Alliance Legal co-founder and AZB & Partners alumnus Vishnu Jerome has rebranded his practice to P&C Legal after merging his practice into Bangalore headquartered firm Poovayya & Co.
Jerome said: “It’s a merger of my practice and the larger practice of Poovayya & Company. It gives us a larger play on the corporate side, private equity, VC (venture capital) in the South, and their litigation and real estate resources. And our team also complements his corporate team with a full-fledged Mumbai office.”
Jerome has taken an office in Nariman Point’s Embassy building of around 1,000 square feet last month with his team including Alliance founding team member and senior associate Shameek Ray and four others.
The reasons against staying independent or joining a larger firm were because, respectively, it provided better continuity for the team, and was easier to independently develop one’s practice in a smaller firm, said Jerome.
It is understood that Poovayya & Co is also considering a rebranding in the coming months.
With Jerome, Poovayya & Co will have four offices in Bangalore, Chennai, New Delhi and Mumbai, with a total of 35 lawyers. The firm was founded in 1996.
Jerome declined to confirm whether Mumbai and the other offices would operate under one or separate equity pools.
Sajan Poovayya, the firm’s managing partner, has not been reachable for comment. He was appointed second additional advocate general of Karnataka in November 2012.
Alliance Legal, which was set up by Jerome, Priyanka Roy from J Sagar Associates (JSA) and Ravi Kumar from Talwar Thakore & Associates (TTA), broke up in December 2012 after just over a year as a start-up law firm.
Legally India reported at the time that Jerome had been in talks with Poovayya, while Roy was to retain the Alliance brand as an independent. However, this week Roy joined IndusLaw as a partner in Mumbai.
Clarification 14:55: The earlier version of this story reported that Poovayya & Co had already rebranded.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Guest for president!!
My two cents are because people from within the legal community are increasingly fed up with the acid you allow your readers to spew in the comments section and also the sensational headlines and style of writing. Any other thoughts? And I dont think its a case of wanting to rush out with a story before BB.
Sometimes I know it's because we try to publish a news item at a point at which none of the parties will actually be comfortable commenting on-the-record. We're happy to respect that.
Sometimes it's because we might not have the strongest relationship with a firm, or they might bear a grudge for a previous 'not nice' story we've done.
Sometimes, I imagine it is because they don't want us to ask difficult questions.
Sometimes, some lawyers think we're only writing massala and gossip because we try to find the most interesting or legitimate news angle to what could otherwise be a pointless press release or story. So be it, that's part of what our job as a journalist is; it's not to keep writing fawning puff pieces.
I really doubt it's the comments though. There are clear health-warnings and everyone knows they should be taken with a massive pinch of salt. And I don't think we moderate any less strictly than other publications - I've seen some 'acid' on plenty other sites too, and we try to moderate for overt personal attacks, though obvious jokes we generally let pass.
As I said, would be interested in your feedback though or in what you've heard in the market or what we should do.
Best wishes,
Kian
What has happened over time is that LI has become the ToI and you have become like Arnab Goswami (wanting to stir up emotions and let all sort of personal unwarranted comments appear in your comments section) while B&B has become more "intellectual" - akin to a Hindu - largely boring, but informative. So while students, gossip mongers and other rude guys take over your comments section, Principals of firms dont want to be associated with this kind of stuff and make themselves targets of more vicious comments, which you encourage by virtue of not filtering. You are dealing with lawyers who normally have huge egos and even if those egos are trampled upon in a comments section, they know that hundreds would read those comments and gossip further and laugh! Thats how small the community is and it hurts.
It is the comments Kian - it is the comments. The more you persist in allowing people to spew there venom, the lesser number of Principals are going to engage with you. Thats my view based on experience and what I have heard in the "market".
First off, though we are not a law review or journal, I have to admit I wouldn't be too happy if LI were actually similar to TOI in anything other than popularity, having perused the latter's cringeworthy articles and comments earlier today. Our aim is to produce journalistically interesting content with integrity, as well as some more light-hearted stuff from time to time.
In this specific case, I don't think there's any acid per-se. Comment 6 by Madame Pompadour is surely just a joke about the fact that Vishnu Jerome doesn't seem to have changed his Linked-in profile photo in a while (or at least, that we don't seem to have a more recent photo of him in our files). Seems mostly harmless and nothing I think any reasonable lawyer should take offence over.
Comment #1, "self M&A" I agree is a tiny bit rude but also just a tiny bit witty.
Leaving that to one side, question is should we start censoring comments as soon as a comment has the potential to bruise someone's ego? I'm not sure the egg shell skull rule should apply to egos, and the difficult thing becomes, where do we draw the line? Censor all critical comments? Censor only critical comments where the subject doesn't have a sense of humour?
Already comments are hidden away from sight unless you choose to read them. Purely trolling comments also regularly get down-voted by readers now and disappear from view, for the most part. And the 'report' button is there, which we take seriously - if you have a valid objection that a comment is below the belt or personally insulting, anyone can click the report button and we'll unpublish it or moderate. We also moderate quite heavily. Anything that is actually ad hominem without the excuse of satire or fair comment, usually doesn't get through - you should see some of the stuff that we do filter some time...
