Why Small and Midsize North American Law Firms Should Build Informal Strategic Relationships with Law Firms in India
“Do you know any good law firms in India that can help us with this issue?”
“Not offhand, but give us a day or two and, we can find one for you.”
There is a good chance that this response has already cost your firm a potential client.
For small and midsize law firms across North America, India is no longer a distant legal market relevant only to multinational corporations and global law firms. It is increasingly connected to the everyday needs of businesses, investors, founders, families, and institutions in the United States and Canada.
A regional firm in Florida, Ontario, Texas, British Columbia, Illinois, Alberta, or North Carolina may encounter Indian technology vendors, Indian-owned businesses, cross-border employees, offshore development teams, Indian suppliers, immigrant entrepreneurs, family wealth and succession issues, intellectual-property questions, or clients expanding into India. These matters do not always begin as “international legal work.” They often emerge from ordinary commercial activity: a software contract, a hiring decision, an acquisition, a data-processing arrangement, an investment, or a family business’s succession plan.
That is why small and midsize firms in the United States and Canada should consider developing informal strategic relationships with carefully selected law firms in India. The appropriate model for most firms is not a foreign office, merger, exclusive alliance, or expensive global-network membership. It is a practical, nonexclusive, relationship-driven connection with one or more reputable Indian firms whose capabilities, service standards, and client base complement their own.
Such relationships can help North American firms serve existing clients more effectively, strengthen their competitive position, create reciprocal referral opportunities, and expand their practical reach without sacrificing their independence or taking on permanent international overhead.
India is relevant to more North American firms than they might realize.
The first mistake law firms make is assuming that India-related legal work is limited to large corporations, major transactions, or firms with international offices. In reality, the U.S.-India and Canada-India commercial relationships reach deeply into the middle market.
North American companies increasingly engage Indian businesses for software development, technology support, business-process outsourcing, engineering, pharmaceutical and life-sciences services, manufacturing, consulting, digital marketing, financial services, customer support, and back-office functions. At the same time, Indian companies and entrepreneurs seek customers, investors, suppliers, acquisitions, distribution partners, talent, real estate, and market access in the United States and Canada.
The Indian diaspora also creates substantial commercial and personal connections. Indian-American and Indo-Canadian business owners, professionals, investors, physicians, engineers, technology entrepreneurs, franchisees, developers, and family enterprises may have legal needs spanning both countries. A client may own a U.S. or Canadian business while holding assets in India, have relatives or investors in India, employ staff there, or consider expanding a family enterprise across borders.
For a North American law firm, these circumstances create both opportunity and responsibility. The firm may not advise on Indian law, nor should it imply that it does. But it can become a more valuable adviser by recognizing India-related issues early, helping the client frame the problem, and bringing appropriate Indian counsel into the matter efficiently.
The client’s perspective is simple: “I trust my lawyer. Can my lawyer help me solve this?” A firm with a reliable counterpart in India can answer yes with far more confidence than a firm that must begin a rushed internet search every time an issue arises.
The right model: informal, trusted, and nonexclusive
For most small and midsize law firms, a formal international affiliation is unnecessary and may be counterproductive. Foreign offices are expensive. Mergers are complex. Exclusive alliances can limit flexibility. Global legal networks may carry dues, administrative commitments, referral expectations, and branding structures that do not fit every independent firm.
An informal strategic relationship offers a more proportionate alternative.
The relationship may be based on a shared understanding rather than a complicated legal agreement. It can involve regular communication between partners, reciprocal introductions, joint educational programming, coordinated work on selected client matters, exchange of market intelligence, and a mutual willingness to assist when a client has cross-border needs.
The firms remain separate and independent. Each firm retains control over its professional judgment, pricing, conflicts analysis, client engagements, and choice of counsel. Neither firm should promise to refer every appropriate matter to the other. The relationship should always remain subordinate to the client’s best interests, including the client’s preference, the matter’s specific legal needs, potential conflicts, and the availability of more suitable subject-matter counsel.
That flexibility is one of the model’s principal strengths. An Ontario corporate firm may have an excellent relationship with an Indian business-law firm for market-entry and commercial-contract matters, but need a different Indian specialist when a client faces a complex intellectual-property dispute or a highly regulated infrastructure project. A U.S. firm may work with one Indian firm for technology and employment matters and another for private-client, real-estate, or litigation issues.
The aim is not exclusivity. It is familiarity, trust, and dependable collaboration.
