I agree with this assessment. SAN’s speech at the townhall was just old wine in a new bottle! Once again SAN repeated how ELP was and is unique, is doing cutting edge work and has groomed so many good lawyers.

SAN took refuse in the past, repeated stories we have heard many times before: ELP’s Partnership deed was signed at the Fullerton Hotel in Singapore on Sept 6th, 2001. The four partners couldn’t take their spouses along to Singapore, but they promised themselves that they would meet there 10 years later at the same place, with their spouses, which they did!

SAN “remembered” how he worked with “tax” as they pivoted from VAT to GST. SAN said he has been working hard (on corporate deals) ever since he returned from his US trip. SAN did not mention a single ‘trade’ deal he did.

SAN promised that lawyers and not AI would be the decision makers at the new firm that he will soon cobble together.

The decision to split ELP was presented as one taken jointly by the Co-Founders and the departing TnT Partners, in the interest of everyone in ELP. It was reiterated that ELP is very profitable. In the last 5 months, ELP’s revenues were higher than what it was in the last 6 months of the previous financial year, which was the best year for ELP till date.

SAN: “Change is inevitable. Human beings came to dominate the world since we are the most adaptable. So, we need to change and adapt.” Darwin was quoted a few times.

The term sheet is ‘non-binding’ and there is no guarantee the deal will take place. Which means the term sheet HAS BEEN SIGNED, but SAN didn’t say so expressly.

SAN spoke for around 45 minutes.

Then RJ spoke. He recounted how on Sept 1st 2001, he started working for RSM as a CA. A few days later, he was ‘told’ that he would be moving to ELP. He asked what he, a CA would do in a law firm. RJ said that everyone at ELP would be ‘safe’.

What SAN did not say: That all those who move to the remnant law firm will be protected. That he will not try to create an ‘associate-lite’ law firm.

RJ has no business saying that everyone at ELP would be ‘safe’. SAN should have said that. SAN didn’t say that. All those moving to Dhruva WILL be safe – that’s obvious – unless they want to leave and they won’t be able to for 2.5 years since they will have a lock-in.

The High Tea that followed was entirely ‘vegetarian’. Until now, ELP’s dinning hall was multi-cuisine. Even the birthday parties held once a month would have a non-veg option. A sign of times to come?

RJ, please avoid mentioning again and again how RSM, a tax and accounting firm, created ELP as its “unofficial” legal arm. Also, once you are at Dhruva, please do not join or fund SILF, that evil organization. Instead, please persuade Ryan and Dhruva to lobby for a change in Indian regulations so that lawyers and CAs can work together.

Final verdict: Come Diwali, I will collect my 60% and run.

As an ex-employee of ELP, and having worked across three law firms, I can genuinely say ELP was the best place I've worked.

Many of my personal milestones also coincided with my time at the firm, which makes it even more special. It was easily the least toxic workplace I experienced, with minimal politics and a culture that genuinely let people focus on doing good work.

Always grateful for that phase.

It was a genuinely thoughtful gesture by ELP to recognise all 1,200 lawyers who have been part of its journey. I was glad to see my name on that list.

I've read a lot of negative comments, but my experience was different. ELP has been home to some of the finest legal minds in the country. Very few firms in country can say they have produced three Senior Advocates and two judges from their ranks.

It was a firm built on talent, hard work and merit, not family legacy or internal politics. That its journey had to end this way is deeply sad.

Thank you, ELP, for everything. You'll always have a special place in our hearts.

Rumours began with "Big news loading..."

by evening, every comment was a source.

The firm's future became the only case where nobody knew the course.

A simple litigator from Delhi arrived, dreams adjourned with perfect vanity. Then came SAN searching for sanity,

the thread lost both, oh what a calamity!

Someone got mean, the whole thread showed them their face instead.

Others still wondered, "Bhai, firm humein khilayegi kaise bread?"

CAs said "Tax is ours, don't claw!" with great fervour. Lawyers smiled, "Nice try... but tax is still law."