What other solutions are there? Should we only allow comments by users with an account on LI? (though then I imagine people will simply create disposable email addresses and do the same from there).
Comments are a little anarchic at times, I admit. But the reason that I think they're valuable and why I personally defend comments, also occasionally from an irate partner, is because they also provide a useful mirror and insight into the legal industry where many of the juniors in the profession don't really have a place to express themselves openly.
And perhaps that and a bit of humour is needed for the profession to becomes less obsessed with egos, and more obsessed with the professionalism and services they provide?
Again, I would welcome practical approaches and suggestions that are not too draconian, though I fear to a large extent the cat is out of the bag and it's doing it's own thing, which isn't actually doing that much harm in the great scale of things, no?
Best wishes,
Kian
Another problem could possibly be your taglines and comments. Poovayya -- General Advoate is just one such example. What does this even mean? You are known for these taglines which embarrass people.
I'm an LI Fan but you've got to do something. There are too many people who are looking at LI as a tabloid for generating gossip and a LOT of jealous people (who can never make it to LI) waiting to malign those who are doing something interesting to get reported. Bar&Bench may be the other extreme but you can strike a balance.
Now you and your other fans who do not believe in moderating your comments may tell people to lighten up - fair enough - I am not saying that you should moderate heavily. You asked for a reason as to why principals are not engaging with you and you are being provided with plausible reasons why. Also, please appreciate that the comments in a ToI or rediff cannot be compared with those on LI (btw, rediff requires a valid email id to post a message, at least put in that filter - those who bother to create fake ids and post will never be taken seriously) for the reason because they cater to a pan india audience. In this case, when a comment is posted about a Vishnu which is personal in nature, the very small lawyer community immediately relates to it. I find it surprising that you cant seem to wrap your head around this point. Now BB doesnt require an email id either, but for some reason the level of nastiness and "mockingness" seems to be relatively low there.
Anyway, it is your website, as I said, no harm in keeping it the way it is comments wise, but you asked for a reason why Principals are not engaging with you, and some of us have tried to give you that reason.
In terms of demographics, I would fall in the category of one of the first regular readers of LI - so I am very familiar with how LI has evolved. Now your readership has expanded drastically to include different categories - but I know many in my circle who now prefer BB and have stopped coming to LI. I still do, because I think you are better - save your stubborn policy of letting comments mock people.
B&B is the kind of place one goes to get a press release from SILF, or a scntillating intervew with Mr. Bhasin, or some other mummified representative of the Old Ways.
This is not a profession used to beng exposed to review by outsiders, and practitioners are people who are trained to like having the last word. One would be shocked if they weren't bothered by objective coverage.
Any accusations of "sensationalizing" are generally levelled when people are uncomfortable wth English adjectives and allergic to facts in any language. The utter shamelessness of the BCI's operaton is a great case in point. Those are not folks who appreciate someone reporting on them factucally, or holdng them accountable.
LI faces a vexing challenge - how to report vigorously on a shrowded profession that has no shortage of self-important blowhards, along with plenty of unsung heroes.
Whatever LI's shortfalls - Prachi's spotty English and lack of journalism training, Kian's mopey and apologetic tone in the face of unjustified crticism - they are pointed in the right drection, and assembling a body of work that helps shed light on a vital sector of our democracy. We should support them with vigorous and incisive comments, and laugh at the B&B Bed & Breakfast crowd munching on whatever garbage the official sde of the profession has churned out today.
I would disagree and say that LI and BB both have their space (and I think someone above has made reference to TOI and Hindu). Yes, it does look like BB regulates comments a bit more than say LI but that is their editorial discretion - but to say that it is a place one goes to get press release is a tad unfair - You should look at many stories done by BB based on RTI applications - remeber BCI and rainmaker and AIBE exams. Agree that the element of sensationalisation may be toned a bit and that I would say is a fair criticism (but also an editorial policy of each publication). All of this i.e. LI, BB, ABCD, and whatever else comes along is good news for the legal world.
My 2 cents....
(But: when on a reasonable workload, Prachi's English is usually pretty unspotty, and errors might as well be mine made during edits; formal journalism training is overrated, I don't have any either; do I really mope so much?)
'A bit Dazed' & #13 - it wouldn't be dignified of me to comment on other publications or stories but to cut a long story short, yes, I'd agree: the more publications the merrier.
However, have you recently opened basically any of the in-print legal publications, without wanting to name names? There's surely a niche for that stuff, but it really isn't journalism.
I therefore can't help but wish sometimes that some of our 'rivals' were a little more aggressive in their reporting, rather than leaving LI to do the 'dirty' (and occasionally and inevitably unpleasant) work of stepping on lawyers' and regulators' toes, and providing a platform for open debate that sometimes rubs people up the wrong way.
Still, it's early days yet - wasn't some commenter a little while ago planning to start up a new legal publication? Please do call me if you want some confidential advice - would be happy to assist however we can.