Better service for existing clients
The strongest argument for an India relationship is not speculative business development. It is improved service to current clients.
Consider a Canadian software company that hires an Indian development team. Its Canadian counsel may prepare the master services agreement, negotiate intellectual-property ownership, address confidentiality and data-protection provisions, and advise on Canadian commercial-law concerns. Yet the client may also need Indian-law advice about local employment or contractor arrangements, enforceability of contractual provisions, tax or entity issues, data-transfer requirements, or dispute-resolution options.
Similarly, a U.S. manufacturer may begin sourcing components from an Indian supplier. The company’s regular counsel can help with the supply agreement, quality standards, warranties, insurance requirements, payment terms, intellectual-property protections, and U.S. regulatory considerations. But the arrangement may also raise Indian-law questions involving local manufacturing, contractual enforcement, customs, taxation, labor, or compliance.
Without an established relationship, the North American firm may be forced to locate Indian counsel at the last minute. The work may proceed, but the client experience is less efficient. The client may have to repeat its story to multiple firms, manage unfamiliar legal advisers, and coordinate advice across time zones without clear accountability.
With a trusted relationship in place, the North American firm can act as a knowledgeable coordinator. It can explain the U.S. or Canadian legal framework, identify where Indian advice is required, introduce the client to a qualified local firm, and help align the workstreams. This does not mean the North American lawyer controls or supervises independent Indian counsel. It means the client benefits from continuity, communication, and a trusted first point of contact.
That service model is especially important for middle-market clients that lack in-house international legal departments. A large public company may have lawyers dedicated to managing counsel around the world. A privately held manufacturer, professional-services company, real-estate developer, family enterprise, or emerging technology business usually does not. Its outside law firm often becomes the practical organizer of the client’s legal ecosystem.
A more credible competitive position
Clients increasingly expect local and regional firms to understand their business beyond state, provincial, or national borders. A firm does not need offices in Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Toronto, Vancouver, New York, or Chicago to demonstrate that it can respond intelligently to cross-border needs. It does, however, need a credible answer when a client asks whether it can help with India.
A carefully developed relationship allows a firm to communicate an expanded capability without exaggerating its reach. The message should not be, “We are an international law firm.” That claim may be misleading if the firm has no foreign office or formal integrated network.
A more accurate—and often more persuasive—message is:
Our clients increasingly face cross-border issues. When matters involve India, we work with trusted Indian lawyers and coordinate the North American legal work with local counsel.
This position can differentiate a small or midsize firm from competitors that have no practical international strategy. It can also reassure clients that they do not need to leave their familiar counsel whenever a matter touches another jurisdiction.
For Canadian firms, the relationship may be particularly useful in a market where clients often operate across provinces, into the United States, and increasingly into Asia. For U.S. firms, it can support clients whose operations, workforces, suppliers, and technology arrangements are becoming more internationally interconnected. In both countries, the firm can retain its local-market identity while extending the practical value of that identity.
The best small and midsize firms do not try to imitate global firms. Their advantage lies elsewhere: accessible partners, lower structural costs, stable client relationships, direct communication, industry knowledge, and the ability to make decisions quickly. An informal India relationship can reinforce those strengths rather than dilute them.
Reciprocal referrals and market development
A successful relationship should create value in both directions.
North American firms can refer clients needing Indian-law assistance. Indian firms can refer clients with U.S. or Canadian legal needs. The opportunity is not limited to massive mergers and acquisitions. It includes routine but strategically important work for companies entering a new market, structuring a local presence, hiring personnel, negotiating contracts, protecting intellectual property, obtaining financing, acquiring property, resolving a dispute, or complying with local rules.
For a U.S. firm, potential inbound matters from Indian firms might include:
Formation and governance of U.S. subsidiaries.
Commercial contracts with U.S. customers, distributors, suppliers, and partners.
U.S. employment, independent-contractor, and executive-compensation questions.
Intellectual-property protection, licensing, technology transactions, and enforcement.
Real-estate leases, purchases, development matters, and workplace arrangements.
U.S. acquisitions, investments, joint ventures, and private-equity transactions.
Regulatory, privacy, data-security, export-control, and compliance matters.
Commercial litigation, arbitration, collection, and dispute-management issues.
For a Canadian firm, reciprocal matters may include:
Incorporation and governance of Canadian subsidiaries.
