Introduction
According to the American Bar Association’s Report of the Commission of Multijurisdictional Practice, multijurisdictional practice is defined as “the legal work of a lawyer in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is not admitted to practice law. Mobility of lawyers on the other hand refers to the ability of legal practitioners trained and certified to practice law in one jurisdiction to practice in other jurisdictions without running afoul of the regulatory provisions in those other jurisdictions. This phenomenon is brought about by the fact that the world has shrunk since the advent of globalization. The combination of cheap and safe air travel and the internet have made places which seemed so far away half a century ago to be accessible to trans-national businesses. The implication is that these conglomerates prefer to approach business from the stand of using legal services that they are accustomed to and readily available. This preference usually excludes the use of counsel practicing in the place where the business is to be conducted. The importation of legal services by the foreign business outfit into a country where its lawyers are not licensed to practice brings about its complications and conflicts in (1) the authority of nation-states to regulate multi-jurisdictional practice, (2) the law to be applied to regulate the conduct of such counsel in the event of a breach of the rules of ethics and (3) the consequences of unregulated multi-jurisdictional legal practice.
This discourse will consider the basis/origin and implications of multi jurisdictional law practice from the African stand-point. How has cross-border legal services fared under the dispensation of globalization and what is the response of African nations especially the emerging economic power blocs to the practice by foreign lawyers in their own territories especially as viewed from the stand point of competition with local counsel. It is hoped to conclude with suggestions and or recommendations for the removal of conflicts and frictions going forward. The writer naturally, expresses these views from the prism of Nigerian law. However, a comparative approach from the position of other African nations will be attempted from time to time in the course of the paper.
Globalisation and cross-border legal practice- Nigerian perspective
The view was once widely held in Nigeria that globalization is a journey to utopia1, a lotus-eater kind of world far away from reality. However, this is not the view of the major players who control the economic resources of the world. That this situation is taken seriously by the people who control the resources of the world has been succinctly captured by Guobadia2 in his paper Globalization of Legal Services- What should Nigeria do? Thus; – ‘A globalised economy could be defined as one in which neither distance or national borders impede economic transactions. This would be a world where the costs of transport and communication would be zero and the barriers created by differing national jurisdictions had vanished. The driving force of trade liberalisation is the World Trade Organisation, a creature of the 1994 Uruguay Round Trade negotiations. The WTO works on a single undertaking principle so that once a country signs and takes up membership it becomes a party to all related agreements including those reached before it joined. In other words, it is very unlike GATT, where a nation can pick and choose which agreements it intends to be bound by’.
The general agreement on trade in service
One of the achievements of the Uruguay negotiations is the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which came into force in January 1995. The GATS, a multi-lateral treaty based agreement was inspired by essentially the same objectives as its counterpart in merchandise trade, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) The only major distinction was that GATS dealt with services as opposed to trade and merchandise. Legal Services comes within the purview of GATS. One important characteristic of GATS is that countries that appended their signatures to it had committed themselves to periodic negotiations to progressively eliminate barriers to international trade in services without requiring further approval from other member states as evidenced in Article 19 of the agreement which compels members to enter in negotiation of specific commitments “directed to the reduction or elimination of the adverse effects on trade in services of measures as a means of providing effective market access. However this process shall only take place with a view to promoting the interests of all participants on a mutually advantageous basis and to securing an overall balance of rights and obligations. (Please note the underlined passage as this defines the scope of liberalisation of legal services.) Essentially the agreement comprises of legally binding rules set for trade in all commercial services, the intention being to spur economic growth by removing barriers limiting trade in services and enabling countries to attract foreign investment by opening highly regulated services to international competition. GATS therefore takes into consideration (i) The National Policy Objectives of each member and (ii) their respective levels of Development.
It is therefore obvious that the requirements of liberalisation are not as frightful as they are made out. To the uninitiated, the impression given is that developing countries must open their markets in trade and services including legal services to the unrestricted participation of the developed world. It cannot be so for the following reasons. Firstly, while it has been agreed that no discriminatory measures will be meted out to service suppliers of member states in favour of domestic suppliers, it is also agreed that liberalisation will be gradual based on the national policy objectives of each member and the respective levels of development. These factors, it is submitted are complex platforms upon which to base any such agreements on. It is therefore more of phantom which cannot in practical terms negatively affect the local legal service market of any country. In my considered opinion, flowing from the foregoing that the market access in legal services as conceptualised by GATS was not expected to be universal or overwhelming in all spheres of legal services. It is clear that the interest of the WTO is to have legal services of such quality and delivery commensurate to and in tandem with the speed and efficiency with which modern international/cross border financial transactions are concluded.
