Amarchand is the fourth major Indian law firm to have made it (mostly) mandatory for fresher recruits to rotate between different departments for the first eighteen months. J Sagar Associates (JSA) and Khaitan & Co too swear by it; Trilegal was less enamoured. Is it the new standard or just a fad?
Amarchand Mangaldas has completed the first phase of its trial of rotating associates joining from college between departments every six months, following J Sagar Associates (JSA) and Khaitan & Co, which evolved a similar model from over two years ago.
“I wouldn’t be surprised at all,” comments Khaitan Mumbai partner Rabindra Jhunjhunwala on the gaining popularity of the UK-style associate training model.
“When you talk about rotation you’re talking about launching young professionals’ careers,” he explains, while Amarchand Mumbai partner Vandana Shroff notes that “the rotation policy helps our young associates network across the firm. One doesn’t feel lost.”
“[The associates] are too young and they should get some inkling of other areas of law,” adds JSA Mumbai partner Dina Wadia, admitting that in terms of format the firm had closely mirrored the “UK magic circle training contract period model”.
 However, Trilegal aborted the rotation experiment last year in April 2012 after almost three years of practicing it. Trilegal Delhi partner and co-founder Anand Prasad says that the experiment didn’t prove to be “good enough” for the firm.
Different strokes
Amarchand and Khaitan rotate associates between three seats for the first 18 months after they join, while JSA associates change four times during their first two years at the firm. When the system existed at Trilegal, associates were required to practice with three teams in their first year.
At Amarchand the seats must fall into the firm’s “three broad buckets”, as Mumbai partner Vandana Shroff puts it: litigation, corporate, and banking and finance.
At Khaitan litigation is the compulsory seat out of the three. JSA allots the seats according to requirements of existing teams, although Wadia adds that “we also want a corporate lawyer to do non-corporate work and get a gamut of experience instead of a narrow-focussed tunnel vision”.
Jhunjhunwala observed that for the rotation system to work it was important that a law firm has clearly demarcated practice areas and dedicated teams serving each of those areas. “We don’t have a corporate partner giving tax advice.”
The rules of musical chairs
Amarchand makes it clear on campus that its rotational policy is mandatory across all offices and associates’ preferences for teams are only indicative, although there is scope for exception.
“Let’s say, out of an intake of 10, one is very sure that they want to do litigation. We try to adhere to that. We place them in the litigation practice area for two out of their three rotations and that’s where they will eventually get placed at the end of the program,” says Shroff
“We have seen very strong cases, which usually happen with [intellectual property] lawyers or litigation lawyers, who in their third or fourth year [of law school] make up their mind and one has to respect that ultimately,” she explained, adding that the rules were also flexible where some associates got used to certain mentors and proved to be “a perfect fit for that team”, and it wasn’t necessary in such situations for them to move to all three seats.
Jhunjhunwala said: “Whether partners want it or associates, you have to understand that it is a very formalised process. You have to do your three seats. [The] firm’s short-term needs do not influence the rotation schedules.”
At all the three ‘rotation’ firms, the team an associate joins at the end of the rotation is a decision that is subject to “market requirements”.
“A lot depends on the team size and what the market wants. If everyone wants to get into capital markets, that can’t obviously happen,” says Shroff.
Jhunjhunwala adds: “It’s a possibility that they don’t get their first choice. If 20 people want tax we don’t have enough work and space for 20 two year PQEs in the tax team.”
The prize
“Partners didn’t like the rotation business. At the end of that one year period the partners’ experience was that [the associate] is almost like a fresher,” said Prasad about Trilegal’s three-year but ultimately unsuccessful engagement with the system.
English models
In the UK trainee solicitors are usually required by the profession’s regulator to work in four departments for six-months each before they can qualify as lawyers.
This would have followed three years of an LLB undergraduate and one year of the Legal Practice Course (LPC) (or an additional year if the undergraduate was not law).
Salaries for Magic Circle and London-based US firms’ trainees usually begin at between £37,000 and £41,000 (Rs 33 lakh to Rs 37 lakh per year according to UK law student magazine Lawywer2B.
Jhunjhunwala admits that this is a concern. “I dare say that any of our associates who have done a rotation feel [they’re] still a fresher. If that happens then the whole purpose of rotation has been lost. We are investing a lot for their professional development.”
“We have taken this two year model on the basis of what was done in the UK magic circle firms,” says Wadia, but Prasad disagrees about the economic advantage of adopting this in India. “In India you don’t have trainees while the English system has trainees. Trainees [in the UK] get paid much lesser [than retainers]. Here we don’t have the comfort of paying much lesser also. At the end of the year it would not be very productive. Although they would’ve had multiple experiences but it would not be good enough.”
