The CLB in its order of 17 August rebuked the firm for the negligent advice given in relation to two affidavits filed before the CLB in a petition by the firm’s client Rupak Gupta against Banaras House Pvt Ltd, explained Delhi managing partner Shardul Shroff.
The affidavits contained serious errors according to the order, said Shroff, and were prepared without partner approval by one principal associate designate and one three-year-qualified associate, who was mentioned by name in the order.
As soon as the partner in charge of the client, Ritu Bhalla, found out about the error on 6 August, she filed a rectification affidavit with the CLB, noted Shroff, which resulted in the CLB bench passing the order on 17 August. Bhalla was not reachable for comment at the time of going to press.
“We have not taken this at all lightly,” Shroff said, admitting that “this should never have happened”.
The two associates had “filed affidavits quite recklessly without showing the supervising partner and made one mistake after the other after the other”, he noted. “They should have just brought it to the notice of the partner… It is a failing of their standards, that’s why they got dismissed.”
“We don’t brook this as acceptable behaviour internally. The action at our end is to ensure that proper procedure [is put in place…] and we need to tighten up procedures so that nobody can do it.”
The firm was continuing to examine the order, which Shroff only became aware of at 3pm today, and is further investigating the circumstances surrounding the events.
The two associates were not reachable for comment at the time of going to press.
The Economic Times reported this evening that the finance ministry has asked state-owned banks and insurers to take up issues of advocates’ and chartered accountants’ misconduct with regulating bodies, such as the Bar Council of India (BCI) or the Institute for Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), rather than merely striking the advisers from their panel.
Clarification: The initial version of the story stated in an indirect quote that Ms Bhalla was the partner “nominally” in charge of the client, which was paraphrasing the statements made but was not a direct quote.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Honestly, most law firms are likely to be guilty for similar acts but lack of any remedy leaves the client in the cold.
IT is quite clear that the associates were screwed over royally. Wonder if they will ever make it into a major 'corp lawfirm' ever again..
1. I am sure there have been instances where affidavits have been filed without partner approval. In this instance, they got it wrong. They got sacked because it was noticed.
2. If the partner had to approve, there is a likelihood that she would have chided the pa designate saying that a pa designate should not be supervised on such minor documents.
So its the partner who needs to be questioned on how she manages her TEAM.
Clients get drawn to the marquee firms by the branding and the ratings. However, a client gets the benefit of engaging a marquee firm, only if it can be ensured that the name-partner heading the vertical is actually and closely involved in the matter. That can happen in larger firms only with more partners and higher fees.
what is not known if whether the PA-D is receiving additional compensation for also taking the 'fall' for this mess created by the negligence of the partner in question.
The next day the PA caught the mistake and pointed it out to her. He suggested the rectification application. She said some stuff to him I will not repeat here. He resigned because of what she said to him...he was not sacked. The resignation e-mail was bombastic [...]
Copy of the order should clear whether there were "one mistake after the other after the other" in the supporting affidavit, or if there was "one mistake after the other after the other" in the subsequent strategy.
[...] What a sad day. Why should any client rely on a Firm who conveniently shields their Partners from mistakes they make and are quick to make scapegoats of Associates - as young as three years in the profession!
[Editorial clarification: The initial version of the story stated in an indirect quote that Ms Bhalla was the partner “nominally” in charge of the client, which was paraphrasing the statements made but was not a direct quote.]
1) Reprimand the team for the error, apologise to the client, offered them a fee waiver, or whatever it is that would have made them happy and left things as they were; or
2) Suspend/dismiss the partner, if at all they had to suspend/dismiss anyone. This whole 'prepared without partner supervision' story reflects very very poorly on the firm's internal practices, integrity and its commitment to its employees.
Lawyers often make errors. Some are rectifiable, such as this one, and others far more catastrophic. This whole episode would have reflected much better on the firm if they hadn't hung the associate and the PA-designate out to dry on the grounds of an affidavit having been filed "without partner review." Absolutely appalling stuff from AMSS.
