Exclusive: Just behind being a brain surgeon, an air traffic controller, and flying remote control UAVs over civilians in Afghanistan from Nevada, being a lawyer can be one of the most stressful of jobs in the world.
You only ever get Damini-style courtroom oratory or Grishamian boardroom antics of suited and attractive people on the really good days, if at all. In fact, merely getting to the glamorous side of the profession will require one prerequisite above all others: an obsessive attention to detail even after the 42nd consecutive hour of working without sleep. On a Sunday.
Few humans are born with this kind of single-minded focus and most learn it through the kindly instruction or verbal lashings of a senior; either approach can work well.
The aim is to become the ideal lawyer, who can be trusted absolutely and who never makes mistakes. And that is basically what clients are paying for: either to fix mistakes that have already occurred (a litigation, say), or to prevent mistakes or problems from happening in future (in an M&A deal, for example).
The dirty secret is that actually every lawyer makes mistakes but that usually they get away with it, perhaps because they know their way around the system and the magic that they perform seems so arcane few clients actually want to understand it.
Therefore, the idea of a mistake that escapes into the wild is what keeps many a lawyer awake at night. In those nightmares they tell themselves, “I wish I’d proofread that document one more time”, “I pray that the judge won’t ask me about the one case that I did not read”, or “I should not have relied on that research note produced by that intern”.
The reality of nightmares
Lawyers at Amarchand Mangaldas in Delhi were acting in a fairly routine corporate family dispute before the Company Law Board (CLB). To support their clients’ case, the firm had to prepare some affidavits.
Alas some pretty fundamental mistakes were made in the drafting, notarisation and signing of the original affidavits. The person who signed the affidavits on behalf of the petitioners did not have a valid power of attorney at the time that the affidavits were signed, for example, and when signing he did not state that they were being signed under a power of attorney. Despite these and several other defects, the affidavits were also notarised and verified.
However, apparently none of those mistakes, however serious, are particularly uncommon.
“Happens all the time, no biggie,” comments one advocate, explaining that in most courts the registry would probably have filtered out such errors and have the documents withdrawn and re-filed. Furthermore, he says, “lots of lawyers who write ‘I Identify’ and sign next to a signature never actually see the deponent because of convenience reasons”.
One partner at an uninvolved firm says that “there are a million cases that are a hundred times worse than this”, in which “nothing really happens”.
Initiative
In fact notarised affidavits are usually such routine documents that barely anyone, including the judge, examines them in great detail, claims a lawyer close to the dispute. But in this case the respondents are understood to have been sent hardcopies of the executed affidavits ahead of time and, luckily for them, they spotted an irregularity. Kicking off a more detailed investigation, they discovered several more problems, which were raised with the judge in submissions; there was a case to win after all.
Alerted to the errors, the CLB chairman Justice DR Deshmukh took the unusual step of beginning his own investigation, dispatching a CLB officer to examine the notarial registers, who discovered that neither petitioner in the affidavits or power of attorney had actually visited the notary. (Again advocates claim that this is a rather common practice - “I don’t know a single lawyer who gets affidavits notarised with the client there. Getting a client past the court [security to where notaries sit] takes two hours,” claims one who works at a law firm.)
Deshmukh in his 17 August order failed to turn a blind eye to the shortcuts, however endemic. He was scathing and quipped humourlessly that the affidavits “instead of being notarised” were “notorious” and borderline criminal.
Camel’s back
But the final straw appears to have been that instead of withdrawing the faulty affidavits, the firm attempted to “cover up” the earlier mistakes as “trivial” or “bona fide” by “pouring in a plethora” of new affidavits, according to the judge.
He also noted that the petitioners had “suppressed material facts” and had made “statements on oath which were false to their knowledge… with an intention to gain advantage which would not have been available if true facts were revealed” - referring to the fact that one of the petitioners, contrary to the petition, actually held no shares, depriving her of a legal remedy to file under sections 397 and 398 of the Company’s Act, while also omitting to mention that one of the trustees in a trust had died.
The judge described the conduct of “the law firm” as “shocking” and “appalling”, adding that “a Law Firm of the present stature is expected to aid the courts in determining the truth and not stifle it with traverse miscarriage of the procedure”. While he took a “liberal view” (i.e., stopping short of recommending criminal sanctions against any of the lawyers) he also ordered that the licences of the two independent notaries involved in the preparation of the dodgy affidavits be revoked.
As far as metaphorical tight courtroom slaps go, this was already resounding. But Deshmukh then did something that is said to have been unprecedented in recorded Indian legal history. He ordered costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner and fined Amarchand exemplary damages of Rs 50,000. That money – admittedly spare change for most law firms - should be sitting with Delhi’s High Court Legal Aid Committee as of today.
“It is a very hard hitting order and nobody expected it to be so hard hitting,” comments one non-Amarchand lawyer who was in court at the time.
