Try reading the headline: "India" lawyers, not "Indian" lawyers. As in, India as a subject matter. Not a racial description or a citizenship designation.

And, I don't think Zia is India trained either. Could be wrong.

Quoting Senor Agape:

Try reading the headline: "India" lawyers, not "Indian" lawyers. As in, India as a subject matter. Not a racial description or a citizenship designation.

And, I don't think Zia is India trained either. Could be wrong.

Zia did her law degree in Cambridge and then masters in Harvard. The cambridge degree satisfies the requirements of Advocates Act for enrolment in India.

Hi Kian,

The news is definitely relevant (at least for those of us who like to keep a tab on such stuff).

What amazes me though is that foreign firms hold-out some of their lawyers with some India connection (even if that connection is nothing more than a family name) as their India practice partners. Reality is that many of these guys have no experience re India, leave aside India related work. Also, when they can advice only on laws of the jurisdictions they are qualified in, wonder why they brazenly pretend to be qualified in terms of advising on "India business". At best, they may have advised Indian companies needing advice on the law of their jurisdiction. Usually, they don't even have that experience!

Food for thought. Maybe we'll see a Mint piece on this. Although, its bound to ruffle feathers of the wrong (i.e. powerful) birds.

Dear Kian,

I have nothing against the article or W&C.

I was making a point that some people are not aware of – due to the excellent BD efforts of some firms! The truth is, very few foreign firms actually recruit dual-qualified Indian partners. Most just project partners with Indian names for their BD efforts; projection is through advertisements, BD and staffing policy re India-flavoured matters, including deals like foreign subsidiary of Indian company purchasing a foreign asset. None of their “India practice” extend beyond foreign law governed Indian deals happening abroad or role as international counsel on some Indian deal - usually in areas like sophisticated projects or mega-M&A where government/PSUs, and some select few big Indian companies, want international counsel to provide inputs to Indian counsel. Also Kian, firms actually do staff people with India connection on India deals – they are not so naive as to miss on that! Don't tell me you are not aware of this!

“Gandesha has been doing talks and research related to India” – talks yes, research no. The only research these partners do (through associates) is for profile building, like writing an article or preparing some talk on/in India where they have to add a couple of slides on India specific points e.g. Indian case law, FICCI views, comparison of Indian law with foreign law etc.

As unbelievable as it may sound, BD efforts and erroneous perceptions have ensured that some people are unaware of what India practice really means. You did nothing wrong by reporting the story the way you did. I rather meant that a story on these lines by a journalist who is widely followed would be great :)

Cheers.