ELP’s current situation and SAN’s behaviour remind me of a fable. Once two woman went to a wise king carrying a baby. Each women claimed the baby belonged to her. The king said, let me cut the baby into two and give one half to each of you. One woman said, fine, ‘do it’. The other said, ‘no, please don’t. Don’t kill my baby. Let her have my child. ‘

I don’t see the three partners moving to Dhruva sticking together for long. Their style of working is very different. RJ and NS are diametrically opposite. RJ is a thinker and knows his stuff. NS is good at networking, but survived for this long since he was cultivated by SAN as a counter to RJ.

This comment demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the law and how it actually operates.

Please go ahead and file it. If you can't, then your comment had no substance to begin with.

Shouting A.K. Balaji doesn't make anyone a Fali Nariman or Indu Malhotra

The real concern here is not whether ELP “survives” as a brand. It is what happens to the people and practices left behind after the restructuring. If Tax/Trade is indeed moving out, the remaining firm needs to answer a far more fundamental question: what is the business model, leadership structure and growth strategy for the residual ELP? Associates cannot reasonably be expected to make career and financial decisions based on rumours while senior management remains silent. A firm may survive a partner exodus, but prolonged uncertainty inevitably affects retention, morale, compensation and client confidence. Transparency is now not optional, it is essential.

The respective parent Acts allow CA to appear and also to practice. Also CAs aren't on deed of firms so they are not partners but either employees or retainers. And as regard your 'concession' that it is not 'automatically' illegal to hire CAs, there was never bar, so don't color the thing as something which it is not (and learn to be honest) and there's no nexus of CA appearing before tribunal under the provisions of respective legislation permitting and their employment. And in any case, CAs can't appear in court. So there's no question about it. And no firm represents itself as a joint legal and accountancy practice. So where's the question of all this long comment being relevant?

If any decent and independent advocate reading this message (and all other messages in this conversation) has the time and energy, please send a letter to BCI pointing out how:

– ELP has been and continues to be a partnership of lawyers and CAs;

– ELP hires law students meant to be studying full-time, expecting them to bunk classes and work in ELP’s office;

– ELP employs CAs and involves them in the ‘practice of law’ as defined by the Supreme Court in A.K. Balaji.

– ELP’s Tax and Trade Team will soon be functioning as an independent law firm, but in reality owned and controlled by Dhruva Advisors, a CA firm, which is funded by Ryan LLC, a US accounting firm.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do this myself.

In Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018) 5 SCC 379, the Supreme Court of India held that foreign law firms and lawyers cannot practise law in India, whether in litigation or in non-litigious work such as advice, drafting or conferences, unless they comply with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, because only advocates enrolled under the Act may practise the profession of law. The Court treated “practice of law” as covering both courtroom and transactional work and therefore barred foreign firms from opening offices or liaison offices in India. It allowed a limited exception for genuinely casual “fly in and fly out” visits to advise clients on foreign or international law, provided those visits do not become regular practice, and it permitted foreign counsel to appear in India-seated international commercial arbitrations subject to Indian ethical standards and any applicable institutional or statutory rules. The Court left it open to the Bar Council of India or the Union Government to frame detailed regulations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in A.K. Balaji continues to be in force. It remains the leading authority on:

- - the meaning of “practise the profession of law” under the Advocates Act, 1961 (covering both litigation and non-litigious work such as opinions, drafting and conferences);
- - the rule that, unless another law provides otherwise, only advocates enrolled under the Act may practise law in India; and
- - the position that foreign lawyers and foreign law firms cannot practise Indian law, litigious or non-litigious, without complying with the Act and BCI Rules.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) permits practising CAs to form multi-disciplinary partnerships with members of certain other professional bodies, including advocates who are members of the Bar Council of India, under Regulation 53B of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (read with Clause 4 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949). ICAI even updated Form 18 in 2021 to facilitate such multi-disciplinary firms.

However, Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 (Rule 2 of Chapter III of Part IV, “Conditions for Right to Practice”) prohibit an advocate from entering into a partnership or any other arrangement for sharing remuneration with any person who is not an advocate. ICAI has itself advised its members not to take BCI-enrolled advocates as partners unless and until the BCI rules are amended. That restriction remains in force; In May 2026 the Sales Tax Bar Association made a representation to the Law Ministry and BCI requesting for a change in these regulations, but there has been no progress on that front.