Post-closing
A lot went wrong, perhaps even more so in the aftermath of the order, which has been well documented. Amarchand claimed that the partner in charge of the matter was not to blame because she was unaware of the associates’ actions – although it is understood that the partner did attend all hearings in the matter.
Instead, the firm pointed the finger squarely at the younger lawyers and dismissed them on Monday (however, according to authoritative sources, one of the associates had already resigned two weeks earlier, allegedly in protest at his treatment at the hands of a firm’s partner in connection with the botched matter. The dismissal was intended by the firm to supersede that resignation, if that is possible).
In retrospect, the entire episode can accurately be described as a PR disaster.
Blame game over
In the absence of comments from the associates themselves – reasonable and not surprising - establishing who exactly was at fault in triggering the judicial smackdown is more difficult, if you want to avoid relying on hearsay. An argument can be made that at least morally a partner or the firm as a whole should carry part of the blame for the mistakes made, even if only vicariously, but that too is fast becoming a moot point.
Amarchand’s client has lost nothing and is allowed to and will refile the petition, if it hasn’t already.
The CLB sent a strong message to all lawyers, whose submissions and particularly affidavits are likely be unimpeachable, at least for a while.
Meanwhile, Amarchand declined to comment further, and lawyers close to both associates said they foresee few difficulties for the young lawyers – who are by all accounts bright and talented, if unlucky, individuals - to continue their legal careers elsewhere.
Everybody, even a lawyer, occasionally makes mistakes, and most lawyers become partners only after having made a few. And it is worth remembering that lawyers’ mistakes, fortunately, are only very rarely fatal.
Download the order, names of associates and notaries redacted
Photo by US Army
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
was my comment deleted ?
I understand if it was. just wanted to know if it was deleted or is the comp acting funny.
Ironically, my computer actually acted funny and I posted this comment that was meant to go here on another story.
Here goes: By the way, yes we do realise that there are unredacted copies of the order floating around.
However, if you feel the need to share the order with others, please consider using the 'low karma footprint' redacted version that we have published here.
It contains the same legal points as the official version but is kinder on the redacted individuals involved.
Best regards
Kian
A damning indictment of the "best law firm" in this country.
No question of vicarious liability, she is jointly liable. So the moot question to AMSS is why apply different standards whilst dealing with an Associate "Lawyer" and a "Partner" Lawyer.
I guess money talks. Pity the Clients who have so much faith in Partners.
What about us Clients paying the fee for such 'excellent' partners who bill for preparing and reviewing each and every document on the invoice but claim various reasons for their defense, when the Sh!t hits the fan?
"If the managing partner is CHARGING the hours, he is completely responsible for the mess.
... I am frustrated to pay their bills when they charge their hours for reviewing each and every document."
AMSS' press release does not talk of what steps it took to placate the client or put him in a relatively acceptable position. It only says:
"No undue benefit as a result of the earlier affidavits had accrued to the Petitioner nor any undue prejudice has been caused to the Respondents as no interim reliefs were granted."
So, AMSS will continue to bill the Client for the mess its team created (? should I even use this word for the people here?) and make more billables to sort the mess thus created!!
Who cares about tightening of legal budgets for clients?
We have to realsie that the new generation of lawyers want to restore respectability to the profession, a respectability where people would trust their lawyers, banks would not shy away from lending to a lawyer. Things are changing, but the old guard still thinks "you took money and made the mistake."
AMSS missed an opportunity here. It should have showed some real leadership befitting a firm of its stature, welcomed the CLB order as a good sign to erradicate the practice of careless affidavits. It should have taken responsibility as a firm and then implemented measures to address the cause of this mistake and in the process helped the manner of practice before CLB and other courts. Alas, they missed the chance and created very very bad PR for themselves.
"One partner at an uninvolved firm says that “there are a million cases that are a hundred times worse than this”, in which “nothing really happens”."
That is very obvious but it was hard luck that Justice DR Deshmukh took the unusual step. But somebody has to understand gravity of the litigation and should act in fair means. This is not a way to react or taking an advantage of your position. Good lesion in a bad way for us.
There is nothing which stops judges in India from awarding exemplary damages. In a way we don't need foreign firms if the judges start implementing the laws strictly then the lawyers will have on option but to be careful while filing and before that while drafting! It will have a clear impact on the corporate side also, where as a client I have seen some appalling drafting which made me wonder if I should just do corporate and litigation myself!!
The alleged infatuation with AMSS is not so much an infatuation as a preference for convenience. AMSS was preferred as it had the name and used to have the money. Now other firms have a name and offer more money. There is not too much love for AMSS still left on the ground.
[...] If you can't sort your own mess in a dignified and confidential manner, how can you sort clients' problem.
@ LI: I hope this won't be viewed as a personal attack on anyone and get deleted!
Kian, I assume you have moderated the reminder of the post or this a glitch? As far as I recollect, there were no potshots taken at the partner in that comment, or is even the slightest reference to what I did comment about, (which you have deleted) taboo here?
