Amarchand Mangaldas has made 13 new partners this year, with seven in Delhi, five in Mumbai and one in Bangalore, which is managerially a part of the Mumbai partnership.
Delhi principal associates Anubhuti Agarwal (in the corporate practice, having graduated from NLSIU Bangalore in 2005), Dhruv Diwan (litigation, NLIU Bhopal 2004), Shruti Kinra (corp, Warwick 2002), Saurav Kumar (corp, ILS Pune 2002), Pooja Mahajan (corp, Delhi University 2004, Oxford BCL 2007), VR Neelakantan (projects, NLSIU 2006) and Arvind Sharma (corp, DU 2003) have been elevated to partnership.
Mumbai principal associates Joseph Jimmy (banking, ILS Pune 2002), Indranath Bishnu (corp, NUJS Kolkata 2005), Ramanuj Kumar (projects, NLSIU 2004, Harvard Law School LLM 2008) and Abhimanyu Bhattacharya (capital markets, NUJS 2005), and senior consultant Vandana Sekhri (corp, GLC Mumbai 2003, Bombay solicitor) have also been promoted to partner.
Prashant Venkatesh (NLSIU 2003), who specialises in banking and finance, was promoted in Bangalore.
The promotions take retrospective effect from 1 April 2013, bringing the total partnership up to 84 partners, according to a press release from the firm.
Corporate win
The overwhelming number of promotions are in the corporate practice, which welcomes seven new partners across India. Banking and finance, and project finance see two new partners each, while capital markets and litigation each get one.
Agarwal and Bishnu joined the firm in 2005, Bhattacharya in 2006, Mahajan in 2007 and Kinra and Joseph in 2009. Kinra had rejoined after an earlier stint with the firm between 2002 and 2007.
Sekhri joined in February 2012 from Juris Corp, where she was a partner.
The firm also announced today that former Citibank India general counsel (GC) Sandip Beri would join in Delhi as a partner. Economic Laws Practice (ELP) partner Yashojit Mitra will join corporate in Mumbai by August.
Historical perspectives
Amarchand had promoted 13 partners last year with an even split between Delhi and Mumbai and with 70 per cent women. However two Mumbai partners elevated last year - Amita Choudhary and Aysswarya Murthy are set to leave the firm.
In June, Delhi principal associate Kirat Nagra joined Economic Laws Practice (ELP) as partner and Mumbai principal associate Satyam Sharat joined Ashurst Jakarta as foreign legal consultant.
In February, Delhi principal associate Niti Paul joined Kochhar & Co as partner. Her husband Harry Chawla left partnership at Amarchand in December 2012 to head up Kochhar’s Mumbai office.
That month former White & Case senior associate Nikhil Naryanan and Luthra & Luthra Delhi litigation partner Ajit Warrier joined Amarchand as partners, as Amarchand Delhi litigation partner VP Singh moved to the firm’s Mumbai office in April.
Meanwhile, elsewhere
Other partnership promotions reported by Legally India this year include:
- J Sagar Associates (JSA) inducted two into equity and made 18 new salaried partners;
- Khaitan & Co promoted two partners into equity, hired a salaried partner and made five associate partners in Mumbai and Delhi;
- AZB made five in Mumbai and Delhi;
- Desai & Diwanji promoted five to salaried partnership in Mumbai;
- ALMT elevated one;
- Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan and Clasis Law made one new salaried partner each in Delhi;
- Dua inducted one Delhi partner into equity;
- Remfry & Sagar made four new partner-designates; and
- K Law made three new associate partners.
Trilegal did not promote any new partners but boosted two to counsel in Delhi.
Luthra & Luthra is still to announce its promotions for the year; it is understood that a decision may be made by the firm this month.
Comments
I think Ramanuj is from NLSIU and 2004 batch.
Isnt Dhruv from NLIU Bhopal
Isnt Dhruv from NLIU Bhopal[/quote]
I agree!! Joe is a great person with great technical skills. In today's time it is not that difficult to find good lawyers on the job but this guy is the relationship man.
guess you havent heard of Nihas Basheer...2007 batch and partner of Wadia Ghandy and Co...
guess you havent heard of Nihas Basheer...2007 batch and partner of Wadia Ghandy and Co...[/quote]
Lol. But Neel is still the only on on the 2006 Batch :)
Your turn Luthra & Luthra. Only one left. What's going on? Anyone with news???
How long before we have designations within the tag "Partner"? "Founding Partner", "Senior Partner", "Junior Partner"...
On a more positive note though, I agree with the comments that whatever we think about the designation, congratulations to these associates for getting through the hoops at Amarchands. This cant be easy and we should all wish them the best for this exciting new step in their lives.
As a good practice, opinions that are not standard form or not based on firm view / precedents, should be vetted by two partners anyway. Many senior partners do not "run" deals, but focus on clients and firm administration. The "running" is done by senior associates and junior partners and the senior partners only guide.
Disagree?
"Figures compiled from the UK top 20 firms' 2013 partner promotions show the average length of time taken for UK lawyers to reach partnership from qualification reached 10.5 years".