Advocates may practise as sole proprietors or in partnerships/LLPs consisting only of other enrolled advocates. CAs and advocates can collaborate through referrals, consultancy arrangements, or (in some cases) fee-sharing that does not constitute a partnership under BCI rules, but they cannot operate as partners of one firm offering combined legal and accountancy services. Any such structure would expose the advocate to professional misconduct proceedings under the Advocates Act and BCI Rules.

I concede that it is not automatically illegal for a law firm to employ a chartered accountant as staff in a Trade Law practice if the CA does not appear before any court or tribunal. However:

A. if the CA holds a Certificate of Practice, full-time (or even part-time) employment with a law firm is not covered by the general permission in Appendix 9 to the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. That general permission covers only employment under a practising CA or a CA firm. Employment in any other organisation (including a law firm) requires the Council’s specific prior permission under Regulation 190A read with Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Taking up such employment without that permission is professional misconduct. If the CA surrenders the COP (or never held one) and works only as a member in service, Regulation 190A does not apply.

2. B. As per the Supreme Court’s ruling in A.K. Balaji (2018), “practice of law” includes non-litigious work such as opinions, drafting and conferences, not only court appearances. A salaried employment relationship, with the CA doing technical or analytical support (for example dumping-margin calculations, customs valuation analysis, trade-data work) and not holding out as a lawyer or appearing, is generally treated as support staff rather than a prohibited partnership or unauthorised practice of law. The arrangement becomes problematic if, in pith and substance, the CA is giving legal advice on Indian trade law, drafting legal submissions, or the firm presents the CA as part of a joint legal-and-accountancy practice. That could engage Sections 29/33/45 of the Advocates Act and the Balaji principle.

Trust this clarifies.

ELP’s website shows that its International Trade Practice has 3 Partners and 3 Associate Partners. Of these 6, 5 are pure lawyers/advocates. One Associate Partner is a CA and a lawyer.

Finally, much to our relief, we get an email late last evening outlining plans for ELP’s 25th anniversary celebrations. On Monday, Sept 7th, we will have a pooja in every ELP office (including the NOIDA office) at 11 am and High Tea, also at every ELP office (including the NOIDA office) at 4 pm. The actual anniversary falls on Sept 6th, which is a Sunday.

SAN, we expect you will make a speech outlining what the future holds for those not in Tax and Trade - including the support staff. Please broadcast your speech to all ELP offices (including the NOIDA office) through a VC.

You're simply an insecured ▮▮▮, who's afraid of competition and don't know the law. Joining a law firm as employee and practicing law are two very different things. And just to expand your knowledge, a CA can do everything which tax and trade team does, as permitted by all the relevant legislations. Only Courts are exclusive domain of lawyers. And despite your last para to CYA, it's pretty obvious that it's a personal comment and you're simply afraid of competent persons which you're trying to hide under a noble intent of trying to protect the legal profession, without even knowing what work can actually be termed as practice of law exclusively permissible to lawyers.

And re your point about CA firms, unlike your comments, number of CA firms have maintained a best friend relationship with law firms and vice versa. Look up other instances, by actually doing some work, instead making such comments which expose your lack of knowledge and understanding. Minds far more knowledgeable and experienced than you are would structure the deal so that the final structure is compliant with all regulations.

I’ve worked in ELP for over 4 years and did not know that Trade has non-lawyer CAs.

Let me repeat. Bar Council of India rules do not allow lawyers to partner with any non-lawyer, including CAs, just as Indian advocates are not allowed to partner with foreign attorneys or solicitors.

The two Co-Founders of ELP are prominent members of SILF which lobbies against the entry of law firms. ELP has been regularly contributing to SILF’s coffers so that SILF can resist the entry of foreign law firms. At the same time, ELP has been merrily hiring CAs, and not just in its Tax practice, but also in Trade.

By the way, we could use CAs in Corporate and Banking too, d’ya know?

I’m all for modifying BCI rules so that Indian advocates can partner with CAs and other professionals and also with foreign lawyers.
However, until the rules change, I would like to follow the law.

Come Diwali, once the 60% withheld bonus is in my bank account, I will leave ELP (God willing).

I assume the new law firm to be formed by the TnT partners, which will be controlled by Dhruva Advisors (in violation of BCI Rules) will also become a member of SILF and resist the entry of foreign law firms?