Quoting Phew:
THIS EXPLAINS SOME OF THE SO CALLED MISTAKES. THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A RELUCTANCE TO SWEAR THE FALSEHOODS IN THEIR OWN NAME AND WHY THE LADY CONCERNED SWORE AT THEM FOR BEING HAND IN GLOVE WITH THE OPPOSITE SIDE.
Bar Council of India: This is your opportunity to redeem yourself. You want to shut someone down? Fight Amarchand, yo. EVERYONE will approve!
It is bizarre that these two associates have been pulled up and not Ms. Bhalla. In the capacity of a partner in charge of the matter, she ought to have known or rather should have ensured that a correct filing happened.
However, knowing how AMSS works, it is unlikely for it to take any action against Ms. Bhalla who is a loyalist and continued to be a salaried partner for over 20 years before being offered a peanut size equity stake in the firm.
As we all know that several smart people have left AMSS merely because of Ms. Bhalla's tempramental issues [...]
However, it would be interesting to now see Mr. and Mrs. Shroff paginating, stamping true copy and affixing their initials on all pleadings filed by AMSS hereinafter.
All A0's and court clerks can now be relieved of this clerical task which they are required to do and the failure of which may result in them being sacked (without enjoying RB's salary).
pity the associates...though with a firm like that its good riddance..[...] ..all that was to be done was own up..and be careful in the future..strangling the associates was the dumbest thing ever
To add one more to your list of comparisons, Manmohan Singh blaming Raja for 2G. And whats common is you wait to see if shit hits the roof before doing that.
1. The team in question had incredibly long working hours (even my amss standards). Working 16 hour a day, day after day, some mistakes will be expected, irrespective of how good a lawyer you are. As lawyers, we all work hard, but if pushed beyond a certain point, mistakes are bound to happen. Hence, what is actually to be blamed is the sweat-shop culture that amarchand has developed. The way ahead for amss should now be how to shift focus on the quality of the work as opposed to the quantity of the work, which is the case at present.
2. It is very important to get the facts right in this case. The principal associate (who joing amss just a few months back) was NOT fired because of the mistake in question but he put in his papers because of the way he was treated when brought the mistake to the attention of the partner in question, which she should have done in the first place. The 3 years associate in question had been in a non-lit team his entire career and had shifted to a lit team only 6 months ago. How can you put the entire blame for a mistake on the shoulders of one associate who has had only 6 months exp. in lit?
3. For a mistake like this, disciplinary action was mandated for the associates, and not firing them outright. Mistakes like these happen in the lit teams of law firms, and normally result with a slap on the wrist. But if youre going to fire someone, fire the partner and not the associate. The partner may have been a person 'nominally in charge", but how much do you want to bet that when the bill went to the client,he would have been billed a dozen or more hours @ 400 dollars an hour by the partner for "review of the work" and "finalizing drafts"? IF youre charging such outrageous amounts for finalizing drafts, you should atleast see the draft once, right?
[Editorial clarification: The initial version of the story stated in an indirect quote that Ms Bhalla was the partner “nominally” in charge of the client, which was paraphrasing the statements made but was not a direct quote.]
The firm should release the time sheets in relation to this matter to show how nominally involved the partner is.
Is this true? Can tell that some lawyers at Trilegal are truly world class and A&O would be happy to have them, the rest, well...
Having worked at AMSS I know for sure that the associates there are often left without adequate (or any) guidance from partners and thrust with responsibility they may or may not be willing to take. There are equity partners at the firm featuring high on the who's who list (surprisingly!) not even coming to work for days altogether because they are busy renovating their new homes, or worse, some partners who are bad lawyers but designated partners because, well, they just outlived the others.
Blaming the associates is plain ridiculous, but a painfully predictable reaction from the Shroffs.
Good one, dude !
Kian: as per your research is the this the first time that a law firm in India has been indicted by a judicial forum and exemplary fine has been imposed?
On a more serious note it shows complete lack of training at AMSS for the lit guys. You can't have kids join you from law school and become "Know All", you need to instill discipline, make them aware of nitty gritties and impart knowledge continuously. Yes, the associate was careless but its not only their fault, its a systemic issue at AMSS.
