Sorry you feel that way, but maybe, with all due respect, you have an oversensitive palate?

Nowhere is it suggested that him moving in-house is a disaster for Luthra, but the fact remains that Luthra needs more partners in its corporate practice, as borne out by independent league tables and the string of partner exits in the area.

I am aware, however, that some people in the firm would prefer if we ignored that point (or any negative coverage of the firm).

It really is a bit strange. I don't see so many complaints on any other firm stories. First, none of the story made out that this individual move was a deathblow for Luthra, it was primarily about his new role as GC and the firms Azure works with, which is relevant and newsworthy. I am checking re his WG designation, which was from his Linked-in profile.

That said, while by itself any one partner corporate departure at Luthra has maybe not impacted the corporate practice hugely, in combination it has very clearly contributed to the firm's massive decline in independent corporate league table rankings as well as third-party rankings such as RSG (for at least 2 years running). Luthra may never have been a corporate power house, but it's inability to build a big practice there has very obviously caused it to slip in its position amongst the Top 7.

I am not making any of this up, and unlike at other firms, whenever there is the slightest negative news, Luthra folks seem to repeatedly want to shoot the messenger in comments or in private (which, I believe, the management happily encourages).

Finally, if all that narrative above is incorrect, I always give the firm an opportunity to comment, which they have not chosen to take advantage of for a long time now.

If you want news articles to paint a pretty picture of Luthra, I can not be expected to keep digging for positive facts or make up glowing angles (besides mentioning, as I did, what we have previously reported, such as Luthra's recent corporate hiring). I can also not be expected to express an unsubstantiated positive opinion, pretending that no one else has left its corporate practice, and somehow sneak those into an article.

However, as I've said previously, I would certainly be happy to include quotes from the firm in every relevant article, which would provide more balance to news about the firm. Just look at how Trilegal's Rahul Matthan handled (or, if you want to be critical, you would say 'spun') the negative news of closing the Hyderabad office: www.legallyindia.com/lawfirms/trilegal-latest-to-be-baffled-by-hyderabad-to-close-office-gracefully-after-partner-pavan-kumar-exits-20180129-9060

But whether Luthra chooses to do so, is pretty much out of my hands, as I've had lots of behind-the-scenes discussions and made plenty of overtures to the firm on that front that have not taken up, very clearly intentionally.

I understand he was principal associate and corporate head in Delhi after he moved there from Bombay. I don't think Wadia Ghandy would have printed it on business cards and the like, but de facto I don't find it hard to believe that he was that, with WG not having had a huge Delhi office.

Have updated the story in any case that he was also PA.

I'm glad you're happy, I'm also happy :)

But then, on behalf of all Luthra peeps, please don't complain all the time that our coverage doesn't trumpet how amazing Luthra is, because we literally do not get told that by anyone except irate anonymous commenters.

Hmm, I believe it was literally responding to your (or another Alias') comment directly above who claimed to be talking "on behalf of all Luthra peeps".

Sigh, irony seems wasted on this generation, clearly.