Your comment made me irrationally angry. What a base take. The trade team has had scores of non-law CAs. We need CAs for data work and some of them have tenures in ELP longer than your career.

Also, who are you to drag AB CD through the mud? Just because you add a caveat at the end does not mean that the rest of your comment is dripping with derision at the mere thought of this lowly non-law CA entering the law firm you had to get a law degree to get in. Get real and grow up.

I left ELP a few years ago and consider myself a well-wisher of all the lawyers there, save for the two ▮▮▮ Co-Founders and one of the ▮▮▮ Co-Heads. I think the most logical thing for the non TnT partners to do would be to leave and set up a law firm without the two ▮▮▮ Co-Founders who control the equity and have little billings. I know of atleast one relatively new law firm (whose name starts with an ▮▮▮, founded by an ex-AZB lawyer, whose first name starts with an ▮▮▮) which has VC funding. You could also get VC funding and start your own firm. Or, make the law firm asset light and make it a fully WFH law firm. Follow the 3L model – all partners are equity and make more than what they and their teams take home.

Chaps, please think out of the box. Don’t let the two ▮▮▮ ruin your careers. They almost ruined mine. Don’t wait to hit rock-bottom before you exit.

As an equity partner of the firm, I'm genuinely hurt. Since everyone is sharing their thoughts, I'll share mine too.

What hurts the most is not the decision itself, but the way it unfolded. We should have heard it from the firm's leadership, not from outsiders. The silence has been disappointing.

ELP has been a great firm and it's painful to see it reach this point. This wasn't a firm built only by RS and VN; it was built by many exceptional lawyers over the years. Back in 2008, it genuinely looked like it could become what Trilegal eventually became.

Much has been written about M.P. and less I say, the better. In these times, ELP needed a strong and pragmatic leader.

As for TNT:

RJ has the books and the client relationships. Time will tell if he can go one level up and what will the power equation in the new firm.

The trade practice, in my view, has never lived up to the stature it claims. I struggle to recall many marquee trade investigations where ELP was genuinely at the forefront, except recent Saudi investigation. There has certainly been plenty of visibility through webinars, but that is not the same thing as market-leading practice. Doing climate change webinars all the time, writing 'Customs' on bio doesn't really mean you are thought leader. The number of phishing scams that happen, any other IT head would have been fired.

On NS, I have reservations whether he could become a partner in any other firm ALONE. Jaa-kheer-kha.

Let's hope they are together - I have my doubts though.

I have two nagging worries and am sharing them here. Please let me have your views.

Like most Associates at ELP, after collecting the withheld portion of my bonus, I will probably scoot – provided, I get a decent job before that.

FIRST WORRY: What if, after announcing a split in the next few weeks, which will be effective from say, October 1st, the new law firm (SAN Sword Law) which will house Lit, Corp, RE, Employment etc., doesn’t pay me my bonus on Diwali? What if, after splitting monies amongst the departing partners and sharing the spoils from the ELP brand sale, there isn’t enough to pay the 60% bonus that has been withheld?

SECOND WORRY: What if, on October 1st or even earlier, I am asked to sign a new contract with SAN Sword Law which has a number of restrictive clauses? E.g. a 2 year lock-in? A requirement to spend 2 hours a day training an AI on “how to do what I do”??

MY PLAN: Immediately after the split is announced (say on Sept 7th during the 25th anniversary dinner party), I will write to HR and ask for an email confirmation that my 60% is safe in an escrow account. If the split is to be effective from October 1st, I will request that the 60% withheld amount should be paid to me on or before Sept 30th. Logic? When the bonus was announced in April, I was told that if I put in my papers before I received my withheld 60%, I would forfeit the 60%, even if I am still with ELP during Diwali. Now the shoe is on the other foot. If ELP ceases to exist or if ELP is undergoing a vertical split or if the entity that has to pay me my 60% during Diwali is not the general partnership named ELP that exists now and has my money, I want my 60% to be paid to me before the split becomes effective. If not, I will sue ELP immediately. Not that my retainer contract says this, but because it sounds fair and equitable to me.

I also want the interest on the withheld 60% to be paid. Logic? My retainer contract does not have a clause saying the withheld bonus amount will be paid without interest. It is silent and so, equity demands that I get the interest.

