You're missing the point here. If you go to a senior, his opinion overrides T1s opinion. Hence, the firm would always say go with seniors view, if you've gone to a senior, else what even is logic of going to a senior? The firm can have its own view and senior may have different view, that's entirely possible. Just because they've different view, doesn't make firm's view wrong one. I've a personal experience, we went to a senior for a matter (because there was a straight adverse judgment against us, which was incorrect in our view). The senior was categorical in his view that no point in litigating but we still briefed him, went ahead with the litigation and ultimately won. So, no. A blanket statement is not correct.

Again this.

No - we are sitting and defending our profession before clients you lot disappoint. To be honest - we are disappointed too. My boss even spoke to some partners who quietly acknowledge the rot.

Client is now using investors foreign firm to vet every advise after provisions cited are wrong. That foreign firm must be now shopping from every lit team they know. Great job guys.

We still have our mandate and are due in court.

The advice is being given during litigation to start fresh litigation. We just had the client telling us they briefed the T1 firm. T1 now backtracked and said follow senior advocates advice.

It is obvious that some folks in T1s are trying to make fresh work to the commercial detriment of the clients themselves. You guys need to leave your egos and start calling a spade a spade.

I wish some folks here were around for the clients feedback on this. This wasnt some dumb cheap client; this is a client looking at USD 500 - 750 million valuation in this economy.

This is earning lawyers collectively a bad name. I would gladly refer clients to T1s but I would be careful which partner oversees the work and does the work. T1 badge is losing sheen.

Most of the time it won’t, and by the time it does the opinions are pretty irrelevant by that stage, unless the lawyers were in control at all stage of communications and actions with the counterparty till the balloon pops which is rarely the case.

None of the above applies to issues that are knocking at the gates of disputes, then it’s a different game altogether.

Standards are dropping fast is quite a statement to make. Backed by no evidence obviously, because T1s are securing advisory mandates at record pace these days. Like someone has mentioned below, the ability to secure mandates directly linked to T1 status because all big industry clients know that only we are capable of being trusted advisors and counsels to business.

Senior advocates think they are the cats whiskers and only they know the law. Unfortunately, you litigators have no interest in learning how business works (and we T1 lawyers have expertise in understanding business, which is why we are routinely approached for mandates). Please understand that T1 lawyers and partners main job is to keep clients out of the press/court, which is achieved in a stellar fashion. In litigation scenarios, this would obviously change. If it is in the clients interest to pursue litigation then litigation must be pursued.

If you really are an SA in the Disputes practice, you would know what the OP says is true. Opinions are often tailored to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion with a lot of creative thinking and interpretation to suit the client, to generate more work or both.

While this kind of creative thinking and strategy proposed in the opinions require merit and calibre, and could present an arguable case which your client would be willing to test, however, most arbitrators or judges would disagree with the opinion.

One off of it seems. I saw two the same day.

I can name the firms but it would get censored. One was a Mumbai T1 team fand other was Bangalore T1 team. Both cases the work was cross sold. Different POC and partner signing.

Entire briefing turned into a T1 bitching session from the clients side and chamber was the one left defending lawyers. Once they left my boss made enquiries as to who did the work on these.

Incredibly poor advisory work are being handed out. Its clearly coming out from kids and just signed by a partner without thought.The advise was almost ChatGPT-ish.

Wish I could post it here. Not for amusemenr but for some introspection. If I were T1 partners I would be damn careful cross-selling. Reputations are getting ruined in the market.

PS: Spent most of my career in a T1. The standards are dropping fast. The T2 and boutiques are giving much better work product even according to clients.

Law firm opinions are tailored to 'Client's requirements', which is usually 'optimised' to prevent heads from showing up on the chopping block should the shareholders/lenders make a fuss, so the language and the law is drafted and interpreted 'accordingly'.

It's a circle jerk of accountability.

Keep seeing Legal Opinions and advise given by T1s being thrown away during discussion with senior advocates in chambers.

Maybe desperate to hit targets and the need to convert advisory into full mandates but if you are advise is harmful for the client in the long run, before courts and commerically, you're a shitty lawyer. Its a gloomy time for big firms. But everyone is seething at how such opinions are being issued. India needs a regulator for advocates practicing effectively as soliciters.

Sometime the advise given is completely wrong in law. Sometimes the opinion is practically impossible to pursue. Some are openly self serving. Sometimes all three rolled into one. The clients are increasingly shocked to find they are victims of grifting. Many partners are issuing rather self serving opinions and advisory work. But its also getting noticed.

This was a situation where O&M is being pushed by a shady investor. Exit is offered. Valuation stalls. New foreign investors to replace him are spooked on account of existing litigation. The advice T1s are issuing is go for further deeper and protracted litigation. The company meanwhile suffers lowered valuations and T1s wants to milk it dry with extended litigatons.

PS: The due diligence that created the mess came with a T1 badge too albeit with so many assumptions and carve outs, the client said it was a waste of money too.