Foreign law firms too have had a bumper year in India, with the vast majority of public instructions linked to their relationships with their marquee private equity clients, which were very hot on India this year. We have ranked the top 13 firms that had at least two India mandates with deal values attached, signifying transactions with a significant India element.

The proof of most things lies in the pudding, and for a good corporate lawyer, your pudding begins and ends with the kind of work that clients entrust you with.

Equity capital markets (CM) can be a tough practice area for a law firm to manage. When the going is good and the markets are booming, it seems like there aren’t enough lawyers to handle the work; when the capital markets go to sleep, utilisation and profits plummet.

At least 17 insolvency deals under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code brought significant work to Indian law firms in our tables in the 2018-19 financial year, with deal values of $20.5bn.

“M&A is the mainstay of any small or large corporate firm’s practice,” states Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas Delhi corporate partner Amit Khansaheb, one of the InLegal 50’s top dealmakers of the financial year 2018-19. “M&A is always happening – bear or bull market – although valuations may differ, expectations may vary and people may put off plans from time to time,” he adds.

To some extent it’s understandable: for years, the Indian legal profession – particularly litigation – has been dominated by men, and most of the new law firms that rose in the nineties and noughties were headed by men. The (generally) male managing partners would often be busy trying to capture market share and executing the work; worrying about whether female lawyers were given the same opportunities as the men was for many an afterthought, if that.

A law firm is only ever as good as the collection of its partners. And (nearly) all top transactional partners will be quick to tell you that they are only as good as their team. The analysis that follows is therefore a recognition not just of individual partners’ rainmaking and execution abilities, but also a testament to leadership and teamwork from everyone involved.

A major part of Legally India’s core mission has always been transparency. When we first set up in 2009, the domestic legal market was largely shrouded in secrecy and could be understood only by tapping into an arcane flow of information and rumours spread via professional networks.

Following the establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1992, India and Israel have enjoyed a fruitful partnership. Bilateral trade between the countries has been strengthened on the basis of mutual interests in defense, security, agriculture, IT and other sectors. Accordingly, the economic relations have steadily grown since, from $200m (diamonds and defense excluded) in 1992 to approximately $1.94bn in 2018.

Increasingly Ireland has proven to be the domicile of choice for asset managers seeking to establish investment funds investing in India which can be marketed to European and global investors.

The United States and India should view one another as important strategic business partners regionally and globally. With a common legal system of British heritage, democratic governance and relatively free market economies, one would think the two countries would enjoy more trade and mutual direct investment in one another than in European and other Asian countries. But they do not.

In my view a global dispute involves various parties, from a number of different countries, litigating or arbitrating issues that frequently span multiple jurisdictions. This could range from parallel proceedings going on in different jurisdictions or substantive proceedings in one jurisdiction with interim relief applications in other jurisdictions or, as is common in international arbitration, where the parties are from different jurisdictions and have chosen a neutral seat and neutral governing law.

Russia is both a European and an Asian country, but has often appeared to pay more attention to relations with Europe. That is changing, as shown by major energy deals between Russia and China; robust bilateral trade and political discussions with Japan, South Korea, India and Vietnam; and Russia’s hosting of regional conferences, including the Eastern Economic Forum in September 2017. Among other goals, Russia seeks to attract substantial foreign investments from its Asian and Indian partners. For both geographical and practical reasons, foreign investors may wish to focus on the Russian Far East, a historically neglected region which has the potential to become a significant player in Asian-Pacific trade. This is a vast area with a population of more than 7 million people that includes the ports of Vladivostok, Khabarovsk and Nakhodka and extensive natural resources.

The dispute resolution landscape in the UK is in the midst of significant change. Many consider the reforms to be the most far-reaching civil justice transformations since the 1870’s1 and this is not even taking into account what may happen with Brexit (which we will discuss below).

Indian arbitration has been viewed by USA businesses as unpredictable and slow. Few USA businesses have agreed to arbitration conducted in India by an Indian arbitration forum. The 2015 Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act aimed to address concerns of the international business community about arbitration in India. It expressly limits the duration of on-shore arbitration to twelve months, with a possible six-month extension. After the prescribed period, the panel’s mandate automatically expires unless the parties appeal to the courts for a further extension. While theoretically sound, these time limits are yet to be tested in practice. It will take time for USA businesses to come to view Indian arbitration as a fair or preferred choice.

In 2017, we witnessed high levels of hiring activity in general corporate and M&A space across levels. Other transactional areas such as banking, capital markets and structured finance were busier than the previous years, but hiring at the mid-level especially was limited to replacing leavers rather than growing that practice area. The litigation market remained steady and so did other practice areas like IPR, taxation and competition law.