Most lawyers would agree that the latest trend in the legal profession is the sprouting of a large number of a law firms every year in various parts of the Country. In fact, many lawyers, who in fact may have an independent practice, also tend to prefer to advertise themselves as a law firm, presumably because it may help to build ones brand name faster.

Irrespective of the advantages of working as or for a law firm, it is now indisputable that the firm culture is here to stay. It is virtually a mimicry of the practice of the legal fraternity of the United States, where law firms are now the norm. The emergence of this trend, also, is not surprising. The two primary advantages for any fresh graduate from a law school in joining a law firm are firstly, financial security and secondly, avoidance of the initial legal roasting of every fresh junior at the Bar (as an independent legal practitioner or as a junior counsel under a senior lawyer) for the first two to four years. Add to this the stories about how contacts and case fixing are the only methods to succeed as an independent lawyer and the future looks extremely bleak for the independent practitioner.

This raises a question of whether mechanisms need to be established to regulate the practice of law firms and the legal profession in general specifically pertaining to competition law. The jurisdiction of the Competition Commission to regulate the legal profession can be read into the Act by virtue of the definition of “enterprise” and “service” under Sections 2(h) and 2(u) respectively. Whether the Commission would like to actually do so is an entire matter altogether, considering taking such action against any law firm may incite the ire of the Bar Council Of India and invite another dispute relating to conflict of jurisdiction (it has enough already!!). The Bar Council has till date remained oblivious to the concept of competition in the legal sector, partly due to lack of initiative, and partly as till now it never really needed to bother with such issues. Independent legal practitioners, no matter how successful, generally lack the capacity to influence the bar through anti – competitive means, and few would even bother, the level of professionalism and ethics being comparatively higher in the earlier days. However, the emergence of powerful law firms in the country does warrant an interest into anti – trust issues. It is why I am personally of the opinion that considering the nature of transactions and the diverse subjects of law in which these law firms are engaged in, it is best to brand law firms as “service providers” and to now accept that the concept of law as a “profession” has now become utopian, maybe even a euphemism. Branding them the same may also help to try and draft certain common rules or regulations to regulate all service providers in the economy.

I do acknowledge, however, that cases of anti – competitive practices and abuses of dominant positions by law firms shall be, in all probability, few and far between, since there are frankly just too many law firms and lawyers in the country!! Any attempt to form a cartel shall probably fail and no law firm presently has the capacity to engage in a mass takeover of several law firms within a comparatively short period of time. Also, technically, any such acquisition, depending on the size ofcourse, may have to be approved by the Commission.  Even acknowledging the fact that there are currently few competent lawyers in the Country, my experiences as an intern in courts has shown me that there is enough competency to choose from. I anticipate that the most common case that may arise would be that of “client theft”, which could be, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, be interpreted as a “denial of market access” under section 4(2)(c) of the Act.