them. Business goes on, but under a cloud of uncertainty.
Bottom line: this IndusLaw–CMS vs BCI saga is a microcosm of the larger story of India opening up its legal sector and figuring out how to regulate it. It’s a tug-of-war between innovation in the legal market and regulatory caution. For now, all you need to know is:
A major Indian law firm (IndusLaw) joined forces with an international network (CMS) and started using a joint name.
The Bar Council of India believes this partnership violates the rules (since it looks like a foreign firm operating in India without proper approval).
IndusLaw and CMS insist they’re playing by the rules and that it’s just a friendly alliance, not an illegal setup.
The BCI has issued notices and warnings, and we’re waiting to see if this gets resolved by clarification, compliance, or a bigger showdown.
This is a developing story, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Will BCI allow these new-age partnerships to thrive (with some guardrails), or will it slam the brakes hard? The decision will shape the future of legal services in India, balancing between being globally connected and strictly regulated. Stay tuned – this is one legal drama that’s far from over, and it affects everyone from law firms and lawyers to clients doing business across borders.
