Cross-border legal practice on the India corridor is routinely analysed through an inbound lens: foreign capital enters India, international counsel coordinates the multi-jurisdictional structure, and a domestic Indian firm executes local diligence and regulatory filings.
However, published deal records reveal two distinct transaction models that run in the opposite direction. In both instances, lead coordination and counsel selection are determined within India, altering how international instructions are generated.
Outbound Transactions and Indian Lead Counsel
When an Indian corporate acquires assets across Asia, the multi-jurisdictional coordinating role sits in India rather than offshore.
In February 2026, MakeO Healthcare Technologies (parent of dental brand Toothsi) agreed to acquire Zenyum Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-headquartered oral care company with active commercial operations across Southeast and East Asia. Touchstone Partners acted as lead transaction counsel to MakeO, structuring the acquisition, drafting the definitive transaction documents, and coordinating local counsel across Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and several regional jurisdictions.
The same firm frequently appears in inbound mandates representing international principals. It was reportedly advising Canadian acquirer N. Harris Computer Corporation on its takeover of eNoah iSolution India (opposite CMS INDUSLAW), and representing Novartis India on the sale of Novartis AG’s 70.68 per cent controlling stake to ChrysCapital (alongside AZB & Partners and Freshfields advising the Swiss parent).
The difference between these representations is the origin of the capital.
On inbound transactions, the client is an overseas investor, parent company, or financing syndicate, placing the primary selection of international counsel in London, New York, Singapore, or Tokyo. On outbound transactions, the acquiring corporate sits in India, the transaction budget is funded domestically, and the decision on which foreign counsel to instruct in Singapore, Tokyo, or Taipei is made by the Indian lead counsel or directly on its recommendation.
The absence of Indian law firms in multi-jurisdictional coordinating roles is governed by the direction of capital flows, not institutional execution capacity.
Capturing Big Law Conflict and Rate Displacements
A second operational channel operates in international commercial dispute resolution, driven by structural constraints inside global law firms.
Specialist international arbitration firm Accord Partners, launched in early 2026, operates a model centered on co-counselling with independent practices across Asia. In Singapore-seated, Singapore-law-governed arbitrations before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the firm co-counsels alongside Indian practice Jerome Merchant & Partners.
This arrangement targets a predictable operational byproduct of global law firm expansion:
- Institutional Conflicts: As global law firms expand institutional client rosters across global banking, private equity, and sovereign wealth funds, the frequency of client and issue conflicts increases, requiring high-value disputes to be referred externally.
- Rate-Card Resistance: Mid-market commercial disputes frequently encounter resistance to standard Tier-1 international billing rates, opening space for lean, specialised teams capable of offering flexible pricing structures.
In this model, the domestic Indian firm retains the client relationship, the specialist boutique provides forum-specific arbitration advocacy, and the instruction exists because global platforms were conflicted out or priced out. Conflicts and rate resistance represent structural offshoots of scale that generate a recurring supply of mandates for independent firms.
Cross-Border Practice Strategy: Aligning with Origination Flows
- The outbound coordination model serves Indian corporate clients that foreign firms rarely access directly at the origination stage.
- The co-counselling dispute model captures instructions that global firms are structurally barred from accepting or unable to staff economically.
For international law firms, these dynamics reframe how India practice groups allocate business development resources. Most international India desks are designed to receive inbound instructions: building relationships to secure the offshore leg when an international client deploys capital into India.
The outbound corridor operates in reverse. When an Indian corporate requires local counsel in Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, or Taipei, the selection is determined by Indian lead counsel. An international firm whose marketing focuses exclusively on capturing inbound transactional flows misses the procurement point for outbound Asian expansion.
Similarly, an international practice seeking exposure to Singapore-seated disputes can build structured referral channels with independent Indian corporate and disputes practices, capturing matters displaced by global firm conflict committees.
For an international firm evaluating its cross-border posture, the relevant diagnostic requires examining two questions answerable entirely from internal records:
- Over the past three years, which Indian firms have sent the firm work, as opposed to receiving it?
- On the matters the firm turned away on conflicts, where did those instructions go?
The first list is almost always significantly shorter than the second. The second list is rarely recorded anywhere. A conflict decline is almost always a referral decision made under time pressure and forgotten. Hence, law firms regularly give away valuable dealflow arbitrarily to the contact who comes to mind first.
These two questions trace the same corridor from opposite ends: identifying the few relationships where an Indian firm acts as the procuring client, and tracking the substantial volume of work an international platform discards without ever measuring who benefits.
Lawfinity Solutions advises international law firms on cross-border legal market positioning. If the India corridor is a live question for your firm, we would be interested in a conversation. Lawfinity works with one firm per jurisdiction. Engagements begin with a single conversation about your firm’s current position and where the corridor question is live for you. Write to Prachi Shrivastava