There are so many areas of local national economies whereby legal services have inexorably acquired international flavour and there appears to be nothing that domestic legal practitioners or systems can do about it. They include but are not limited to (i) Oil and Gas, (ii) Aviation, (iii) Shipping, (iv) communications, (v) Internationally financed construction, (vi) equipment leasing, (viii) Mining and mineral exploration, (ix) Privatisation by way of mergers, acquisition etc. It must be noted at this stage that in the past, the excuse for bringing foreign counsel was that local counsel were not equipped technically to deal with the demands of clients in those sectors. But this pretext has waned considerably as (taking Nigeria for example) local counsel have gone in droves to acquire requisite expertise and experience in the afore-enumerated areas. However such recourse to the excuse of lack of local expertise was unnecessary in view of the express provisions of the GATS.
Summary of the criteria for legal practice in selected african countries i.e Nigeria, south Africa East African states and Ghana Nigeria
Item 49 of the exclusive legislative list in Part 1 of the 2nd Schedule to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria lists ‘Professional occupations as may be designated by the National Assembly’. This means that only the National Assembly as opposed to the legislative house of the 36 States of the Federation can legislate on all issues pertaining to the practice of law in Nigeria as a profession. The Legal Practitioners Act3 prescribes the qualification of a person qualified to practice law in Nigeria4 and it includes (a) persons whose names are on the Roll of legal practitioners, (b) persons who apply to the Chief Justice of Nigeria and are entitled to practice as advocates from countries where the legal system is similar to to that of Nigeria and the CJN is of the opinion that it is expedient for that person to practice as a Barrister for the purpose of the proceedings described in the application.
The LPA also sets out the disciplinary regime/procedure for erring members of the profession. It is to be noted at this point in time that the LPDC can only discipline lawyers who have been called to the Nigerian Bar. This raises the question of how foreign counsel whose professional conduct impact badly on the ethics of the profession while working in Nigeria can or should be disciplined. This aspect will be dealt with in due course.
Indeed, there is no move to instant liberalisation of legal services; that is not the concept in GATS. Article 19, which calls for a progressive move towards liberalisation is therefore relevant, let individual nations readiness be reviewed as required by the treaty every 5 years and at the next Round Nigerian stakeholders such as the NBA and its specialised sections must be ready with facts and figures to justify the state of readiness of Nigeria to liberalise and whether it is indeed feasible owing to the conduct of our partners so to do. The NBA position on multi-jurisdictional practice as last reviewed in the year 2012 is therefore clear from the foregoing. That in the long run liberalisation of legal services is foreseeable but not imminent. Nigeria should however not include legal services in its schedule until bilateral and multilateral issues of market access and discriminatory practices are resolved. Furthermore, there is a need for the Governments of Nigeria (Federal and States) to rapidly industrialise. The absence of viable industries in the required number denies Nigerian lawyers of the necessary enabling platform to practice modern international commercial practice. No foreign counsel is expected to involve him or herself in land, chieftaincy, election and other local indigenous legal disputes of customary status. Any Initiative that will promote local content in the rendering of legal services is being encouraged and supported. However, this is not to justify tardiness in our preparations to join the five African nations that have opened their doors to foreign legal counsel.
South Africa
No doubt the legal services sector has experienced several changes as a consequence of the growth in international trade. All over the world lawyers are required to provide services and advice to their clients who do business across borders. Businesses and organizations involved in international transactions need reliable, up to date and integrated services covering all aspects of such transactions.
The Legal Profession in South Africa is divided into Advocates and Attorneys and they are regulated by the General Council of the Bar of South Africa and the Law Society of South Africa respectively. No dual practice is allowed. Legal practitioners are regulated by different laws and each has its own set of admission requirements. In 1995, South Africa made legally binding commitments to liberalize legal services under the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services. The commitments allow, foreign legal practitioners to establish, a commercial presence in and transfer personnel, including legal practitioners, to South Africa.