Pity though that you let the spin doctors at AMSS get to you. Would have been nicer if you made more rounded story from the start rather than this late...
@Not so Annoyed - all stories evolve, and at the time they break, one rarely knows the full story and has to be reactive to events, to a certain extent.
You then piece things together as the dust settles, which sometimes takes time and may also involve speaking to "spin doctors" and many others.
@Nalsarite - thanks for your comment. The reason this needed to be written is exactly the response I gave above - we hadn't finished reporting the story yet since we had mostly reported one side of the order.
It's one thing for anonymous comments to a story adding background, it is another for us to do our homework and find out and report what actually happened, as objectively and authoritatively as possible.
In this case, as in many cases, I'd argue that having the corroborated facts out in the open is actually a good thing for everyone involved, as it decreases speculation and rumour mongering and allows people to draw a line under this episode and get on with their lives.
Best regards,
Kian
So, has Sachin, on many occassions.
Ferrari recalled 10 cars for a faulty suspension.
I hoe you are smart enough to get what I want to say..
I therefore completely fail to understand as to how such an eminent law firm, get away just with sacking the two associates and not the concerned partner. Well, it is absolutely clear that the detailed clarification issued by the Managing Partner of the firm is ONLY a 'cover-up' to save the partner. I must note, a disastrous cover-up by the firm, again. This time, by the Managing Partner himself. Wow.
Coming to initial mistakes in the affidavits, being an advocate myself, I think it would be safe to assume that with in Delhi itself, thousands of even more grave mistakes in drafting and verification of the pleadings happen on a daily basis; and therefore, to make such a big issue out of the initial mistakes in the affidavits, in my opinion, is wrong. With all due respect to the Judge, putting remarks against the junior advocate in the order itself is absolutely wrong and something of which cognizance should be taken by an appropriate court and the remarks set aside. As a practice, it is well known that Seniors instruct the juniors to get the affidavits notarized / attested, knowing very well that the client who is supposed to sign in presence of the Oath Commissioner / Notary is most often not present. And I don't think, this part of law practice, which is true for entire country, was not known to the Judge.
But then, as is clear, the Judge very clearly got agitated more on the 'cover-ups'. This brings me back to my first point, that the Partner concerned ought to take personal liability and quit (if there is any shame left) and if not, the Managing Partner of the firm should issue an even more detailed clarification and apology, requesting the concerned associates to join the firm and sack the partner concerned.
I would also wish to know from the Managing Partner of the firm that if a similar mistake (in past, present or future) is pointed out against the partners of the firm, would the firm still take the same position and sack the partner. In that case an even more grave mistake since the partners normally (I assume!) have more experience and are more knowledgeable and are more thorough with their work etc etc etc.
Ideally of course, I would have thought that the firm should have issued an apology to the Judge and the matter could have been laid to rest. The poor associates, definitely didn't deserve any such action against them as the firm has presently taken. I wonder who is advising the Managing Partner of the most eminent law firm in India. Mr. Shroff, its time to sit back and reflect!
My best wishes to those, laterals and freshers alike, who still wish to join such seniors who do not have the courage to stand behind their juniors and rather make them scapegoats. That is something, I for one, had definitely not seen or heard before in law practice.
Though I can only imagine what a hit the morale of the entire firm would have taken knowing that their work and dedication count for nothing when faced with over zealous PR gurus that the Firm seems to have.
When you say "partner" do you mean the kind of partners, the indian law firms have ?
for example a firm such as x or y. which are sole proprietorships, but still have some good and lengthy relation lawyers nomenclatured as "partners"
I do not know what legal entity amss is.
if its a really high standard and professional one such as the foreign law firms perceived to be, I don't know whether the partner can be fired. I am sure a partner can be shown the door for gross negligent behavior or the firm can ignore it. either ways, the decision has its own pros and cons.
If its a "indian" "partner" law firm, it would by itself explain why no public action is taken against the "partner"
Amss is one of the most reputed firms, it was not built in a day. am sure this decision taken to censure the associates must be based on some solid logic.
what ever the solid logic may have been, for me personally I simply cannot fathom how the boss can miss being censured for the entire matter.
Point is that the senior management (hereinafter "family") has spoken to the associates asking them to stop "bitching" on a particular legal blog, and vent their grievances to the management. An anonymous comment box has been kept at the seat of the PA (who remains with the Partner whose name rhymes with Dalla) so that associates can suggest better policies.
[...]
Hope the remaining associates in the one whose name rhymes with Dalla's team do something about the dismissal, instead of continuing with their lives as if nothing has happened.
PS: I am in the mumbai office. Imagine the state of affairs at delhi!
@ kian- you are the biggest amarchand 'yes' man we all know, down here. just like ndtv till a few years back was a de-facto congress front, LI- is for AMSS.
Lets see if you have the guts to even publish this. if you dont, well i can tell the guys here' i told you so'. if you do, great... and hats off to you. you will still be cyrils media man.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first