Canadian market-entry, distribution, franchise, and commercial-contract matters.
Employment, immigration, and workforce issues.
Canadian intellectual-property and technology-law advice.
Real-estate, leasing, construction, and development work.
Investment Canada Act, competition, trade, tax, or sector-specific regulatory questions where applicable.
Financing, venture-capital, acquisition, and private-client matters.
Commercial disputes, arbitration, and asset-recovery concerns.
The most productive relationships are not built on generic statements that each firm will “send referrals.” They are built around identifiable industry and practice intersections.
A Canadian firm with strength in technology, venture financing, privacy, and employment might align well with an Indian firm that serves technology companies and cross-border investors. A Florida or Texas business firm with strong work in real estate, healthcare, logistics, or middle-market mergers and acquisitions might seek Indian counterparts advising companies in related sectors. A U.S. intellectual-property boutique may find particular value in a relationship with an Indian firm experienced in patents, technology transactions, licensing, enforcement, and brand protection.
The firms should discuss where real client demand exists—not simply where they hope it will exist.
Better issue-spotting and risk management
One of the less obvious benefits of a trusted India relationship is improved issue-spotting.
A law firm becomes more valuable not only when it knows the answer, but when it recognizes the question. Lawyers serving North American businesses should be alert to circumstances in which an apparently routine arrangement has cross-border consequences.
For example, a client may say it is “using a contractor in India.” That short description may conceal a range of issues:
Is the individual truly an independent contractor under applicable law?
Is the client engaging one person, an Indian service company, or a team of subcontractors?
Who owns the resulting software, designs, data, reports, inventions, or other work product?
Does the work involve access to personal information, customer data, trade secrets, financial information, health information, or other sensitive materials?
Does the arrangement create local employment, tax, registration, or permanent-establishment risk?
Are export controls, sanctions, cybersecurity standards, industry regulations, or contractual obligations implicated?
Does the client have a viable dispute-resolution mechanism if the relationship breaks down?
Can the client realistically enforce the agreement, protect its data, or obtain meaningful remedies?
The North American firm may handle the U.S. or Canadian elements of those questions. Indian counsel must handle the Indian-law analysis. But familiarity with the issues allows the North American firm to intervene earlier and coordinate more effectively.
This is particularly important in technology relationships. Businesses frequently treat offshore development as a procurement decision rather than a legal-risk issue. Yet software-development, data-processing, and managed-services arrangements may involve intellectual-property assignment, source-code control, confidentiality, privacy, cybersecurity, audit rights, insurance, business continuity, subcontractor controls, and dispute resolution. A firm that understands those risks can help its client negotiate from a stronger position.
A due-diligence process
An informal relationship should be informal in structure, but not casual in selection.
Before a firm introduces an Indian counterpart to a valued client, it should perform meaningful due diligence. The objective is to assess not simply technical capability, but practical compatibility.
Important questions include:
Practice strength: Does the Indian firm have demonstrated experience in the practice areas and industries most relevant to your clients?
Client profile: Does it serve businesses, investors, entrepreneurs, and institutions comparable to your own client base?
Reputation: What do trusted contacts, peer lawyers, clients, directories, and professional networks indicate about the firm’s standing?
Responsiveness: Will partners and senior lawyers respond promptly, particularly when time zones create practical challenges?
Communication: Can the firm provide clear, commercially useful, English-language advice for North American clients?
Staffing: Who will actually perform the work, and how much senior-level attention will the matter receive?
Pricing: Does the firm explain its billing methods, estimates, assumptions, and scope clearly?
Conflicts: Does it have reliable procedures for identifying and addressing conflicts before confidential information is exchanged?
Technology: Does it use appropriate security, document-management, and communication practices for sensitive client information?
Collaboration: Is the firm comfortable working alongside independent U.S. or Canadian counsel without competing for control of the relationship?
A firm should meet the prospective counterpart’s leadership and relevant practice leaders by video before making any commitment. When possible, partners should meet in person through a legal conference, business delegation, professional association, bar event, trade mission, or client-development trip.
Cross-border work often becomes urgent, ambiguous, and high stakes. The quality of a relationship is tested not during a pleasant introductory call, but when a client needs a fast answer, a deal is at risk, a dispute has developed, or a confidential issue requires careful judgment.
Begin with a pilot, not a grand (and quickly forgotten) announcement.
A firm does not need to launch an “India Desk” or make a major marketing announcement before it has demonstrated that the relationship works.