South Africa made specific commitments on the establishment of a commercial presence (mode 3) and the temporary transfer of personnel (mode 4) to South Africa. The commitments are limited to the supply of legal advisory services in foreign international and domestic law and legal representation services in domestic law by a locally established entity. Such an entity must be owned or controlled by natural or legal persons of any other WTO member state.5 Please note that to practice local law, a foreign lawyer must requalify as a South African attorney.
Unless a person is from a designated country (at present Swaziland, Namibia, Lesotho and the former TBVC states) a person must complete a South African LLB degree and comply with the other requirements with regard to articles or community service, practical legal training and the admission examination. A person who intends to be admitted in the Republic of South Africa, can submit his/her degree to a South African university for an indication of whether any credit by such university would be given with regard to any part of the foreign law degree.
Further requirements with regard to admission are provided in the Attorneys Act, 1979 as amended6. A person must be a South African citizen or permanent resident and be otherwise fit and proper in the opinion of the court to be admitted as an attorney. The current qualification requirements for the admission and enrolment of attorneys and advocates present an insurmountable barrier to foreign legal practitioners wanting to practice in South Africa.
In the case of professional qualification requirements, any division of the Bar in the country may admit a legal professional practicing outside the country to practice in South Africa provided the person has been admitted as an advocate in a designated country, resides and practices as an advocate in that country, is fit and proper to be admitted, and, has no disciplinary proceedings pending or contemplated against him or her. Namibia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Lesotho are the only countries that have been designated countries in terms of this particular provision.8 Advocates from these countries may be allowed to practice across border in South Africa. It is pertinent to note that this provision constitutes a violation to MFN treatment obligation because it is not applied in a non-discriminatory manner to all other WTO member states and has not been listed as an exemption.
EAST AFRICAN COMMUNITY STATES [EAC]
As regards the EAC partner states, they have agreed that the opening of their service sectors within the common market would be progressive. Burundi has agreed to liberalise its legal services by eliminating all market access restrictions by 2015; Kenya agreed to liberalise only the legal advisory and representation services in judicial procedures concerning other fields of law; Rwanda agreed to liberalise its legal sector by 2010; Uganda agreed to fully liberalize its legal sector by 2015 while Tanzania didn’t make any commitment with regard to legal services.9
At the moment, the East Africans are debating the EAC Cross Border Legal Practice Bill, 2014 at the East African Legislative Assembly as at March, 26, 2015. According to the report, the East African Law Society and National Law Societies in the EAC acknowledge the need for the enactment of an EAC Cross Border Legal Practice law to facilitate provision of cross border legal services within EAC, to harmonize legal training and certification, provide common standards and rules to regulate cross border legal practice and facilitate free movement of legal services. Presently, in EAC lawyers are confined to practising within their countries, a situation that hampers them from taking advantage of cross-border opportunities even in instances where there are shortages of skills.
GHANA
In Ghana the legal profession allows a qualified lawyer to practice as either a Solicitor or a barrister. Foreign Lawyers are permitted to practice in Ghana provided they have the required qualifications from their home jurisdiction, a letter of good – standing from their home bar which must be certified by the General Legal Council. The foreign lawyer must also pass the required exam in Ghanaian Constitutional law and the customary law of Ghana. Non – Ghanaian citizens are also required to demonstrate seven years post qualified experience (PQE) in a country with a compatible legal system.
THE QUALIFIED LAWYERS TRANSFER SCHEME (QLTS)
A recent innovation to enhance cross border practice is the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme. The Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) allows lawyers qualified in foreign jurisdictions to requalify as solicitors of England and Wales. This is a fast-track route to qualification with no experience or training contract requirement. There are now numerous important business centers around the world in which many of the negotiations and transactions are governed by English law. Consequently there is an increasing demand for locally based, dual-qualified lawyers who can provide English cross jurisdictional as well as local legal advice.10
ISSUES ARISING FROM MOBILITY OF LAWYERS /CROSS BORDER PRACTICE
When lawyers practice law in countries in which they are not licensed, problems of varying degrees and magnitude are bound to arise. It is intended to examine some of those problems as they apply to the African continent. By way of a preface, it has been argued in some quarters that it is a violation of the rules of ethics and that the reason why many lawyers do not consider it risky to engage in some or all of this conduct is that the rules prohibiting multijurisdictional practice are not well defined and is almost entirely unenforced. However, since multi-jurisdictional practice is now a reality the tendency of foreign counsel is at times to operate in host countries outside his home jurisdiction very freely.
