1. It is exclusive and we generally provide exclusives to subscribers first. 2. It's pretty big news with some new information, if you are interested in the Big 4, Advaita and the overall corporate legal market. 3. So you could comment underneath asking why. :)
Hi Noojie, thank you for the suggestion and coming back for royalties :). Indeed, I'm very sure your comment played a role in it. Glad you are liking it, have some fun and interesting things planned, always happy to hear suggestions or feedback.
The firm (or company) officially didn't supply a deal value, but a newspaper report did, so we have retained both. Maybe we could clarify the wording a bit in future - our system is still a work in progress... :)
Thanks, glad you're finding it an interesting project!
Luthra recently jumped in the tables since they agreed to submit their deals in the last few days. The deal dates of each of their included deals should be listed in the right-hand column of their table: https://www.legallyindia.com/db/firm/L%26L_Partners
But yes, as long suspected with all league tables, this definitely proves that league tables are very much also a function of good PR and submissions.
However, we have endeavoured to make the submissions process as easy and transparent as possible, to enable even partners or team members to submit deals directly. I think that's why a lot of smaller firms are also represented in our table. I hope this representation of mid-size and smaller firms will continue to increase in the tables.
That's kind of hilarious actually. And more power to him, if he has the enthusiasm to sit through the exam every year. If he's paying his CLAT fees and not taking away someone else's place, don't see why it's a problem...
I generally think it's pretty nice if law firms give credit to partners or associates who put in some time on a deal (even if it sometimes makes the list a bit unwieldy).
It seems highly unlikely that this was PR on Khaitan's part, since Haigreve refused to disclose the figure and we had to confirm it from a number of off-record insider sources... If it were any other way, law firms would be falling over each other to share their revenues.
To be honest, from the outside at least, perhaps for the reasons mentioned in comment 10.1.1 above, Nalsar seems like it is one of the better-run NLUs and Prof Mustafa seems to be a better VC than most... Happy to hear story suggestions though, if you think there's something that should be covered...
It's a bit of a grey area, to be honest and I don't have a clear answer. I agree, perhaps calling out offenders by name would be fair, though we have generally erred on the side of caution of conserving privacy, in respect of any students who are not convicted by a court of law. Sometimes university processes are not super robust, and it's difficult to decide on a case by case basis whether such a conviction is strong enough to warrant potentially negatively affecting a young person's life (even if they are/were a ragger) for a long time.
Yes, there should be personal responsibility, even if you are only 20-something years old or so, but to some extent there is also the hope that raggers can reform and learn from their mistake (as this order seems to also suggest, by not outright expelling the student permanently). Happy to take feedback though. Like I said, it's a grey area.
Thanks for your feedback, though you should perhaps also see comments about Luthra that don't get published, before making a comparison. Generally, criticism of individual partners' managing styles or the way a firm operates are ok in comments. Highly personal negative comments about such a managing partner, completely outside of their professional sphere, are generally not. But at the end of the day, some firms simply attract more such 'feedback' than others.
Very good point, well spotted. Our information was attributed and came from Bar & Bench back then also - I guess 'equity' back then isn't the same as equity now? Or Dua said it was equity back then, because they had been equity partners in their own firm, but maybe equity wasn't fully ready yet? Will reach out and see if I can confirm...
Just had a look - most unpublished comments are actually negative comments about the firm, plus two or so comments about the person that are personal, that we would not have published in any case.
This comment had just been reported as naming individuals, so I wanted to share reason for not moderating. In short, it's not pretending to make a credible claim about someone leaving or sharing insider information, but seems to be merely making a rhetorical point. For what it's worth, we have no information that Khansaheb is looking to leave any time soon.
Sorry for the delay. You appear to be correct, have done a quick cursory search of our database: PLR acted for the state of West Bengal 321 times, out of a total of 613 Supreme Court appearances in 2018.
That is excluding any potential matters for PSUs that don't have Bengal in their name. Have updated the article with this note.
The DSK was the most recent and arguably most relevant of these re this story, taking the only remaining management committee partners out of the firm and going after both core corporate and projects practices of the firm.
Thanks for pointing out. Have checked in with PLR and added the following to the story: Quote:
Fourth-ranked PLR Chambers & Co is the AOR firm that is part of PLR Chambers, which was started by former Amarchand policy partner Suhaan Mukerji in 2013. "I am focusing on litigation as the next phase of growth after setting up the firm because litigation compliments a regulatory and policy practice very well," he explained, noting that the firm had cases in the Supreme Court for clients such as Tik Tok. "Also given our regulatory practice has an all India footprint we are able to also cover litigation down to the district level across India. The development of the litigation practice all India has been driven by me and Astha Sharma, Harsh Gursahani, Amit Verma and on the criminal and white collar crime side by Ravinder Singh and Chitralekha Das, all of whom are supported by their teams."
A bit late, but thanks for sharing, had missed those two - I think it was the name change that had screwed up my search for joiners and leavers in our archives...
It's merely pointing out that with the SC track record on SH, coupled with the press conference bench, presented a real risk that a fair process would not be followed... No one has pronounced anyone guilty.
Maybe the commenter at 11.2 means annually? Hard to say and establish actually, unless checking every one of 20-odd NLUs' and other major universities' websites (most of which are likely out of date).
2. It's pretty big news with some new information, if you are interested in the Big 4, Advaita and the overall corporate legal market.
3. So you could comment underneath asking why. :)
Luthra recently jumped in the tables since they agreed to submit their deals in the last few days. The deal dates of each of their included deals should be listed in the right-hand column of their table:
https://www.legallyindia.com/db/firm/L%26L_Partners
But yes, as long suspected with all league tables, this definitely proves that league tables are very much also a function of good PR and submissions.
However, we have endeavoured to make the submissions process as easy and transparent as possible, to enable even partners or team members to submit deals directly. I think that's why a lot of smaller firms are also represented in our table. I hope this representation of mid-size and smaller firms will continue to increase in the tables.
Always happy to hear your feedback.
Looks like they've done quite a few deals on the corporate side - at least 44 in FY 2018-19, according to our league tables: https://www.legallyindia.com/db/firm/L%26L_Partners
A few more are still being added...
Sadly, that's not the case (yet?) in India.
To be honest, from the outside at least, perhaps for the reasons mentioned in comment 10.1.1 above, Nalsar seems like it is one of the better-run NLUs and Prof Mustafa seems to be a better VC than most... Happy to hear story suggestions though, if you think there's something that should be covered...
Yes, there should be personal responsibility, even if you are only 20-something years old or so, but to some extent there is also the hope that raggers can reform and learn from their mistake (as this order seems to also suggest, by not outright expelling the student permanently). Happy to take feedback though. Like I said, it's a grey area.
That is excluding any potential matters for PSUs that don't have Bengal in their name. Have updated the article with this note.
Quote:
It's been updated now, thanks for pointing out :)
But yes, also true, it'd require quite a bit of legwork but hopefully will get around to it some time...