I may also demand interest on withheld bonus for the past years. Logic? If I can claim interest for 2026 and I win, then it means I should have been given the interest that was accumulated on my withheld 60% for the past n years. What do I have to lose?

Two questions for the wider audience:

1. Summary Suit under Order XXXVII or an ordinary civil suit?

2. Civil court or commercial court (assuming the claim + interest due is above Rs. 4 lakh)

If I am filing a suit, I will post an update here and also create a Sub Redditt. If anyone wants to join me, you are welcome. We can do it together!

Satyameva Jayade!

All isn't lost for ELP. If SAN were to come to his senses, it is still possible to save the firm.

Why is TaxnTrade wanting to be hived off? Because (i) TnT are the most profitable practices within ELP and they have been subsidising the rest. (ii) the two Co-Founders (SAN & Sword) hold the bulk of the equity and take home most of the profits, though they do not bill much but spend a lot on marketing themselves. The due diligence by Dhruva has been done with a lot of fanfare, drumbeating and is being unnecessarily prolonged, just to reduce ELP's brand value. Ultimately, whatever Dhruva pays SAN and the Sword for the ELP brand, will be based on its value, after the degradation that the brand is currently undergoing. SAN evidently doesn't want to play second fiddle to the TnT partners, the senior most of whom are around 10 years younger than him. However, he doesn't have a choice. Why is it that SAN and the Sword are unable to force Dhruva's hand and compel them to make an offer for the ELP brand right away? Because, there is no other buyer on the horizon. It's Dhruva or nobody and the TnT partners want an exit.

If SAN and Sword were to give up a decent percentage of their equity, if SAN could agree to cut down on his personal marketing (all those business class trips to various foreign jurisdictions to speak on topics he has little clue about), if RJ, NS and SN could be given more control over the management of ELP, TnT will probably stay on and will say goodbye to Dhruva . SAN and Sword's plan to set up a new company that will give AI services to the ELP rump that will be left behind after the TnT exit, to pay advisory fees to that AI company which will then become a unicorn from which SAN and the Sword will exit from at a huge profit and valuation, is just a pipe dream that only those who do not do actual legal work can nurture. It is also ruining the careers of so many young lawyers.

Please wake up and smell the coffee SAN-Sama and Sword-Sama!

It is sad that this is what it has come to. The fact that the support staff have to air their grievances in this manner shows a complete breakdown of leadership and HR communication. I do not recall any instance of support staff being constrained to use this forum in this manner. I hope they find their feet at other places. If any of the outgoing members can help them, please do.

The Funds team has quit, they are serving their notice and will be joining ELP's biggest competitor. Until very recently, it was very common for lawyers from this law firm to join ELP. How times change!

Good luck fellas, hope you find synergy at Cynergy!

Many more ELP partners have quietly stuck deals, but will leave only after collecting their balance (60%) bonus, which will be paid only by Diwali.

आम्ही सर्व सपोर्ट टीम सदस्यांची एक बैठक आयोजित करत आहोत - Accounts, Corp Comm, Admin, Secretarys. ही बैठक Google Meet वर होईल आणि सर्वांना आमंत्रित केले आहे, HR वगळता. सध्या HR ला सामील करू शकत नाही. आपण पुढील आठवड्याच्या मध्यभागी एका संध्याकाळी भेटणार आहोत. या बैठकीची अचूक तारीख आणि वेळ तुम्हाला WhatsApp द्वारे कळवली जाईल. सुहैल सर परत येण्यापूर्वी आपल्याला भेटणे आवश्यक आहे.
योजनेनुसार, सुहैल सरला विचारायचे आहे की तो आमच्याबरोबर काय करणार आहे. आपल्याला जर नोकरीमधून बाहेर काढायचे असेल, तर आताच हे माहिती असायला हवे आणि आपल्याला योग्य वेगळे होण्याचे पॅकेज दिले जावे. दोन महिन्यांच्या नोटीससह आपल्याला एक एक करून बाहेर फेकता येणार नाही.
आपण एकत्र उभे राहिलो नाही तर, आम्हाला वेगवेगळं मारलं जाईल.
आपण पुढील आठवड्यात निर्णयावर पोहोचलो तरी, आपण HR च्या सदस्यांना माहिती देऊ आणि ते आमच्यासोबत सामील होण्यास स्वागत आहे. जर Suhail सर आमच्या वाजवी मागण्यांशी सहमत नसतील, तर आपल्याला सर्वांनी एकाच वेळी काम थांबवायला हवे. किंवा कदाचित एका वेगळ्या कायदेशीर फर्ममध्ये मोठ्या प्रमाणात सामील व्हावे.
काही वकील पुढील महिन्यात होणाऱ्या २५व्या वर्धापनदिनाच्या साजरीकरणाचा बहिष्कार करण्याची योजना करत आहेत जर त्यांना तेव्हा तरी स्पष्टता मिळाली नाही. कदाचित आपल्यालाही त्यांच्यात सामील व्हायचं का?