Since the practice of law is not confined to litigation, but extends to activities in other fields which entail specialised legal knowledge and ability, there is usually an encroachment into the provision of legal services by other professions i.e. Estate Surveyors, Accountants. Etc. Now, the line between such activities and permissible business conducted by non-attorneys is unclear. Because of this ambiguity, what is, and what is not, the authorized practice of law is best decided in the context of an actual case or controversy.
Again, new areas of law and regulations have created whole new fields for legal services, many transactions have become significantly more complex, the effects of which are not in the contemplation of existing laws of jurisdictions that act as host to foreign lawyers not licensed to practice there. There is therefore a need for a constant revision of local domestic laws so as to keep pace with developmental advances in the legal profession brought about by the rapid advances propelled by globalization.
There is therefore a need to admit that there are indeed problems posed by or associated with multi-jurisdictional practice in Africa. The most apparent being the uncertainty of legal rules governing the process. Equally engaging are incidences of professional misconduct committed by foreign counsel while operating outside the jurisdiction that ordinarily has the power to discipline them. Proffering solutions to the issue, American contributors to the issue11 suggested the European Union solution to the discipline of lawyers engaged in unethical practice outside their own shores and identified the issues thus:
“In thinking of solutions to problems posed by multi-jurisdictional practice in this country, it is instructive to consider the approach taken by another large federal system. The European Union consists of fifteen countries bound together by a series of treaties. (It styles itself a “union” and avoids use of the word “federal”.) The EU nations, of course, are highly developed economically with much cross-border activity, and the problems of multi-jurisdictional practice by attorneys are quite familiar there. Each country, of course, regulates practice within its borders and some of them in the past did much to hinder the cross-border practice of law; this hindrance closely resembled the practice of states in this country. Because those cross-border restrictions were inconsistent with the EU’s strong commitments to open markets and the free movement of workers, the EU authorities, backed by the European Court of Justice, whittled away at them. Finally, in 1998, the EU adopted Directive 98/5 (OJ 1998 L77/36) to deal with the situation directly.”
The manner in which the EU dealt with the problem is best expressed in the words of the learned contributors thus:
“Under that Directive, an attorney licensed to practice in one member state is entitled to practice law in any other member state. He may do this on a permanent basis, although he must practice under his home-state title ( e.g., “solicitor”) and register with the host-state authorities. The attorney may give advice on both host and home state law, international law, and on EU law. Attorneys so practicing are subject to the disciplinary rules of both the home and host authorities. An EU attorney who practices continuously in a host state for at least three years can gain admission to its bar without further examination and use the proper host-state title for his practice. The benefits of the new EU process are quite apparent to clients and attorneys alike. What is interesting to an American observer is the belief by the EU lawmakers that, when it comes to regulating the practice of law, the fifteen member states have much more in common than their sometimes quite different legal systems would suggest. Thus, the benefits to clients in terms of better service and the benefits to attorneys that come with increased mobility significantly outweigh the possible costs of not being sufficiently grounded in a particular legal culture. It may be time for Americans to consider emulating the lawyers of Europe.”
THE NEED TO ADDRESS ALL CATEGORIES OF LAWYERS
ALTERTANATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
There is a raging controversy as to whether alternative dispute resolution actually constitutes the practice of law. The writer holds the preliminary view that it does, notwithstanding the fact that ADR is engaged in by persons from other professions i.e. Engineers, Accountants, Valuers etc. This is because the advocates who participate with their clients in a form of ADR in seats or venues outside their home jurisdictions for purposes of neutrality are actually engaged in the practice of law in the multi-jurisdictional sense. This is so as ADR has a positive effect on the legal profession and its success in promoting peaceful settlement of claims impacting on rights qualifies it as multijurisdictional practice of law.
As regards professional misconduct of lawyers in International Arbitration some of the potential 12disciplinary measures as prescribed by local jurisdictions include issuing an admonition, reprimand or other type of warning. Fines and occupational bans have also been suggested.13 In some jurisdictions counsel assume civil liability towards the client in case counsel is guilty of a breach of the contract between it and the client and if such breach caused a loss to the client. While most countries observe that the breach of an ethical rule may not per se qualify as a breach of contract. In France ethical misconduct is likely to constitute breach of contract. These by admission are remedies provided by different nations in the exercise of their individual legislative control over the profession. The IBA has made model recommendations, which can be adopted by willing stakeholders although it has been argued that Guideline 26 of the IBA Guidelines might enhance liability risks for counsel, as it allows the Arbitral Tribunal to sanction a party for ethical misconduct of its counsel.
