Wadia Ghandy has created a joint managing partner post, which managing partner Ashish Ahuja will share with executive committee partner Dhawal Mehta.
Ahuja explained to Legally India that the decision, which was taken around the beginning of this month, was not fundamental, because “we were already working with a committee system”.
The designation of Mehta as joint managing partner, was therefore mostly a recognition of Mehta’s contribution to and interest in management over the last year-and-a-half.
“Dhawal has been playing an active role in management for quite some time now,” said Ahuja. “He has a brilliant mind and some of the best ideas directing the firm emanate from him.”
Some of Mehta’s contributions included in relation to firm growth strategies, recruitment policies, according to Ahuja. “He brought forward ideas that were very very positive, that had blood and life in terms of going forward in the organisation.”
“I'm very happy at the end of the day,” commented Ahuja about how uncommon it was for law firm partners to be interested in taking on law firm management. “At least there is a road that is ahead with someone who is wiling to take it on.”
Mehta could not be reached for comment at the time of going to press.
Update: Mehta said that he would primarily focus on the professional development of the partnership and fee-earners and “cultivate that new breed of lawyers”.
“There’s no strait jacket formula or rocket science in this - turning from real service providers to how lawyers used to practice, to being more [closely and strategically] involved [with clients] in transaction or litigation work, which I primarily do.” Implementing the plan would start in the partnership, said Mehta. “There’s so much of rat race in the profession around billing hours and service and all those things -
we want to go through a lot of discussions, percolate that thought process to all the partners to start with, and through talks and implementation, bringing that to associates.”
Structuring leadership
The firm’s senior partner, Hamid Moochhala, would “mentor” both Ahuja and Mehta and also act as a mediator and casting vote in the case of a deadlock between the two managing partners.
“Whenever there is a deadlock,” said Ahuja, “we sit together and resolve it. At times I end up giving up, or at other times Dhawal, or we convince each other.”
The firm’s management committee comprising partners Bindi Dave, Marylou Bilawala, Farid Karachiwala and Shabnum Kajiji will continue to “guide us in our thinking and decision making process”, according to Ahuja.
Many of the day-to-day management decisions could be taken independently by the managing partners but some larger decisions were historically a “collaborative” process, with the entire management team, including committee and managing partner, being jointly responsible for all decisions.
Overhauling legacy
“How do you live with legacy over a period of time,” asked Ahuja rhetorically, responding on some of the more unpopular decisions made at the firm in recent years.
The firm has now concluded its process of transitioning towards an eat-what-you-kill style model of partnership, where each partner’s remuneration would depend directly on their own performance.
“The concern at the end of the day is to build a commercially viable organisation where because of inefficiencies of one partner, the rest of the partnership should not suffer,” he explained. “Each partner takes responsibility for his or her own actions, and this does not result in one partner coming into a situation of subsidising someone else.”
While the basics of the new mechanism were in place, time would “mould and mould” it further.
“The fundamental principle has been laid down that there is no subsidy,” he said, though individual partners could still at times be allowed to take commercial risks without necessarily risking their own take-home pay.
“But at the end of the day, your performance should decide what you take.” Apart from pure revenue targets, this would also include other factors such as contributions to business development and education, which could all be counted towards performance on a discretionary basis by the entire management team of eight.
Arresting and accepting change
Ahuja confirmed that the changes in the partnership structures have ruffled feathers. “Whenever there is change, and people don’t move out of the comfort zone that they are in, there’s always an impact of any change. The impact of change pushes people to think,” he said, which might lead some to conclude that they’d have to leave the organisation rather than accept the change.
“That has always been the result of any change [and] it will always be, as far as I see it, a part of the natural corollary of the change that we're trying to bring about. We're always trying to arrest it and talk to people, ‘you should take change in a positive manner’, but each person [is an individual] so he or she may not want to accept it, and we don’t [try to force them].”
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
A “happy” Ahuja comments about how uncommon it is for law firm partners to be interested in taking on law firm management, etc. etc.
1. It is more an exception – than a rule – for Indian law firm partners to be not interested in taking on law firm management.