Excellent. Did the Managing Partner brief the support staff too? I don't think he did. ELP has a decent sized HR team (4), Corporate Communications (6), Admin (3) and a number of secretaries (around 8). I assume none of them will move to Dhruva, except the secretaries of the three senior equity partners in Tax and Trade. After TnT leave, the Managing Partner plans to build an AI led firm which will be "asset light". I fear most, if not all the support staff, and a number of Associates in Corporate, Litigation etc. will be looking for jobs pretty soon after the break-up is officially announced.
inSANity!

Before he left, the Managing Partner briefed all Partners other than Tax and Trade Partners (in person for those in Mumbai and the rest over a VC) to explain to them what's happening now and what will happen in future. He made it clear that he will UNDERWRITE the future for everyone staying back for the next two years. He also said he HAS TO go to the US since his son who lives and works in NY is getting engaged. He can't miss his son's engagement ceremony, can he? If your reporting manager or partner didn't brief you properly on all this, ask him/her why?

Our Managing Partner is definitely SANe.

Under Bar Council of India rules, lawyers cannot form partnerships with Chartered Accountants or any non-lawyer. Here we have 50% of ELP breaking off to join Dhruva, a CA firm. Many of the breakaway lawyers are dual qualified - they are both lawyers and CAs. However, one cannot practice as a lawyer and a CA at the same time. Also, many lawyers in ELP's tax practice are NOT CAs. None of the lawyers in ELP's Trade team are CAs. All the non-CA lawyers from ELP who join Dhruva (including the Head of Trade) will be breaking BCI Rules though they may operate under a sham law firm (like PDA Legal) which will be owned and controlled by Dhruva. Someone will file a complaint with BCI, but nothing will happen. The Managing Partner of ELP and his fellow Co-Founder are leading doyens of SILF, and they will continue to lobby against the entry of foreign law firms. Am I the only one offended by this state of affairs?

Yesterday, I thought I would speak to the Managing Partner directly and get some SANity, since my reporting manager, a so-called "equity partner", is unable to, or will not, tell me jack. So I speak with the MP's seccy to get an appointment and would you believe it, the MP is out of the country for 3 weeks. One week down and two more to go. What a time to go on holiday! inSANity!

Hoping the Sword of ELP will save us all from oblivion!

Not even close. The real number offered to those not joining the merged firn is 40C. The issue is ST & SN want to take it all from themselves while the rest to the partners want a cut.

The partners joining the merged firm will have an earn out based payment.

Ironic that SN & ST are fighting over 40C - sure both Rohanbhai and Vikram are happy they no longer have to deal with the politics of these people - not to mention both Rohanbhai and Vikram are long rumored to be making 30C+ pa for several year now.

ELP is in crisis. Three senior equity partners, all of them in the Managing Committee, are moving to Dhruva Advisors. Two of these three are Co-Heads of ELP's tax practice, which is ELP's flagship practice. The 3rd partner co-heads ELP's Trade practice, which includes Competition Law. Essentially the Tax, Trade and Competition Law teams are moving to Dhruva. ELP's Managing Partner, let's call him SAN for the sake of sanity, is also a Trade and Competition lawyer, though his bio on ELP's page has a grandiose description - "His work is across M&A, regulatory, securities law, trade and competition laws". Of late, SAN has been pretending to be a litigator and speaking at ADR and Arbitration seminars and piling on with the corporate partners when they negotiate deals. If SAN could also move with the three partners who are moving (mind you, I don't think they want him), the second Co-Founder (let's call him Sword since he is sharp as a sword, though very lazy) will have a fighting chance to hold the rest of ELP and rebuild it. Maybe, T could take the Rest to the law firm that his father founded and has a very good name in the market?