LITIGATORS
Litigators are the only set of lawyers that have explicit restrictions to practice law in other jurisdiction. For instance a Nigerian trained Barrister cannot litigate in a court of law in Scotland except he is authorized by the relevant domestic laws to practice law in Scotland. However, in the United States there are circumstances in which lawyers who are admitted only in one state may be admitted pro hac vice to conduct litigation in another State. A pro hac vice is a legal term usually referring to a lawyer who has not been admitted to practice in a certain jurisdiction but has been allowed to participate in a particular case in that jurisdiction. This process is helpful in two ways. On the one hand, it allows the client to use a particular lawyer of the client’s choice even if the lawyer is not admitted locally. On the other hand, it creates a safe harbor for the lawyer who is admitted pro hac vice and who therefore need not be concerned about engaging in unauthorized practice in the same manner as multi- state business transaction lawyers. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the present system is ideal or even adequate from the point of view of courts, clients, litigators or the public interest14.
Corporate Counsel
The problems facing in-house counsel are probably the most severe. As a result of globalization corporations expand or relocate frequently. The effect of this is that corporate counsel is often required to move with them to other jurisdiction to provide legal services. If not required to actually move, counsel is often required to handle the many global matters facing the modern day corporation. The fundamental question this raises is whether this set of counsel can practice law in such foreign jurisdictions. For instance if a Company in England moves to Nigeria can the in-house Counsel practice law in whatever form in Nigeria having not been enrolled to practice in Nigeria. Under Nigerian law, it is wrong in the circumstance for the in house counsel to practice law in Nigeria except permitted otherwise. Corporations or big global players are expected to employ only those who are qualified to practice law within jurisdiction. In Nigeria we have had instances in which UK law firms handle briefs for Nigerian Companies. Suffice to state that even though Nigeria is a member of the WTO and ECOWAS and is engaged in other bilateral and multilateral treaty arrangements with other countries, it has made no commitments to liberalise the legal service sector, hence currently, no special treaties exist in respect of legal services with other legal jurisdiction.
Transactional Lawyer
This part deals with transactional lawyers and other non-litigators in the context of multi-jurisdictional practice. While for the litigator permissible cross border practice is generally more easily defined and arguably more in the forefront of the attorney’s mind. The litigator knows he cannot appear in court or file pleadings in a jurisdiction in which he is not licensed, unless he has been admitted pro hac vice. What of transactional lawyers and multi-jurisdictional practice. The transactional lawyer, not representing a client before a Tribunal, may not give the unauthorized practice of law more than a passing thought, but what if that same transactional lawyer advertises in a jurisdiction in which he is not licensed, or opens an office outside his jurisdiction? Or a represents a client located outside the lawyers jurisdiction? Or perhaps represents a client located in his jurisdiction, but regarding a transaction, the focus of which is in another jurisdiction? And finally, what if the attorney needs to quickly relocate his practice to a new jurisdiction in which he is not presently licensed to practice law. These are some of the fundamental question the multi-jurisdictional practice of law raises in terms of a transactional lawyer, In the USA, the likelihood of a transactional lawyer falling victim of unauthorized practice of law is more pronounced. As for a litigator he can always apply pro hac vice to practice law within that jurisdiction. The Courts act as a goal keeper against unauthorized practice of law while a transactional lawyer lacks a similar goal keeper to assess or determine when the transactional lawyer has crossed his boundary of unauthorized practice of law.
E-LAWYERING AND THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
One area that has caused a lot of controversy in recent time is the conflict between the practice of law over the internet and the statutes that prohibits the authorized practice of law. While the practice of law is properly regulated offline the same cannot be said of the online practice of law. As the world and indeed the legal profession goes digital it is very difficult to draw a distinction between advertising and providing legal services to a client. The shift to a digital platform has forced lawyers to contemplate whether services provided online are simply furthering the use of the Internet as an advertising tool, or whether the services provided constitute actual legal advice. Indeed, this question has been characterized as “earth-shattering to a jurisdiction-centric profession.”15 The fundamental question this raises is that to what extent one can determine what amounts to authorized practice within a particular jurisdiction. Will the same laid down rules for multijurisdictional practice also apply to legal services provided online? It has been argued that as lawyers and law firms increasingly depend on the Internet to both advertise and provide legal services, unless the standards of what constitutes giving actual legal advice are first clarified, lawyers will continue to face conflict wise the statutes that prohibit the unauthorized practice of law. And perhaps more importantly, clients that rely on such online legal advice will likely suffer serious consequences from utilizing unreliable and inaccurate legal advice provided online.
