Experts & Views
Either the Times of India thinks that only advocates are lawyers or that law firm lawyers are just not so very top.
While I certainly would not dare disagree with the calibre and legal genius of each of these individuals, could not at least one law firmite have made it to the list?
Here's TOI's full list of top 10 lawyers, along with our nutshell summary of the paper's often brilliant commentary on each:- Fali Nariman
The "wise man of the Bar" with a stature that "allows him to be blunt in court". - Soli J Sorabjee
Former glorious AG, fierce free speech and HR advocate, "mad 'bawa' (Parsi) jokes", successful daughter. - Harish Salve
The "legal robot" and all-round legal talent. - K. Parasaran
"Articulate" and "ethically driven" "man for all seasons". - Ram Jethmalani
Passionate about crimes with "rapier-sharp wit", proving crime does pay. - Abhishek Manu Singhvi
"Buddha of the Bar", youngest additional solicitor general ever and happy enabler of all tricolor-wavers. - Mukul Rohatgi
Voluble "king" of Delhi HC and Anil's gas dispute trusted counsel. - K.K. Venugopal
"Constitutional crorepati", Emergency counterweight and collector - but where's the grey hair? - Rohinton F Nariman
Cheerful corporate stalwart, fast riser to senior counsel, Fali's son. - Ashok Desai
Reclusive former AG, softly-spoken but packing a serious punch and control.
Possible explanations:
- court-room work is simply more glamorous than the desk-bound transactional variety,
- the ones on the list really are a league apart that law firmites have not yet been able to match, or
- the TOI did not read the Lawyers Collective judgment that "legal practice" includes desk-work.
For Times of India's full list click here - it's a very entertaining read that brings out many a wonderful personality!
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Depends how you measure "better" I guess.
Top advocates are certainly more visible.
But there must be a handful of transactional lawyers who are as good at their job, surely, even if they are less flamboyant and exciting to watch than top counsel?
But eventually, whatever we say or advise our clients in our offices must stand in court (where a litigator becomes indispensable). And to that there really is no retort of any sort which a corporate lawyer (like I said I am one myself) can ever respond with. As corporate lawyers, while we do exercise superb brilliance and intelligence in our own way (which mind you many litigators would never be able to) we cannot even begin to play one-upmanship with those who are directly responsible for interpreting and scrutinising the law before judges in the highest courts of this country and who are thus directly responsible for shaping Indian jurisprudence.
My point is, when this site (e-media) chose to side with LAW FIRMS (which is not wrong), whats wrong if TOI (print media) sides with ADVOCATES (which is not wrong either). If you promote law firms, its fair reporting, when TOI gives its top 10 list, you cover it as though it has committed a sacrilege! Come On! Thats not fair. This site is doing its business, let TOI do its own business.
And while I believe that all of us need excellent doctors who help us in preventing sickness (law firm preventing legal issues), when things do go out of hands and you need to get operated upon, you have to have a surgeon who operates and saves your life (Advocate in the Court). BOTH ARE IMPORTANT. It all depends on, what type of treatment you need, medicine or surgery!
I just thought it was interesting/amusing that a general interest paper like Times of India used the wider term 'lawyers' and then listed only advocates.
Very good list though, really enjoyed reading it, as well as reading people's views.
Happy New Year to you and good to see you in the thick of things. One can't help but look at the abundant display of sarcasm displayed by you in covering this. Using adjectives like 'flamboyant' to describe Court lawyers would be as inaccurate as a description if there ever was. In criticising these men on their earnings (in which case it must be said that you are incorrect in employing this parameter to judge them), you have veered off course. Is the degree of fortune a lawyer amasses inversely proportional to their lawyerly skills? Any description of the profession as flamboyant is best served if it is restricted to the men on the list and even then, it is testament to how good they are. Why is it a bad thing to earn astronomical sums of money? These guys didn't start off by making crores now did they? Rather, they had to make do with miniscule sums of money on which one couldn't and cannot to this day survive on! That's one big reason for law students choosing transactional law over practising in the Courts! And why are they paid such astronomical sums? The same reasons law firms charge astronomical sums for preparing a legal document. Rather, the transactional lawyers like those mentioned on the TOI list of transactional lawyers are more flamboyant and I am sure that colleagues from other law firms would second that in a heartbeat. And comparing a Bharti-MTN deal or a Tata-Corus deal to landmark judgments such as Keshavananda Bharti or Minerva Mills is a great disservice to the ideals on which those cases were contested. In fact, had they gone either way, one can very strongly argue that there wouldn't be any transactional law to begin with.
In all honesty, not an ounce or sarcasm was intended, although I now realise 'flamboyant' may have been a bit too hyperbolic.
In any case, 'flamboyant' was no intended reference whatsoever to remuneration but to their personalities and senses of humour, which I think the TOI write-up managed to bring out well.
Advocates are by their very nature engaging public speakers and the few I have had the pleasure to hear myself have been captivating and entertaining.
I request these Top Ten also to come forward and justify their charges.
I write as a layman.
Most of the persons mentioned in the TOI list are well known public figures who feature regularly on various TV programmes, not least Times Now, as experts on everything. Many of the famous cases have had a major impact on society and are often cited.
By contrast I have never heard (outside of Legally India) any of the names listed in #33 even though they may have been involved in complicated legal transaction.
Elsewhere, in a discussion on the 2G scam someone wrote "How can views of both Kapil and Montek be ignored. Kapil runs Edu and Telecom, Montek decides practically trillions of rupees budget. The SC is asking to ignore these 2 persons and listen to Swamy." Using the same logic, I would like to ask if these eminent legal luminaries earn their fees on account of their acumen or reputations. And does the validity of an argument in court depend on who voicesit?
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first