+1. I firmly believe that out of all top top SC lawyers, Singhvi is the most well-briefed one who actually pleads on facts and points of law as opposed to simply attempting to steamroll the opposition. Sibal is probably the most ill-prepared and is now known for being someone that is quite ineffective.

Unrelated, but this is a classic case of missing the woods for the trees.

Rohatgi never made that statement to mock Siddharth Dave but to prove himself. Dave made an observation about Rohatgi's spent energy in just two matters, and this is when Rohatgi counters, saying that I am used to doing 15 cases, not 2. The last bit of the statement regarding 2 hearings was never intended towards Dave. However, Dave also ended up clarifying that 'I am also used to doing 15 matters' - which is a true fact. So, in my view, nothing more than two seniors trying to get the upper hand over each other without mocking each other.

A system that treats such “my dick is bigger than yours” arguments favourably is not a system for intellectuals or critical thinkers.

It is for this very reason that many of our brightest minds either move abroad or gravitate towards transactional practice. Even the transactions space is mostly led by Nepos, although comparatively receptive to capability and talent.

The litigation landscape in Delhi and the Supreme Court is rife with nepotism, patronage and mandates that circulate within close-knit, elite circles.

The exceptions simply make the rule.

MG, AK, GSanks, KN, ST and DK are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the status quo, and I worry because we take the likes of KN and GSanks more seriously than we ought to. I can back this claim with receipts.

You sound like someone who is part of litigation in Delhi for atleast a few years. It takes time for alot to realise and learn these facts from their senior. I would like to connect with you to discuss more about litigation and career in litigation, if that works with you; drop your spam mail!

This is more the fault of the system than it is Rohatgi's fault. We have a massively overburdened system where huge high stakes decisions get made disproportionately at the admission/mentioning/interim injunction stage, in minutes, and often seconds. This artificially increases the value of fast-talkers with known faces who can get favourable orders quickly and Rohatgi is just filling that niche (there has also been a massive centralisation of power in the Supreme Court vs the High Courts, compared to the 1950s and 1960s etc which also encouraged this trend).

The man gets results for his clients - you can't blame him for that. If we had a system with fewer cases being decided at the SC and the SC actually having the time to reward proper preparation and knowledge instead of instant decisions - people like Rohatgi would either vanish or have to actually start preparing.

And that DOES happen - I've personally seen Sibal being completely destroyed in a final hearing in a regional High Court by an unknown local senior. Everyone was in awe when Sibal actually came down from Delhi and graced our local court. But in a final hearing, once it went past the initial 5 minutes it was obvious he hadn't prepared and didn't know what he was talking about and the other senior had read everything and knew everything about the case, and he won pretty easily. (Some of these top guys are also embarassed in international arbitrations for similar reasons, but those are not argued in public, thankfully for them).

No they don't. It's a different court structure and a different business model.

It's like owning a coffee shop where you have to sell 500 cups of coffee a day to make a profit on the volume, versus a fancy restaurant where you can serve 50 meals at higher prices and make a profit. Almost all lawyers in India (law firms, seniors, etc) run a volume business, even though the fees for individual hearings by seniors can be very high.

Top UK lawyers (The USA has a totally different model, let's not get into that) don't run a volume business - it's closer to the fancy restaurant.

It's not better or worse - just different, and depends on what you want to achieve. Also about 10% of UK barristers are KCs (seniors), whereas less than 1% of Indian advocates are (it's not a perfect comparison because Indian advocates includes lawyers who do the solicitors jobs as well, but the point there are are fewer senior advocates compared to UK KCs is valid).

Also UK courts handle far fewer cases, and there is no high-stakes admissions matters at high volume but low time requirement, so the need for that skill is non existent.

Basically if you want someone who can go in depth and know the law and your case very well and argue it, you'd wwant a UK lawyer. If you want someone with vast advocacy experience who is very quick on his feet and good at persuading judges in short hearings (especially Indian judges) and doesn't need to know the details well, you probably want an Indian senior.

He can argue 15 cases a day because he reads no papers and depends entirely on briefing lawyers and client instructions. There is always someone standing behind him to tell what to say. He has the face value and gets favourable judgments.

Whereas lawyers like Siddharth Dave work hard on their briefs and can therefore only do limited no. of cases in a day.

Rohatgi has just been lucky to have a judge as father and friends like Arun Jaitley and Rian Karanjawala. So, instead of mocking others he should just be thankful to God.

Sorry for not answering the exact question.

He actually said that to mock Siddharth Dave in court: "I am used to arguing 15 cases a day, not 2".

But it would be interesting to know if the top lawyers in the UK and US do that?

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaXwk3OOlbw/