2. Owing to a
Freudian slippractical outlook, Ahuja speaks of “deadlock” in this moment of happiness.3. Eat what you kill model is not about protecting efficient partners from inefficient ones, but rather about rewarding rainmakers - American firms who mostly follow this model boot out inefficient partners (and it is not like inefficient partners are frequently found in White Shoe firms).
1. I asked him about management being generally unpopular, as it is, in my experience, and he agreed. While some partners might enjoy managing a law firm, and all the annoying stuff that entails, very few of them are good at it too. As such, what he's saying is probably correct.
2. Again, I asked about what would happen during a deadlock, so it's not like he raised it Freudianically.
3. No comment, that's pretty much true... Though most US firms have also abandoned straight eat-what-you-kill.
Re point 1, in my experience of working at multiple Indian firms, most people here work hard to be part of top-management. Rainmakers have jumped ship when "slighted" out of top-management, including the recent famous move in the capital markets sphere @ Delhi. Therefore, IMHO, you are both wrong in the Indian context although, to be fair, many people you have interviewed may have misled you since grapes are sour! He he. Of course, some exceptions exist, which prove the rule. If you meant English law firms, then AYE, many partners avoid management.
Re point 3: So WG adopts a model when the inventors/ long-standing followers are abandoning it!
P.S. Most (not all) Indian firms seem to adopt practices, models and templates without quite understanding them. Trust me! Cannot explain in a post, but over a pint maybe.
Re 1, you might be right, though it's maybe more complicated. While everyone, including rainmakers, in India want to get into management, only very few probably have the stomach for it.
The reason that most want to get into it, I expect, is because they assume that being in management will give them more influence in the firm, and hopefully, equity / ownership. And since at the majority of firms, ownership and management and family are one and the same, you can see why that aspiration exists, since it'll forever remain out of the reach of most without the right surname.
However, in reality, I still believe that most partners aren't cut out for management, and if they knew the pains-in-the-ass involved, they would run a mile and be happy with their non-equity salary and servicing clients.
Just to name a few typical management bugbears: chasing everyone's time sheets, stressing about total revenue, having to fire or discipline non-performers, having to do everyone's BD to some extent, giving up a good chunk of your 'lawyering' time for HR and 'strategy', making unpopular decisions (such as a move to eat-what-you-kill) and earning half the firm's wrath, and so on.
As a managing partner, if things go well, everyone assumes you're just doing your job and won't thank you. If things go badly, everyone will blame you for it. Law firm management is a shit sandwich that few are happy to eat once they're served it, in my limited experience.
And it's certainly not why most studied law decades ago...
Many lawyers surely wonder why they studied law
when doing diligencefor a variety of reasons, but I daresay most law firm lawyers aim to make partner and get involved in management because, in the absence of lockstep model, there is no other way to get a corner office and big bonuses. Equity is mythical or elusive at most firms.Anyway, the other comments on the story are very interesting. The history, the power shift, and what the "joint" position may actually mean.
Cheers!
P.S: I admire Mr. Ahuja. Anybody who works with him would.
P.P.S: WG has given me some of the most supporting colleague and mentors. No regrets in being a member of the family. :)
And the award for the most useless, stinky-garbage-stale post of the year goes to ....... M S Sharma.
Given the number of younger lawyers whose capabilities were recognised and made partners reflects the family bond existing in WG. Only family will promote and nurture talent at young age under the able guidance of the seniors. Simultaneously it ts equally important to throw a new swimmer into the sea to raise to the challenges of a tough profession. Similarly recognising contribution of another seasoned partner I is not only commendable but takes courage to feign off doubts like....is it really so?? Clearly who accepted the changes have remained and accepted their respective assignments....I think it's more than a policy to doubt and create a controversy to feed insecure minds
Yes, the fundamental principle should be there should be no subsidy and no typos!
Illust. - The principal reason why I do not like the eat-what-you-kill principle is that I do not have any predatory instincts...
Mr. Mehta should understand that cutting money will not change the scenario . He should respect the talent which he is discouraging. They have reduced articles pay also from 75,000 to 10,000.
Agreed talent like Vijay is lost. I am suprised why LI has not covered this yet. He was one of the old partner as compared to Amit and Gaurav.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first