Khaitan & Co Mumbai partner Murali Neelakantan has joined Indian pharmaceutical giant Cipla as its global general counsel (GC).
Neelakantan told Legally India that he had started on 1 October and is heading up a legal team of around 20 lawyers globally.
“The role is what I make of it,” he said. “[Cipla] haven’t had a global general counsel before so thankfully I’m not replacing anyone. There is already a chief legal officer and there are legal teams in Europe, the US and Africa.”
Neelakantan added that Cipla has had a very good company secretary for the last 20 years. “They've had a very strong compliance team. It is part of the Sensex and much-watched company, [but there have] never been any reported violations from a compliance standpoint. Touch wood… all that continues.”
The NLSIU Bangalore graduate began his career at Nishith Desai Associates in 1996, moving to London 1999 to join Simmons & Simmons. In 2005 he joined Arnold & Porter as a partner and joined Ashurst in 2007 as the head of its India practice.
He returned to India in 2008 to join Khaitan as a partner.
Neelakantan said that he joined Cipla in order to get more involved in business and strategic aspects, as well as to translate legal issues to the board of directors. “If I wanted to be a lawyer doing the legal stuff, I wouldn't have left Khaitan.”
However, he said that going in-house as a partner was an unusual move in India. “In this country this transition hasn't happened - law firm partners at senior levels going in-house. Generally clients don't see value in it or don't see senior counsel as a valuable leadership resource. In the West many GCs are on the board of companies - that hasn’t happened in India. And therefore a senior partner in a law firm would never consider going in house.”
Cipla was one of Khaitan’s clients, explained the new GC, but the company has also used other law firms and would continue to do so. “[There’s] absolutely no reason not to work with other law firms. I’m not here to change any of that. It's a well-established process. [Cipla has] relationships [with several firms] and that should continue.”
The “vast majority” of the global legal team of around 20 had between eight and 12 years of post-qualification experience, noted Neelakantan, who were “very clued into the business”. Most of the sector-specific expertise at the pharma company was therefore handled in-house, he said, but more generic work, such as M&A, employment or tax advice, might be referred to external firms.
“The big firms don't have pharma regulatory expertise. If you ask the big firms, can you do pharma regulatory, they’ll struggle. I've seen what it is to be in the pharma sector [at Arnold Porter in London and the US] and that’s the level you expect but that you don't have in India frankly.”
After the first 100 days in the job and taking on board everyone’s input, Cipla’s legal function might be reorganised slightly, said Neelakantan, in order to integrate the global GC role more tightly into the work flow. He currently reports directly to the board while the chief legal officer, Abhayan Jawaharlal, would report to him and manage the in-house legal team.
“We wish him well with his future endeavours,” commented Khaitan partner Rabindra Jhunjhunwala via email on Saturday.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Hahahahhaa............ Can't agree less! KCO soon will sponsor NLIU bhopal as their captive law school....
Are you being sarcastic??
We live in such cynical times that one cannot offer uninflected praise for a brother advocate without eliciting accusations. This makes me want to watch the Sad Keanu meme.
This quote is from me. I did not mean to hide, but I was so sad I forgot to put my id. I must watch Sad Keanu once more. With sandwich. sadkeanu.tumblr.com/page/3
A SHARE HOLDER
well said.... very true
Furthermore, is the Chief Legal Officer as mentioned in the article, confined to India or is it also a global position. If it is the latter, than all the more reason I would like to know what is the role of "global" GC.
"Global GC" is what you name the new boss of the Chief Legal Officer when you don't want to fire or promote the Chief Legal Officer.
In all seriousness, the actual title should not guide your perception of the role. The typical American style is to use the term "General Counsel" to describe the top-ranking legal officer in a company. Brits often use GC as well, although the exact role can be different, especially since the Brits have the awful position of a formal company secretary, which messes up lines of responsibility. Americans have a title of company secretary but give the actual crappy work involved to the slowest moving of the junior associates or department members.
The Europeans - well, those poor "in-house counsel" are practically third class corporate citizens, almost completely bereft of actual legal powers and holders of an ever-smaller scope of lawyerly privilege. European courts are consistently chipping away at thier independence and gutting claims of privilege by European in-house counsel, particularly in non-Common Law jurisdictions. Those decisions are pretty outrageous when you go through them in detail, and reflect a fundamentally non-Common Law view of a lawyer's duties.
Since Indian advocates should, by rule, suspend their right to practice while in employment, Mr. Neelakantan will eithr cease to be an advocate or may be a lawyer by virtue of licensing in another jurisdiction.
A "global" company such as CIPLA, which will face scrutiny from US legal authorities as a matter of course, is wise to have a lawyer licensed in the U.S. or U.K. to maintain lawyer's privilege in case of any investigation. Indian companies who have unlicensed GCs, or worse yet, rely on their CS or CFO for substantive legal advice (see Appollo's recent letter from their (Indian) CFO for Europe to the General Counsel for Cooper Tires for a particularly bad example of being outgunned - where is their GC?), learn fast that a US investigation will quickly penetrate such communications while it would be forced to respect a properly asserted privilege from a U.S. or U.K. licensed lawyer.
The result of this is that around 60% of the lawyers who had joined between the years 2007-13 have quit and anyone who has rejoined the firm in say 2013 after a gap of 2-3 years wont recognize most of the people there.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first