India Considers Opening Its Doors to U.K. Law Firms.

For law firms with global ambitions, India has long held promise as a potentially growing and lucrative market for legal services. Many firms have developed robust India practices, representing Western companies doing business in the country or Indian companies in their business dealings abroad.
But one sizable roadblock stands in the way of U.S. and U.K. firms: Indian law restricts foreign firms from opening offices in the country.
Indian attorneys have even sued U.S. and U.K. firms in the past, contending that the firms have violated Indian trade regulations by practicing law in India.
There are signs, however, that India is considering opening its doors at least partially to foreign firms.
India’s Law Minister Salman Khurshid and the U.K.’s Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke recently agreed to begin work on an arrangement in which India would allow entry to U.K. law firms and the U.K., in turn, would open its doors to Indian firms, the Hindustan Times reports. (It’s unclear whether U.S. firms would be invited to the party.)
“We understand the UK firms want to open offices in India for non-litigation purposes — mainly drafting of business contracts, deeds, agreements and other similar works,” said Ashok Parija, the chairman of the Indian body that regulates the legal profession. “We will negotiate with our UK counterparts to work out a principle of reciprocity, which will benefit both sides.”
Here’s another article on the development from the Economic Times, which reports that Khurshid recently assured the UK’s Clarke that the Indian government would move quickly to address U.K. firms’ desires to open offices in the country.
Still, the Economic Times reports, many Indian lawyers fear the competitive threat posed by foreign firms and remain opposed to lowering India’s barriers to entry.

Welcoming the Newest Top-10 Law Firm Ranking of US

Like many a competitive soul, we at the Law Blog love rankings. There’s hardly a top-10 list we don’t like. (Click here, here and here for other recent posts extolling law-related rankings.)
So, we are more than a bit jazzed to learn about a new ranking of the Top 10 Law Firm Summer Associate Programs, courtesy of the folks at Vault.com.
Between February and April, Vault surveyed about 16,000 law firm associates from 166 law firms across the country, asking them such questions as which firms offered the best work experience, which provided the most realistic view of what it would be like to work at the firm, and which programs were the most fun.
The winners?
1.  Fish & Richardson
2.  Baker & Hostetler
3.  Cravath, Swaine & Moore
4.  Williams & Connolly
5.  Arent Fox
6.  Baker & McKenzie
7.  Dewey & LeBoeuf / Ropes & Gray (tie)
8.  Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
9.  Chadbourne & Parke
10. Venable
As you can tell, there are actually 11 firms in the “top-10,”.
Vault also released a separate top-5 ranking of the firms that offered summer associates the most fun. Vault’s fun firms are:
1. Ropes & Gray 2. Weil, Gotshal & Manges 3. Alston & Bird 4. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner 5. Schulte Roth & Zabel

A US Legal Doctrine That Worries Pharma Defense Lawyers

Three recent cases where U.S. officials revived the so-called “responsible corporate officer doctrine” to try to hold executives personally and criminally responsible for corporate violations of U.S. food and drug laws. See here for a link.
This doctrine lets prosecutors go after executives for misdemeanor violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, even if the executives weren’t aware of violations. That’s a lower standard than for other industries — because of the potential for health-care and food products to cause death and injury.
Such prosecutions trouble executives and lawyers in the health sector because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has sometimes sought to exclude convicted executives from future participation in Medicare and Medicaid, which can be a career-ending punishment.
There’s an interesting appeal now underway on the fairness of this very issue.
A U.S. District Court in Washington in December affirmed a federal health-care program exclusion of three Purdue Frederick Co. executives who had earlier pled guilty to misdemeanor violations of the food and drug laws associated with the misbranding of the drug OxyContin. The Justice Department didn’t allege that the three officers participated in or were even aware of the misbranding, but rather that they were “responsible” corporate officers at the time the conduct occurred.
Their exclusions have been appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals by highly regarded appellate lawyer Carter G. Phillips of Sidley Austin LLP. Phillips told Law Blog Tuesday afternoon that he is representing all three executives.
In their appeal, the executives contend that the exclusions are unlawful. They also argue that the 12-year period of exclusion is three times longer than the longest period the agency has previously imposed for misdemeanors. That includes misdemeanors where there was allegedly knowing and willful misconduct.
The Association of Corporate Counsel, a bar association for in-house lawyers, has filed an amicus brief, arguing that the exclusion of Purdue Frederick Co.’s former general counsel misconstrues the role of an in-house lawyer.
“This imputation of liability on an in-house attorney for a client’s misconduct ignores the traditional boundaries of the attorney-client relationship, threatens to undermine the ability of in-house lawyers to deliver unvarnished advice to their clients and raises significant due process concerns,” it says.
The U.S. brief is due Monday.

Judge Partially Rejects Challenge to Alabama Immigration Law.