[Editorial clarification: The initial version of the story stated in an indirect quote that Ms Bhalla was the partner “nominally” in charge of the client, which was paraphrasing the statements made but was not a direct quote.]
Kian it is very unfortunate that your article is more of a cover up for AMSS's faults. AMSS has gotten so much coverage for no rhyme or reason as such things happen many times, especially with big firms dealing with small clients due to less time being devoted by the partner incharge. It is unfortunate that the associates who are just beginning in the profession have to take the blame. Also remember that official email ids are controlled by AMSS and any apology could have easily written by the administrators. Therefore, so much for the official apology.
Thanks for your comments and apologies for the, at times, heavy-handed moderation.
In moderating comments we are often between a rock and a hard place, and are trying to steer a fair course that allows freedom of expression while avoiding personal attacks on individuals.
Please help us in this effort and bear this in mind.
Best wishes
Kian
Our policy is clear, though it is never black and white: we try to allow all reasonable comments. If someone complains (and every comment has a report button), we will take this into account and moderate comments if appropriate. If someone comments on someone's appearance, or generally on their abilities as a lawyer, we may also moderate.
Partners and lawyers are also free to call us and complain, which many do exercise.
We then take their concerns into account and moderate accordingly, or not.
Maintaining a free comments space is not easy, and it also requires moderation, for better or worse sometimes.
Best wishes,
Kian
I think you may want to ask commentators who get personal to do so by openly doing it. In short its easy shooting anonymus comments... if you have the gahunas state your name address (for service of a defamation suit) and telephone number. Lets see if they then are as scared as they allege that you are.
I think you may want to ask your Partners to behave responsibly. I think you may also want to ask your Partners to become nicer human beings. [...] please [...] invite foreign firms (to compete with you in your own backyard). Lets see if Indian lawyers are as scared as you allege that they are.
Best wishes,
Kian
How noble! I'm impressed. I'm touched. "The Firm" has set an outstanding example of "integrity" and "professionalism" by firing those who have "not applied themselves."
To those dudes and divas running AMSS - here is an earnest suggestion. Please, please, please continue upholding such high standards. Please keep firing all those who commit similar or graver mistakes, without waiting for such mistakes to be pointed out by a court or tribunal, and without waiting for it to be reported. Very soon, you'll have no one left to fire.
I personally believe that a Legal Job has more to do than which college a person has passed out from.
A newly minted lawyer has to be thrown into 'situations'. And God knows that it is not a cakewalk to handle such situations as a young lawyer, because most professionals get there by ‘practice’ and experience. If the young lawyer is paid 10% the amount the big firms pay and slogs for a counsel/ small firm, then it is okay to forgive their shortcomings (in fact, it is also okay to say that it is ‘normal’) because they are a rookie who has to learn on the job and the seniors should encourage them. But if they are paid 12 lakhs p.a. then they can be blamed because they earn so much! What you miss is that they also belong to the ‘junior’ category. The fact that they are paid more does not mean that they should be able to do better. They are paid more because they have developed certain skills and have received their legal training at a top law university. Big firms don’t expect much from their recruits from the elite lawschools in their first year. They expect some other skills, and I don’t wish to get into a lengthy explanation of that. Suffice to say that the big firms offer high salaries to fresh graduates after evaluating whether such graduates are up to the mark. That doesn’t mean that the “mark” is that a fresh graduate would be able to breeze through the Registry. We all know how the Registry works (and if you remember how it used to work in KGB’s time, you would know how much ground realities one must know to be able to navigate through the mysteries of the Registry).
And you ever wondered how they survive? Law firms are terrible concrete jungles.. after a while those who have zero ability knowledge or smartness typically get weeded out.. or simply quit because they cant handle the stress or handle the fact that they cannot understand why others do better.
Suggest you ask that young lady in 3 years where she will be. If she is still at the top law firm, then your assessment was incorrect..
kian, let this comment go through unedited, you KNOW #52.3 is an asshole.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first