This is post qualification experience; so tack 2 year training contract on top of that.
Agree with the rest of your comments.
The point I am really trying to make is that there is nothing wrong if a junior partner is made up in 8 years, although they may lack the experience of a more senior partner. Both have different roles to play and junior partners will always seek guidance of senior partners, if that is necessary to sort any complex issue which cannot be resolved by relying on "firm view" or "market precedents". After all, they continue to have an a$$ to cover even after making partner! My comment was really in response to "Cheery", who questioned whether "someone who is only six to eight years qualified really [is] a "partner" in the true sense of that word". I know a few lawyers who share Cheery's view. The fallacy in that view is that partnership does not depend only on "legal acumen" and that they seem to be comparing the skills of a new junior partner with the more senior partners. The reality is that partnership track depends on the existing business environment (compare now with 2004-07) as well as scoring well on 4 aspects, known as the finder-minder-binder-grinder theory. It also depends on the structure of a firm. A fine legal eagle may not ever be made partner if a combination of the right skills are missing or if the firm's business needs do not permit.
In response to your disagreement on the point you have raised, I have explained some facts below, which are not intended to rebut your comment. Rather, I am only presenting the facts, leaving you and everyone else to draw their own conclusions.
First, think if you can count the TC years for calculating partnership track, especially when comparing different jurisdictions that have different regulations. In English law terms, the training contract is like a bar exam or a mandatory component of "legal education", which is a sine qua non to become a lawyer. Associate years do not start, and trainees are not qualified lawyers, before completing the TC. Every country has its own rules and if India introduces a one year apprenticeship requirement, the Amarchands of our world will start discounting that as an "associate year".
Second, White Shoe firms in the US do not have the training contract requirement and associates make partner in 7-10 years anyway.
Third, the UK article you cite pegs the average at 10.5, which clearly shows that some make it in less than 10 years. That article's figures are obviously inclusive of litigation partners. Now, consider that litigation lawyers take a couple of years more to make partner in the UK firms (not true for US), and the average for corporate partners dips to, maybe, 8.5. Even in post recession 2013!
Fourth, the article is of 2013. The average time has increased in the recent years due to recession. If you check the partner profiles of the lawyers who made partner pre-2008, you'll find that most of the corporate partners took 8-9 years to make partner. This shows that the "track" is also a reflection of economic conditions and not how much legal acumen one gathers in a few years of practice.
Fifth, the article is about the figures from UK's top 20 firms. Always bear in mind, there is a huge gap between the top 4-5 UK firms and the ones who are not in the top dozen, i.e. outside the Magic and Silver Circles. Just check the average profits per partner and total turnover figures. There is a huge gap as the 20th firm has a third of No.1's partner earnings and less than a tenth of the turnover. Top 3-4 firms are a billion dollar business, the next 3-4 are half of that, and the rest are just 300 million or even less. To understand the gap between the firms further, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_United_Kingdom-based_law_firms. In this context, note that we are talking of Amarchand here, India's leading firm in revenue, turnover and no. of lawyers.
R.I.P.
For the rest hr is still meeting with the partners.. So next time do bit of due diligence plz.
He he.
www.dictionary.com may help!
Let's see if you can beat me to the race.
Just wanted to say - you can actually create an LI account called scooter to prevent others using the name. Of course, you'll have to log in once and provide an email address, but that can be a disposable address if you like.
Your anonymity is as protected as before, in that we don't collect anything other than IP addresses, which get recorded for every visitor / commenter anyway (but which we never check, nor is there that much to be gleaned from an IP most of the time).
Only downside is that if you're using a work computer, someone might see that you're logged in. (Then again the site currently remembers your username for you in the comments field anyway - let us know if anyone would like this disabled, by the way).
On the plus side, you'll be the only scooter and you can put up a cool profile picture, etc :) Plus write the occasionally ranty blog and do other stuff too.
Just a thought. :)
Would be great if you can share your insights on how the Indian market as well as the legal service sector benefit from opening up to foreign firms?
Drawing an analogy to "small legal jurisdictions" may not always give you a correct analogy of what will happen to India, since I would like to believe that the the legal service sector in India is fairly developed (not denying further scope for the same).
However, if you could also explain what you mean by "development" in this context, maybe I will be able to understand/argue against your observations/theory.
Best,
Scooter
I agree that drawing analogies to other jurisdictions may not always give an accurate picture. However, I had Dubai and Singapore in mind as jurisdictions, which are not “small” in terms of the volume of work, no. of lawyers or revenues. The market impact in such jurisdictions would be more relevant than, for example, Seoul or Casablanca or Doha. Even then, your point about fallacies in the comparison would stand as two different things cannot be similarly compared. Some rationalization would be necessary. Having said that, here is how the entry of foreign firms “may” help the Indian legal market. Obviously, not everything can be accurately predicted as we are not in the era of time machines, but the possible impacts are listed below.