Best wishes,
Kian
So as for KG being "mopey," I recall a post or two where you apologized needlessly when you could have politely stuck to your convictions. I recall one or two unfortunate posts where you discussed your health, and its impact on posting frequency, and some bicycle stuff - basically, TMI. If you play your news voice straight you will keep the attention focused on the matter at hand, and you will develop a perspective that relies on your better thinking rather than simply "sharing." We don't need a hug when considering the implications of an SC decision or personnel change.
I think you did your "apprenticeship" at a UK industry publication. Industry publications can be very different from news organizations. And the UK approach to news sources - with overtly political affiliations, for instance (I won't mention the hacking stuff) - is very different from the American ideal. One only needs to look at FoxNews, a Murdoch infection, to delineate the primary difference between the UK and US approaches.
The Indian media approach is something else altogether. We know coverage can be easily bought, either directly or through influence. And we know the atmosphere for press freedom in India is abysmal and headed South.
So, by these standards, I'm happy LI is keeping at it. God knows how you're supporting yourself.
They take press releases and do a Ctrl C + Ctrl V thing.
BB's interviews are nothing but answers to questions asked on email.
And their editors; OMG! Some CLAT aspirants could write better.
LI is much more trusted, much more popular, fantastically written and dynamic.
Since you bring it up though, I think Brittany Brewer from Harvard was a good counter example on how intelligent debate can even spring out of ad hominem... Brittany was aware that debate can turn bad, and I checked with her whether she'd be ok with comments that are more personal than usual remaining published. I think she dealt with the comments admirably and in the process also showcased the credibility of her survey to any doubters. Plus, I believe she's very happy with the response and visibility received.
That's sort of what we hope for when one-sided comments do get published - that someone will put the record straight and move the debate forward to a more intelligent level, which often (but not always) happens.
I am not suggesting that managing partners start arguments in the LI comments, although they or others in the firm could of course, either under their own name or anonymously since we don't ban astro-turfing or sock-puppetting, unless it becomes too blatant and repetitive. And often random bystanders step in, or sometimes I add my 2 cents too, to balance the discussion.
In terms of our moderation policy, we do block the vast majority of personal attack comments, and there are quite a few of those, some of which are very nasty. I think that's naturally a side-effect of heavy traffic and popularity.
But yes, we currently have a weak spot for the more irreverent comments that are tongue in cheek or satire and clearly not meant to be taken seriously. (self-M&A and photo comments above being cases in point, I thought).
Should our policy really be to block all critical comments if they require a sense of humour in order to not get offended? Isn't the profession too serious sometimes and could do with a lighter touch?
On General Advocate, as admitted below, I thought it was a fairly harmless and lame joke/pun on Advocate General and the fact that a lot of advocates are generalists. Certainly no offence or embarrassment was meant but admittedly, it doesn't really make a lot of sense, so have changed it to something more boring and straight now.
Anyway, I appreciate all your points as those of genuine well-wishers who would like to see our offering improve. We'll try to be more mindful in future to strike a balance between the irreverent and the offensive, though at times we may still get this wrong.
As a final thought, we simply can not make editorial decisions constantly mindful of whether someone will grant us an 'exclusive' interview in future. As long as we conduct ourselves professionally, which I believe we do (thank you D&C for only obliquely bringing up Rupert Murdoch and phonehacking :), most lawyers know that it is in their interest to at least engage with us to tell their side of the story, even if they don't want to be quoted on-the-record about how "delighted" they are with a development or how they wish someone well (which arguably does not present too great a loss for us our readers in any case.)
Anyway, less talk, more reporting. Appreciate all your feedback and suggestions, as well as comments, which make our job a lot more rewarding (as well as crazy, unpredictable and exasperating at times).
Best wishes,
Kian
Kian, soooo much love pouring out on Vday... kya ho gya bhai?? :P
Another case - the Diageo lady article - the kind of nonsense that was allowed to come in comments really was that - nonsense and importantly, it did not help in your (possible) aim - of introducing the person/ her experience etc. to the readers of the site.
Please don't repeat the point that the comments were 'hidden' ... the point is that the Diageo Counsel story was really decent but the comments were down right embarrassing.
Have been hoping that the readership would act as an auto-moderation filter of sorts, weeding out the trolls from those who might make a not nice but legitimate comment? Maybe that's not fully working but we'll keep tinkering with it based on feedback, etc.
Best wishes,
Kian
Readers may recall the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times where the reporter when he was not fabricating entire stories, was doing the next best thing: plagiarising them!
This is actually one of the problems with sites like ABove The Law, for example - more than half of the comments are irrelevant to the topic, close to one-third of comments are painfully pedantic, and almost 90% of the comments are irreverent (which is kinda okay, except that about half of those irreverent comments are also downright nasty and needlessly rude - whether towards the organizations being reported on, or about the author of that piece, or about other commenters). I hope LI doesn't head in that direction. But I also hope that LI doesn't head in the direction of being boring, lazy, unanalytical and non-independent.
It's about striking that balance. And comments like mine (and a few others above) are perhaps to be taken as constructive criticism aimed at helping LI achieve that balance :-)
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first