LegallyIndia.com

Technically even a corporate lawyer can become a judge, politician or the president of India!!! If helping with dispensing justice is Mr. Sinha's sole reason for becoming a lawyer - will he publicise his pro bono case details?

His response is as brilliant as his original interview!!! Can I seek an adjurnment to this debate, and say seek a date to resume this debate on 14.05.2017?

Oh, by the way for coming to seek an adjurnment from the court, can I also charge you Rs.100000 (you see I need to pay my junior 2500 every month - overheads I say!)

I think what the legal profession in India needs is not more lawyers (we have enough and more of them - and some good ones too) but a regulatory body (not made up of lawyers entirely) which can effectively oversee the profession - something in the line of SEBI. Also the legal education should be under the control of UGC or the National Knowledge Commission (most of the Bar Council people hadly have any legal education - well yes, they can be politicians sure - they have all the training in horse trading - ref: IU Khan and Anand)

firstly,could he please be informed that 3 ex-fox mandal (law firm) lawyers are the current MP's of lok sabha. thus his argument that a law firm lawyer cannot be a politicians fails.
secondly,regarding a lawyer being a judge, its always a personal choice to join the bench, even when one is in litigation.
lastly, does he mean that the lawerys at the bar/litigating are not bright and from good law colleges/schools?

Mr. Sinha clearly belongs to the old school of thought who believes that the true office of a lawyer is the court only. And it seems he is so convinced of his view that he is at best dismissive of the work corporate lawyers do and thinks that litigators enjoy some sort of a superior status within the system. My understanding is that this stems from insecurity amongst a majority of local litigators when they see their corporate lawyer friends often doing better. Mr. Sinha appears to be inarticulate in what he said and his emphasis on oratory skills seems to ignore thwe fact that many lawyers make an informed decision to not be a litigator simply because they are good at something else.

That said, the fact that many young lawyers from top law schools are not joining the bar is a cause for concern at a macro level. At the same time it is also true that a large number of top law students want to join the bar but avoid doing so, not because (in the words of Mr. Sinha) they are afraid of facing any hardship or working hard, but because the bar is not supportive of junior lawyers and the pay is often too low for basic sustainence in a metro.

Instead of telling corporate lawyers that they are not upto the mark, Mr. Sinha should for a change actually put in some effort in punishing corrupt lawyers and overhauling the system. Positive changes in the system will attract talent and until then lack of talented lawyers not joining the bar should not be an excuse to not bring in much needed reforms.

Who elected this [guy]?
The unfortunate answer is, we did.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote at all.

We can't argue with an ignorant person. But this discussion raises some good points. Bar Council and Mr. SNP Sinha do not represent lawyers at law firms and they only to some extent represents litigating advocates. What we need is 2 separate regulatory authorities like Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) of the UK for firm lawyers and Bar Council for litigating advocates. Bar Council is dismissive of the firm culture and therefore they are not doing anything to improve standards of practice. In the UK SRA impose a minimum pay for the solicitors at the firms and various other initiatives for benefit of firm lawyers. In India we also need a special body to represent firm lawyers. Basically bar council has become a political outfit rather then working towards improving the standards of legal education and lawyers welfare.

As usual we people are also too busy in our life and work to bring any change or for at least trying to bring some change, till then Mr Sinha & company will have their say.

Whilst I agree that he has indeed brought a good issue into light (i.e. the dearth of lawyers from top law schools choosing litigation), he unfortunately has not responded to other serious issues. Leaving aside the issue of the issue of "brain drain from litigation", there is a more significant issue of regulation of corporate law firms. Mr. Sinha and the Bar Council need to recognise that the profession has changed and we have both corporate lawyers and litigators practicing law. This is a fact of life which needs to be accepted.
If the Bar Council fails to recognise this, how can it regulate law firms. The rules applicable to litigators are not apt to deal with corporate lawyers. It is not healthy for a profession where the law firms cap their liability to the fees received on that particular transaction, the rules of conflict are unclear at best and non-existent at worst and the regulators consider in-house counsels as "non practicing lawyers" and therefore effectively not lawyers. We need a regulator who understands the sophistication of corporate law firms and their work.
Regulators such as SEBI are in sync with the sophistication. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, which albeit needs more improvement, has at least started moving in the right direction. However, the Bar Council is far from the reality and needs of today’s legal profession.
There is, however, the argument that, given how the Bar Council functions, perhaps it is in the best interest of corporate lawyers and their clients that the Bar Council remains as it is and does not intrude into the workings of a corporate law firm. Is ignorance bliss – I am not sure?

I take it that not too many senior partners visit LI.com since the comments posted here are indicative of that possibility.


@ 307

I think you've nailed the argument but you've also answered your own question.

Why would law firms want the BCI to do anything else other than what it is does right now?

1. It opposes the entry of foreign law firms.

2. And as you mentioned, since it couldn't care less about the lawyers working at law firms, it doesn't formulate any policy which might remotely concern them. While that is a bad thing, it is at the same time a very good thing as there is no code to regulate law firms.

3. 305 pointed out that we should have a body along the lines of SRA. Would any law firm really want a minimum level of remuneration to be stipulated by anyone?

Which is why, to put 299's comments in perspective, the partners must've elected this 'clown'.

Mr. Sinha obviously doesn't know enough about the law firms to regulate them and to be truthful, he most probably does not even care. Why would he facilitate the enhancement of law firms as a place to work when that would alienate the litigation lawyers, which all things said, are his primary constitutency and arguable worse off than the lawyers in law firms? And since the biggies at the law firm are doing better with him staying away, they couldn't care less.

It's lawyers like Mr. Sinha who are symptomatic of the malaise in the Indian 'system' and as 307's inadvertent yet cheeky remark pointed out, "he has indeed brought a good issue into light (i.e. the dearth of lawyers from top law schools choosing litigation)". Agreed. Mr. Sinha is livng proof that the Indian legal education system is not yet in place.

Tosh - his written English is terrible. I disagree that arguing is one of the primary jobs of a lawyer. Law has more to do with research, analysis, interpretation and writing. If you cannot analyze and write well - there is no way you can be good at arguing. Lawyers who pride themselves at having only oral skills are all gas and no substance.

Legal Dodo

Mr. Sinha is clearly uninformed - I don't think he even warrants the attention of these posts ( ... and yet I continue writing).

If Mr. Sinha wants to attract talent into litigation, perhaps the first question to ask is why should senior litigators minting money from the profession be unwilling to pay juniors who put in 12 - 14 hour days for them, a meaningful salary. Perhaps if litigators would be willing to pay an honest salary to their juniors, young graduating lawyers would genuinely be in a position to consider litigating and law firm opportunities on an equal footing.

Mr. Sinha - question for you. How much do you pay your juniors who work for you full time? What does that salary constitute as a percentage of your income from this profession.