Wadia however, notes that during the first two years the firm doesn’t focus on how much revenue associates have made. “They should not be worrying themselves about that. We are doing a disservice to our young graduates if we don’t give them rounded experience. That is where [this model] came from.”
**The bug bears
Almost all law firm HR policies are, infamously, double-edged swords, this no exception. As such, this one too could cut both ways.
Jhunjhunwala adds that for “anyone who wants to specialise right after graduating from law school, the first thing as a mentor you need to tell them is that you can’t specialise from the first day”.
And for some associates, who consider an LLM after one year of joining a law firm a “rite of passage” according to Wadia, greater CV specialisation afforded by a non-rotating traineeship would be preferable.
However, Shroff claims that 18 months are “not going to make a difference in a long career”.
“On the contrary, exposure to multiple practice areas and focused training will make better lawyers out of our young associates and propel them on a faster career growth in the longer run.”
The race is on.
Photo by marya
Comments
You may have made the decision of what you would like to do during internships, but honestly, do you think you were exposed to the real practice of law during your internship? Does researching case law or regulatory notifications, or even going for meetings or diligence, really inform an intern what the practice of corporate, finance, capital markets, IPR, tax, etc. is? Until one really practices, how would one know the true flavour of a practice area? I loved finance as a youngster and words like asset finance, project finance, structured finance, syndicated lending, bridge loans, revolvers, refinancing, ring fencing, EBIDTA, IRR, etc. made me think that finance is awesome and requires the best legal minds! I realized much later that finance is nothing fancy, involves standard form documents and there isn't much scope for being a legal eagle most of the time!
Rotation is a great idea, but going by the views of some of the partners mentioned in the article, they either do not understand the philosophy behind rotation or they are not comfortable with the slow development of "specialization" since that tends to have an adverse impact on revenues. It will be meaningless to have these rotations until the partners understand that the long-term idea is to develop the lawyers in a more rounded and holistic manner and short-term issues really cannot drive institutional decisions.
As they say, a politician thinks of the next election and a statesman thinks of the next generation. I guess our leaders will continue to operate with a short-term view and the next generation will never be the criteria for decision making.
I am pretty sure that each Associate pays for himself/herself during the stint at the firm. What you dismiss as "educational experience" and thus not worthy of attention happens to be a very crucial time for any fresher. I cant think of any fresher who is not made to do the dirty work (for good reason) and made to stay for insanely long hours. Stop portraying it as if the law firms are doing a huge favor by giving them jobs. As you said, its a business after all, and everyone is just chipping in for a slice of the pie.
"Which area a law school grad wishes to pursue is something he/she knows mostly (no one is naive)" -
A lot of us "think" we know what we want to practice, but our decisions are hardly based on real experience. How does one know whether he/she would enjoy marking up facility agreements more than marking up project documentation? The mark-ups require different kind of preparation. Negotiating M&A reps is very different from negotiating financing covenants.
"Moving people every 4-6 months in different teams, only adds to nuisance" -
If the senior lawyers can be a bit patient and accommodating, and welcome the young associates for a stint in their team, it won't be so much of a nuisance. The problem is that most lawyers have zero patience to teach youngsters because they are pressed for time or lack the mindset to help others. Young corporate lawyers like us are a bit shallow and selfish, which is corroborated by our view that moving young associates for their development is a nuisance and causes no good.
"one really doesnt need to learn all styles" -
The more you learn, the better you get at handling different kinds of people.
" If one is keen to learn, there is always scope. This aint a school that you mandatorily want someone to pursue litigation for 4-6 months. What much can you learn in 3-6 months in any case." -
I agree with you here. Yes, there is always scope to learn. Rotating provides more scope. However, it does not smell great to have mandatory areas; but then, if things weren't mandatory, some of us would have skipped tax law in lawschool and never appreciated the basics. You can't learn much in 3 months, but 6 months is enough to have a very basic idea about a practice.
Hopefully, the experiment works out!
I think such move by any firm should be welcomed. Atleast the intent of developing a new joinee's skill set rather than just seeing them as fee earners is commendable. Only goes to show the willingness of these firms to adopt international best policies. Of course, in the event, for whatever reason, such policy doesnt work for a particular, they will cease to practise it. As did Trilegal.
However, not even trying to adopt it, despite having the resources is only a unidimentional mindset, which I'm glad to see that these firms are moving out of.
Gone are the days of making partner in 6-7-8 years (atleast in big firms). So, the 1.5 years spent rotating doesnt really matter in the big picture. Also, gives an opportunity to these new associates to chose their practice area rather than just being dumped into one.
The move is definitive positive.
However, the bigger point is: I miss the free drinks, special training-session cookies, gym and the swimming pool :)
i) I have been seen freshers quit the organisation cause they were clear what practice area they wanted to be associated with from day one.
ii) There have also been situations wherein a fresher was asked to leave the organisation cause of performance issues in "A" practice area, notwithstanding the fact that this person did not like "A' practice and was interested in "B" practice area.
