The LOI was obtained by legal website Bar & Bench under an RTI request, and stated the intention for the BCI and Rainmaker to collaborate on conducting the AIBE.
The LOI also stated that the company would gain access to a database of all Indian lawyers who would have to enrol in a mandatory universal identification number (UIN) scheme, automatically signing them up to a website started by Rainmaker and offering them a free trial of its case management software.
But Rainmaker chief operating officer (CEO) Nikhil Chandra, who had signed the LOI alongside then-BCI-chairman Gopal Subramanium, told Legally India that the LOI was not binding and only delineated broad areas of future cooperation because the BCI was keen to work on continuing legal education (CLE) and the UIN programme.
The collaboration on sharing the UIN database and the CLE had never actually moved forward, he said.
At the same time as the LOI a separate memorandum of understanding (MOU) was entered into about the AIBE, that set out revenue shares between the company and the BCI, according to Chandra.
That MOU was not disclosed by the BCI under the RTI, but Chandra claimed that under the revenue sharing arrangement – by which Rainmaker was entitled to roughly 70 per cent of the Rs 1,300 sign up fees, coming to nearly Rs 5 crores in total over three exams – also stipulated that Rainmaker would have to bear all the costs of conducting the AIBE itself.
The LOI expired in January 2010, and Rainmaker’s AIBE contract ran out in March 2012.
A new contractor has since been appointed by the BCI to conduct the upcoming AIBE, scheduled for November 2012, for which fees were hiked by around 50 per cent.
Full disclosure & sponsored link: BarHacker.in is an bar exam preparation service with a 100% pass rate, that is jointly owned by iPleaders and Legally India.
Photo by comedynose
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Kian, maybe LI is trying to publish a full story by consulting all stakeholders, but even fans like me sometimes get the impression that LI has a soft corner for certain firms and organisations. It hits credibility.
Unsolicited advice: Sometimes, please think what impression your reporting (headline, coverage, words used, tone of message, quotes, timing etc) gives to the public. For example, the use of words "several years ago" and "sexy" in the recent Trilegal story has been a butt of jokes and given the impression that more credit was being given by the author than deserved. Or the way the Amarchand-CLB fiasco was reported. Public will draw conclusions from these things - people do not always analyse every angle but go by what is apparent. Try spotting what apparent message is being conveyed and correct the ones that tend to lower LI's credibility. All the best.
How did we exhibit a soft corner for Rainmaker, Trilegal or Amarchand recently?
The story about Trilegal, except for the headline, was fairly critical and pretty objective, despite revealing its new structure which is pretty revolutionary and 'sexy' within the Indian market. And Trilegal definitely was kinda young, 'sexy' and different, as far as this is possible for a law firm, in 2008. Since then they had become a bit boring.
I also fail to see how Amarchand's CLB fiasco was exhibiting any 'soft spot' - do read the comments and all three stories we did on that, which I believe together present a very full picture (and do feel free to compare to other coverage of this - or rather, the lack of any coverage, both online and offline in any other media).
In this case, I believe that the RTI story would actually have been inaccurate and misleading without reporting that the LOI was never implemented and was not binding. Rainmaker was the best and most interesting place to confirm this, particularly since they had been following a fairly closed-lip media policy for the past years. And it's not like this article is not critical of the LOI's term.
If 'the public' wants to 'draw conclusions', so be it, though I'm not entirely sure what. That sometimes some firms get good coverage, sometimes they get bad coverage, and sometimes they get none at all? We'll keep telling stories as accurately as possible, without bias as much as we can, and hopefully in an interesting and engaging manner.
And please, on another note, can the steady contingent of trolls stop alleging every other story is paid for by some firm? It is getting a little tedious. If something is paid for or otherwise sponsored, I promise, we will tell you or mark it clearly as a 'knowledge partner' or sponsored article.
Best wishes,
Kian
One note on 'soft corners': sometimes someone just trying to be objective or unbiased by giving all sides of a story the space to be heard, can make it seem like they have a soft spot, if popular opinion might be united in their hatred of a company, a firm, or organisation.
But journalist should try taking a critical view of popular opinion too sometimes, rather than just pandering to populism.
Take Rainmaker and the AIBE contract for example - although many questionable decisions were undoubtedly made, there wasn't any transparency, etc, I am not sure the company (and arguably the BCI of the time) deserved as much vitriol as was piled on it (perhaps mostly from people looking for a scape goat).
For us to have blindly joined in the 'bash Rainmaker party' (or the bash CLAT, SILF, AMSS, Trilegal, or any other party for that matter), would also have been wrong, no?
Best wishes,
Kian
GS and the BCI could argue that rainmaker was the only available firm to do this kind of work at the time. but BCI is a public body, not a private company or a club.
also rainmaker's plans seem to have fallen apart because they were too ambitious from the start. they should have focused on a few core areas instead of trying to expand into everything. they've bled cash for a while now and are seemingly under financial and managerial stress.
kian, could you help us explain what firms like rainmaker are actually doing today in the legal industry and where they are viable at all?
I believe Rainmaker has hived off its recruitment arm into a separate company. They are also in the education game and may also be working in future to attract more examination-type work on the back of its AIBE experience.
I have also heard that financially it's been rather tough for them (other than AIBE) and they've had a few of the founders part ways. But the recruitment arm has always been generating good profits though education has been less profitable so far.
Wait and see what happens, I guess.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first