Breaking: A federal judge today partially rejected the federal government’s request to block Alabama’s strict new immigration law.
At issue is a law considered the nation’s toughest on illegal immigrants. It makes it a crime in Alabama for an illegal resident to apply for a job; it requires public schools to check the immigration status of students, and it authorizes state police in certain instances to verify the immigration status of people detained or arrested.
The Justice Department filed suit, claiming the law is unconstitutional on the grounds it allegedly usurps federal authority over immigration.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn of Alabama upheld key sections of the Alabama law concluding that they are not preempted by federal law.
Blackburn let stand the provisions authorizing local police to inquire about detainees’ immigration status and requiring public schools to verify students’ immigration status. (Click here to read the judge’s ruling.)
But the judge did enjoin other sections of the law, ruling that “there is a substantial likelihood” that the Justice Department can establish that the sections are preempted by federal law.
Blackburn, for example, blocked regulations that make it a crime for illegal residents to apply for a job and that make it unlawful for people to “conceal, harbor or shield” an illegal resident.
The Law Blog has sought comment from the Department of Justice and Alabama Governor’s Office.
Omar Jadwat, an attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, which has also challenged the Alabama law in court, called today’s ruling a mixed bag.  The judge let stand sections of the Alabama law “that are of serious concern, and the enforcement of those sections would lead to widespread civil rights violations,” Jadwat said. “It is positive that she has enjoined some of the sections” of the law.
(Here’s a recent WSJ article on the case and click here for Law Blog background on the dispute)
Update: A Justice Department spokesperson said that DOJ is reviewing the ruling to determine its next steps. “We will continue to evaluate state immigration-related laws and will not hesitate to bring suit if, in fact, a state creates its own immigration policy or enforces state laws in a manner that interferes with federal immigration law,” the spokesperson said.
Alabama governor Robert Bentley has released a statement calling the judge’s ruling a “victory for Alabama.”
“If the federal government had done its job by enforcing its own immigration laws, there would be no need for Alabama – or other states – to pass a law such as this.  Unfortunately, they have failed to do their job,” the governor said.
“The judge temporarily enjoined four parts of the law, but this fight is just beginning. I am optimistic that this law will be completely upheld, and I remain committed to seeing this law fully implemented.  I will continue to fight at every turn to defend this law against any and all challenges.”

Female Driver Sentenced to Lashing.

Clearly, the Saudi Arabian ban on women drivers that we mentioned yesterday is still very much in force.
Less than 48 hours after Saudi King Abdullah announced that women would be able to vote in local elections, a court in Jeddah sentenced a woman to 10 lashes for allegedly defying the Kingdom’s ban on female drivers, according to this item in WSJ’s “Driver’s Seat” blog.
Two other women, who are part of a new campaign called “My Right2Dignity Initiative”, were also summoned for questioning and will stand trial, joining a number of other women currently on trial for driving, according to the blog report by Dow Jones reporter Summer Said.
“What is happening to our women today is unfortunate and violates the rule of law and legal rights and is contrary to the reformist direction that was launched by the Custodian of the two holy mosques (the Saudi king),” My Right2Dignity Initiative said in a statement.
“Belatedly allowing women to vote in council elections is all well and good, but if they are still going to face being flogged for trying to exercise their right to freedom of movement then the King’s much-trumpeted ‘reforms’ actually amount to very little,” added Philip Luther, of Amnesty International.

Supreme Court Agrees to Tackle Major Immigration Topic

The Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear two cases that deal with the extent to which the U.S. can deport illegal immigrants whose parents are residents of the U.S.
Immigrants who have been in the country consecutively for seven years are authorized by law to seek to block their deportation. The question is whether a parent’s length of residency can be imputed to their children who are brought to the country at a young age.
The two cases, which have been consolidated into a single appeal, have echoes of a topic heavily debated among Republican presidential contenders: whether states should bestow leniency on children who came to the country illegally through no fault of their own.
(Here’s an LA Times article previewing the Supreme Court cases and one from the New York Times. Also click here and here for more background on the cases from SCOTUSblog)
Some courts have blocked deportation orders for illegal immigrants because their parents had gained permanent-residence status and lived in the United States for more than seven years, the LA Times reports, adding that the 9th Circuit has held that a “parent’s status as a lawful permanent resident is imputed” to the “children residing with that parent.”
But the Obama Administration takes the view that the 9th Circuit wrongly decided the case and that immigrants cannot rely on a parent’s residency status as grounds for blocking deportation, according to the L.A. Times.
Lawyers for the two men facing deportation in the Supreme Court cases at issue have cited Congressional policy that favors keeping families intact, the New York Times reports.

Sydney Court to Rule in Apple-Samsung Tablet War

SYDNEY—An Australian court on Thursday will wade into the global tablet war between Samsung Electronics Co. and Apple Inc. as a judge considers barring distribution of the South Korean company's device in Australia.
A ruling in Apple's favor would follow its victory in Germany, where a court has barred Samsung from selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Europe's biggest economy on the grounds that it copied Apple's iPad. An adverse ruling here would be another blow for Samsung, which is appealing the German court's ruling and faces similar challenges in the U.S., Japan, France and South Korea.