A better approach is to begin with a one-year pilot. Select one or two counterpart firms. Identify several practice areas where the firms genuinely complement each other. Establish relationship partners on both sides. Then create practical opportunities to work together.
Possible first-year activities include:
Hold introductory meetings among partners in the most relevant practice areas.
Exchange concise, nonconfidential descriptions of representative matters, industries served, and client types.
Develop a short internal guide identifying when lawyers in each firm should consider contacting the other.
Collaborate on one client alert, webinar, roundtable, or article addressing a cross-border business issue.
Make targeted introductions to clients, accountants, consultants, investors, trade groups, business associations, and professional contacts where appropriate.
Refer a suitable matter when one arises, while making clear that the receiving firm will conduct its own conflicts review and establish its own engagement.
Review the relationship after six to twelve months using practical measures such as referrals, introductions, joint pitches, matters opened, client feedback, responsiveness, and shared market intelligence.
This measured approach reduces risk. It also creates evidence for the firm’s longer-term strategy. Some relationships will develop into recurring sources of work and client value. Others may reveal cultural, operational, economic, or practice-area mismatches. A pilot makes it easier to learn without becoming locked into an unproductive arrangement.
Professional and ethical guardrails
The relationship must be built with careful attention to professional obligations.
First, lawyers should be clear about engagement structure. If a U.S. or Canadian client needs Indian-law advice, the Indian firm should ordinarily conduct its own conflicts analysis and establish an appropriate engagement with the client. The North American firm’s engagement letter should identify the scope of its own work and avoid implying that it is providing Indian-law advice.
Second, the firms should be cautious about referral fees, fee-sharing arrangements, and compensation structures. Rules differ among U.S. states, Canadian provinces and territories, and India. Any arrangement should be reviewed under the professional-responsibility rules applicable to the lawyers involved. The relationship should be driven by client service and legal quality, not undisclosed financial incentives.
Third, client confidentiality must be protected. Before sending information across borders, determine what information is necessary, whether the client has consented where appropriate, whether a conflicts review has occurred, and what secure methods will be used to transmit and store documents. Cross-border matters may also involve data-localization requirements, privacy obligations, contractual restrictions, and cybersecurity concerns.
Fourth, firms should market the relationship accurately. Do not state or imply that the firms are merged, affiliated, or members of the same international organization if they are not. Do not suggest that one firm practices the other jurisdiction’s law. A transparent description protects clients and reinforces the credibility of the relationship.
Finally, establish communication protocols. Decide in advance who manages the client relationship, who coordinates shared workstreams, when joint calls are appropriate, how budgets are presented, and how the firms will handle differences of legal or commercial judgment. The client should experience coordinated service, but the lawyers should not blur lines of responsibility.
A practical strategic choice
For many small and midsize North American law firms, an informal strategic relationship with a capable Indian firm is a low-risk, high-potential way to strengthen client service and business development.
It recognizes a reality that many firms have already begun to experience: their clients’ business, technology, workforce, investment, and family relationships are international even when the clients themselves remain firmly rooted in a local market. A regional business client may never open an office in Mumbai or Bengaluru, yet it may rely on an Indian development team, supplier, investor, consultant, or family enterprise connection. The firm that can address that reality thoughtfully will be more useful than the firm that treats it as an unusual exception.
The goal is not to become a global law firm in name. It is to become a more capable trusted adviser in practice.
A well-chosen relationship can help a North American firm preserve client loyalty, compete for more sophisticated matters, identify risks earlier, create reciprocal introductions, and offer clients a coordinated solution when India-related issues arise. The most effective relationships will be personal, nonexclusive, professionally disciplined, and built around real client needs.
When a client asks, “Can you help us with this India issue?” the ideal answer is not an overstatement about global reach. It is a confident, accurate response:
We can help you address the North American legal issues, and we work with experienced Indian counsel who can advise on the local-law component. We will help coordinate the right team for the matter.
Not only North American law firms
These general principles also apply to small and midsize law firms anywhere in the world who have clients or potential clients with issues and opportunities that might involve Indian law and business. For more than 30 years, Walker Clark members have advised small and midsize law firms worldwide in developing informal strategic international relationships that add long-term value. To learn more about how we can assist your firm—whether in North America or anywhere else in the world—use the secure e-mail link below to schedule a 30-minute confidential, complimentary discussion with a senior Walker Clark member.