I believe that the rotation policy should be optional and not compulsory.
Of course, there are people who would say associates must learn be thrown at the deep end of the pool and learn to swim there. But as Buffett said, you know who is swimming naked only when the tide dries out. Right now lot of people are swimming naked in Indian law firms.
Also, the comparison with the TC is entirely flawed! Just because there is rotation doesn't make this like a TC at all! To all those here who have done a TC and are recommending this system based on that, think about whether seniors in Indian law firms spend the same amount of time and effort training juniors here as they did when you were on a TC. Do junior lawyers here have the same amount of time given to them to learn as they do on a TC? I think you'll find that the first two years at Amarchand are far more profit oriented than the first two years at even a magic circle firm (partly because trainee time isn't charged the same way, partly because the TC is a statutory requirement.
Frankly, this appears to be just a retention strategy on the part of Amarchand. For a firm that hasn't raised A0 salaries in 3 years, and has salaries across the associate board at significantly lower levels than Trilegal and SnR, it has figured that the only way it can get to 1000 lawyers is if it dries up the dozens quitting every year despite having been there for only 1-2 years. All these guys are less likely to quit if the experience they have in a particular area isn't enough for a better job elsewhere, an LLM app, or branching out on their own.
And really, networking within the firm!!! If that's the primary benefit that a senior partner of the firm implementing this move sees, then there's definitely something wrong
AMSS, if you really want to keep the best talent, hire more from the top National Law Universities, pay better (at least be comparable to the highest paying firms, not 20K pm less), and then people might take your attempts at rotation seriously.
Till then, let freshers network over coffee, or while waiting for the elevator.
Also, the comparison with the TC is entirely flawed! Just because there is rotation doesn't make this like a TC at all! To all those here who have done a TC and are recommending this system based on that, think about whether seniors in Indian law firms spend the same amount of time and effort training juniors here as they did when you were on a TC. Do junior lawyers here have the same amount of time given to them to learn as they do on a TC? I think you'll find that the first two years at Amarchand are far more profit oriented than the first two years at even a magic circle firm (partly because trainee time isn't charged the same way, partly because the TC is a statutory requirement.
Frankly, this appears to be just a retention strategy on the part of Amarchand. For a firm that hasn't raised A0 salaries in 3 years, and has salaries across the associate board at significantly lower levels than Trilegal and SnR, it has figured that the only way it can get to 1000 lawyers is if it dries up the dozens quitting every year despite having been there for only 1-2 years. All these guys are less likely to quit if the experience they have in a particular area isn't enough for a better job elsewhere, an LLM app, or branching out on their own.
And really, networking within the firm!!! If that's the primary benefit that a senior partner of the firm implementing this move sees, then there's definitely something wrong
AMSS, if you really want to keep the best talent, hire more from the top National Law Universities, pay better (at least be comparable to the highest paying firms, not 20K pm less), and then people might take your attempts at rotation seriously.
Till then, let freshers network over coffee, or while waiting for the elevator.[/quote]
S&R and Pathak might be paying more but nobody else does. AMSS pays comparable salaries to all the rest and provides the best branding and training in the market. Please check your facts before writing rubbish on a public forum.
But forget relative scales, on an absolute scale, its not cool that the batch of 2010 got paid the same amount when they started as the intake of 2013, is it? The least you could do was account for inflation!
I agree that AMSS provides the best branding in the market currently. But just like the top national law universities, the best branding will only get you so far. And AMSS does not provide anywhere near the best training in the market. Anybody who says that is kidding themselves or fooling someone else.
Again, if the only thing you picked up from my comment was that AMSS pays comparable salaries, you clearly missed my point. Even if they did (and they don't) if the motivation behind this rotation is "networking within the firm" and "not feeling lost", there's something very very wrong afoot.
I'm all for rotation when done well, and for the right reasons. Neither of those two conditions is met at AMSS, for rotation, or indeed for most things.
While I also agree, generally, on interns, the problem with the intern standard is that it is invariably skewed in favour of the colleges which have zero attendance requirements, which are, by and large, the worse colleges otherwise (because people can intern whenever they want and end up interning more, however they may not actually be better). There are so many examples of someone interning at biglaw as a first year student because of some contact, doing semi-passable work, and then interning there 6 more times in the next three years, before finally being interviewed and getting a job. Half the reason that their work appears better is because its formatted in house style or something equally silly.
I think that several national law university stamps (with reasonably high grades and a writing sample or two) are sufficient to demonstrate work ethic and quality. And then you interview people, and base decisions on that. The set of people who can intern at a firm is very limited when compared to the entire law graduate world, and it is also skewed towards the average-below average part of the law graduate world.