Mere liye to tha bhai. I joined as an A0 and that was my main reason to come here instead of KCO. Maybe I was stupid, but I wanted to prioritize a decent amount of money with a good work life balance against a boatload of money with no work life balance. It helped me quit smoking.

If only “VIBES” were enough to take care of us in this tough economy. Don’t speak for us that we were okay with the pay cuts or whatever. I wasn’t at least. And has the bar become so low that having a non-toxic work experience could be traded with below industry standard and non-transparent pay?

Its because it was a less toxic firm. The vibes were good, the people were nice, work life balance was decent and it just felt like a law firm without the unnecessary toxicity of a CAM SAM. People were okay with the pay cut because all said and done at least we were not as miserable as other firms.

It is 100 percent the norm. Just compare salaries across teams and you will understand. They even offered signing bonuses (something thats unheard off) to several new joinees, while existing employees didnt even get their pay bands sorted. Pay is a complete black hole and the disparity is stark.

The pay structure at ELP is very uneven. At the same level, one attorney may be earning less than the other. They don’t have pay band systems for different PQEs/designations and are non-transparent about the level of pay at each level. Bonuses are uneven too. So, while one attorney may feel they are earning more, another one feels shortchanged. Brutal fact is, people know about it too, but god knows why they have stuck around at ELP.

It’s also reported by The Bar Bulletin https://thebarbulletin.com/elp-partners-restructuring-tax-trade-practice-separation/

Like the ▮▮▮ emperor dressed in invisible clothes,

He marched with a swagger and struck mighty poses.

The crowd smiled politely, applauded on cue,

While everyone quietly knew what was true.

And if this reminds you of any legend in particular...well, that's entirely between you and your imagination.

The fact remains the only thing of value that another firm would “acquire” is the tax practice that is market leading built by RS & the brand ELP which is derived from the value of the tax practice.

Everything else trade, litigation, corporate etc you can just acquire-hire at higher salary.

Sad to see how Suhail messed it up with his need to control despite not being a top 3 biller. If he had just lets the economics reflect in the management and let Rohit take over as RS’ rightful heir none of this would have happened.

This is true. Tax is merging with an Indian ▮▮▮ tax firm, not even a Big 4. Suhail's trade law team might go independent. Partners are currently fighting over the brand name and identity of ELP. It is sad what these guys have made out of a firm which was once very promising. This is exactly why Rohan Shah and Nankani should have left with a succession plan

recently left ELP after 4+ years of being around. the firm's values are equivalent to "penny-wise pound foolish", letting go of paralegals after 1+ year of dedication with a dangling promise of a PPO. Keeping you an assessment associate just to save on the revised pay.

For most of the lot that joined before the pay revision, they were promised during the interview that pay would be given at par with the other associates (that is the new pay) but bonus was forgone.

The firm thinks they're smart about their numbers and increment but they basically are just lying to you.

The increments, bonus and salary is not translucent, forget about transparency.

Good luck to the incoming batches!

The Legend of the "Simple" Tax lawywe
He dreamt of courts, of robes, of fame,
A litigator! his proud claim.
With confidence both bold and ample,
He'd always say, "Let's keep it simple!"
Yet every file grew twice its size,
With notes, annexures, and surprise.
The "simple" path we'd hoped to see,
Became a legal family tree!
When hearing day would finally come,
We'd think, "Today's the beating drum!"
But somehow fate would intervene...
"An adjournment!: the favourite scene.

But the point is ELP doesn’t give great annual increments. And the bonus is doled out in two tranches, 40% in April and 60% around October - a system that effectively makes it difficult for people to switch to a different firm because the amount of money locked-in till end of the year. I would rather have a system that at least offers decent increments and bonus in one go every year.

What will become clear again is that the only thing of value in ELP is the tax team that Rohanbhai built.

Suhail is an anomaly, the only MP of a large firm who is not in the top 3 billers at the firm - and never has been in ELPs 24 years. Just goes to show simply stepping into the shoes does not make one worthy of the shoes.