It's business when you cater to the client needs.But when the lawyers are researching drafting up summaries for CSS who will discuss or present it on news channels, government committees etc to make you look on point with legalese,thats great image management and marketing strategy.But that doesnt make CSS brilliant.

Very hard to determine who is the most accomplished. Especially cause senior lawyers focus more on the big picture, and business development. Also, they have a lot more weighing on their mind than a junior lawyer. For instance, their focus in most cases would be on determining how a particular course of action can be legally justified, rather than whether the course of action is legal. A young lawyer would usually focus on the second part.

Cyril Shroff maybe brilliant given his experience and also because of his family firms 100 year experience which legacy we are always reminded of in ever CAM press release. He should be using that brilliance to prevent his firm CAM from getting dragged into the names of controversies or scams of ILFS,ICICI ex-CEO etc.

> Senior counsels often lack commercial acumen and knowledge of the latest structures.

Fair. Most lack knowledge of latest structures except the few who are routinely involved in corporate matters.

> If you have briefed counsel for a opinion you will realise effectively the analysis of the opinion is summarised in the brief and the counsel just takes a call if its a tenable argument before a judge and signs off.

This is not true. The good senior counsels have
a more collaborative approach right from the start. They'll sit with a list of dates and brainstorm with you. Of course all this involves hefty bill to client for 'settling' the pleading.

You will be surprised my boy on the knowledge of the big senior counsels in corporate matters - which is to a large extent supported by briefing counsels. Senior counsels often lack commercial acumen and knowledge of the latest structures. If you have briefed counsel for a opinion you will realise effectively the analysis of the opinion is summarised in the brief and the counsel just takes a call if its a tenable argument before a judge and signs off. They are of course not paralleled when it comes to constitutional and administrative law matters. See all lawyers have their areas of specialty. Corporate lawyers are like physicians who ensure that you don't fall ill or diagnose your disease. However senior counsels are like surgeons they come in when an operation is needed. So a senior counsel wont be able to help you do FEMA structuring on a corporate deal or ensure the nuances of a commercial transaction is captured in a shareholders agreement, security documents or a derivative contract. Same way a corporate lawyer wont be able to argue astutely the most pertinent arguments which will play to a judge's predisposition, when a dispute arises. The skill set is different.

This is really impossible to answer. Everyone has worked with only some of the lawyers out there and not all of the lawyers. And reputations are also quite subjective. And what about the lawyers who are more low-key but are well loved by their clients and subordinates because of their legal brilliance.

About litigators - I'm sure they have a great deal of knowledge and understanding. But a commercial lawyer's skills also lie in negotiating and getting a deal through. I don't think litigators are wired like that. Also litigators have a superior understanding when we talk about substantive issues. But they don't have to deal with a large number of procedural details that a corporate lawyer needs to.

Personality is also such a huge driver. Some people think aggressiveness is a great trait for a commercial lawyer and others think a more collaborative approach is a better marker of a deal maker. Both have their merits, but you'd pick the lawyer you like based on your personality settings as well.

Ironically, purely legal and commercial nous of corporate law won't be found with corporate lawyers but rather with good litigators. I bet most of the tier 1 partners don't understand intricacies of corp law as well as say Janak Dwarkadas or Shiraz Rustomjee do. These people deal with only the law day in and day out, unlike corporate lawyers who spend more time with virtual data rooms.

Doesn't it look like that ever since the split of AMSS between the two brothers,CAM is just embroiled in one controversy after the other.I wonder if CSS worries about CAMs market rep? I wobder if this factors into clients choosing to stay or not stay with a law firm.Maybe it's because if CAM controversies that AZB is garnering deala so quickly rather than their technical expertise.

CAMs well known but frankly I don't believe it's due to CSS accomplishments or technical expertise.If anything,I think the best expertise at CAM is not legal,its the self marketing to the level of an art.And there is the never ending debate of which firm is better ,CAM or SAM.Both the firms accomplishments go to the advantage of the family firm being in the legal business for more than 100 years.

My vote from the current crop ..AZB...... could have been CAM,but I think CAM street cred has taken major hits after the firm name got connected/dragged/pulled into number of scams and cobtroversies............ILFS conflict issues and mind boggling scams with unending list of subs/grp cos , clean chit reprt to ICICI CEO that was withdrawn after CBI filed cases,the CBI raids finding thousands of docs related to Nirav Modi scam,recent spate of partner exits........AZB going from strength to strength on deal making front,my votes with Zi on technical and commercial parameters

Whoever bills does not necessarily kill. They're only killing themselves over the billings.

The one who kills does not necessarily bill. He kills and makes others bill.

Interestingly it is also the difference between a worker and an entrepreneur. "Killing it as an employee!" only means you're killing yourself for someone else.