CONCLUSION
100 years down the road, the practice of law would probably be uniform and all lawyers regardless of jurisdiction may practice on a worldwide basis. The current problems associated with the mobility of practice will persist in the main time until steps are taken to streamline the training curriculum of lawyers on a universal basis. In the interim, there is a compelling need to set out model uniform Rules pertaining to lawyers wishing to practise outside their home jurisdictions. These Rules must encompass qualification and practice requirements such as the global standardization of qualifying certificates and disciplinary measures to be meted out to erring practitioners, operating outside their own jurisdiction. This task cannot be left to individual nations because of obvious shortcomings in that regard and the possibility of the projection of nationalistic self interest over and above the common good of the comity of nations. In this regard, Global Bar Associations like the IBA, CLA, and ABA must rally their troops and provide a uniform platform for the mobility of lawyers,
Unless and until, some certainty is achieved as suggested above, seamless mobility is difficult to achieve because it requires harmonization of legal standards among countries with different legal systems and traditions.
International law is increasing at much the same pace as multijurisdictional practice. International reform will require cooperation with various countries. For firms representing corporate clients, they now have no choice. Even small clients have activities that cross state lines. These clients should not be required to obtain separate legal assistance for each matter in separate states. If the ultimate purpose is to protect the consumer, then the consumer should be able to make the choice.
Joseph Bodunrin Daudu SAN
15th April 2015
(Endnotes)
1 Speech by the writer as President of the Nigerian Bar Association to the annual conference of the Section on Business Law on the 18
th
of June 2012.-Voice of the Bar Volume 4 Page 213 2012
2 Desmond Guobadia is a partner in the law firm of the Law Union. Paper is available on the internet
33 Cap L.11 LFN 2004 incorporates the Provisions of the Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Decree No 21 of 1994
4 See section 2 of the Legal Practitioners Act
5 Cronje, J.B
‘The admission of foreign Legal Practitioners in South Africa: a GATS perspective
’ Stellenbosch: tralac (2013) available at
http://www.tralac.org/files/2013/10/S13WP112013-Cronje-Admission-of-foreign-legal-practitioners-in-SA-20131002-fin.pdf
(accessed 4th April, 2015)
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
8 Ibid
9 John Seka
‘Implementing Cross Border Legal Practice within the EAC States: A Case of the Legal Profession in Tanzania
’ LL.M Dissertation. (available at
http://www.academia.edu/7513670/IMPLEMENTING_CROSS_BORDER_LEGAL_PRACTICE_WITHIN_THE_EAC_STATES_-_A_CASE_OF_THE_LEGAL_PROFESSION_IN_TANZANIA
) (accessed 4
th
April, 2015)
10 The Law Society of England and Wales
‘Taking a global view…Become a Solicitor
’ (2014) (available at
http://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/Uploads/2015/02/05/k/x/k/QLTS-NEW-ENGLISH-JAN2014.pdf
11 Reynolds and Rickman in their paper
‘Multi-jurisdictional practice and the conflict of laws
’ published by the American Bar Association Center for Professional Responsibility
12 Ibid
13 General Report
‘Ethics and Role of Counsel in International Arbitration
’ (2014) (available at
http://prague.aija.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WS08-General-Report-Intational-Arbitration.pdf
)
14 Peter R. Jarvis, Where You Stand Depends on Where You Sit: One Litigator
’s View of Multijurisdictional Practice Issues and Related Policy Question available at
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/committees_commissions/commission_on_multijurisditional_practice/mjp_pjarvis.html
(accessed 12th February, 2015)
15
Allen W. Chiu “The ethical limits of elawyering: Resolving the multijurisdictional dilemma of internet practice through strict enforcement” available at
http://www.lawtechjournal.com/notes/2004/01_040809_chiu.php
(2004) (accessed on 10th of March 2015)
Source: THE NATION