1. Foreign firms are great believers in knowledge development and continuous training, across all bands of lawyers. Junior lawyers are trained to appreciate the nuances of documents they work on, the reasons as to why every clause is drafted the way it is drafted, the market view on the sticky issues, negotiation points that are usually seen, etc. Even senior associates and junior partners are trained for their level of work, including training on soft skills. Indian firms are now where near that. Entry of foreign firms will not only improve the skills of the lawyers they recruit but also make the big domestic firms conscious that their talent would expect similar training and, if let down, look for an opportunity to move. Good lawyers always value the depth of their legal and transactional knowledge. When Indian lawyers start their careers, they hardly get any training. The expectation is that the freshers will learn on the job and there is no need to explain things to them. A lucky few have good mentors and even they do not always get the kind of guidance that is necessary. Instead, junior associates are often blamed and harassed, in the hope that they will work hard if they are not appreciated! Often, the blame is just a tactic because the seniors appreciate that they cannot expect the output they pretend to expect from the junior lawyers. How unhealthy is that?
2. The presence of good quality peers always has some positive impact and their good qualities rub off on people around them. Make no mistake, the documentation we use in India today, was evolved by the “new corporate lawyers” of India in the late 90’s and fine tuned in the early 2000’s. Those “new corporate lawyers” learnt by working with foreign firms who were international counsel on deals. Their involvement in the deals helped because their documentation is developed by dedicated teams of experts and kept updated constantly in terms of changes in business needs, industry realities, law and regulations. Even today, many Indian firms draft whimsically, and do not subscribe to LMA, APLMA or PLC to understand appropriate documentation. The "chalta hai" mentality! The ad hoc nature of drafting leads to waste of time in negotiating and re-inventing the wheel. The clients also suffer in terms of cost and time impacts.
3. Similarly, foreign firms should be able to impact the standard clients can expect from their lawyers in India, as they think and operate very differently from most of the domestic firms. The very presence of foreign firms is likely to make their domestic competitors pull up their socks. If big clients move, citing quality reasons, the domestic firms will wake up. Presently, there is not much emphasis on quality or accountability at most domestic firms and only Indian firms can advise on Indian law. Clients have to make do with what they get, in terms of quality, accountability, responsiveness, etc. They have no better options. Foreign firms will provide that option if their practice is not restricted to foreign law.
4. If they are allowed to practice meaningfully, foreign firms will be interested in acquiring dual-qualified and India qualified lawyers locally. Some Indian lawyers will get the opportunity to work at the foreign firms, if they want. Add the internship opportunities. Domestic firms will be compelled to make some “real and meaningful” efforts in terms of talent retention and lateral hire attraction.
5. If, and when, joint ventures or alliances are allowed, it will help many Indian firms who may prefer that business model. Presently, most firms do not speak their mind because others are watching.
6. If the profits of the foreign firms cannot be distributed among partners based outside India beyond a certain extent, there would be lesser danger that the money will leave the country. Also, there would be no difficulty in having rules requiring that 30-50% of the partnership and the employees should be Indian. Of course, this is a jurisdiction specific issue and every jurisdiction imposes its rules.
What I am trying to say is that every legitimate concern has an ingenious fix. After all, lawyers know how to get around concerns and provide comfort. The concern that does not have a fix, which is bothering some domestic firms, if that their market share will be adversely affected. That is not really a legitimate concern. It is a clamour for special “reservation” and protection of interests.
At the end of the day, the issue is certainly not an easy one to resolve. It is doubtful that foreign firms will be able to enter this market anytime in the next decade. The tactic of reducing interest through red tape and opposition has worked to a large extent.
Some of us may be happy to slave it out at domestic firms that are not institutionalised, driven by the whims of the “owner”, lacking in a good environment in terms of sociability and professionalism, etc. But others are hoping for change.
I am sure you have your views. Feel free to share.
It is a fact that unlike other services, the legal profession has not moved ahead due to competition with foreign firms. The talk of money leaving the country is absurd. If the Govt has no problem with money leaving by virtue of foreign investment in oil and telecom and steel, they will have no probs with foreign firms.
The present status quo is a result of (understandably) selfish proprietors like cyril, zia and lalit bhasin who are worried that a Linklaters setting up shop in India would lead to an erosion of all their blue eyed boys and girls. After all who in their right mind would suffer the insult of cyril's intrigues or zia's micro management if they could join a professionally run firm like Freshfields India or Linklaters India. It is of course of no importance to these "honourable" gents and ladies that the resulting boost to salaries, standards and dignity of individual lawyers would benefit the profession as a whole.
At the moment the only reason why AMSS rules is because of a forced lack of competition. Sadly, young lawyers in India are treated little better than manual scavengers by the cyrils and the zias.
Everything has a range. In this case its between 75-90.
What about promotions in S&R and Crawford…never heard about these firms?
The fact, in my humble opinion, is that the Advocates Act is almost impossible to apply in this context without bending over backwards in every way. I doubt a court would be adventurous enough to start lawmaking and interpreting it liberally, partly for fear of upsetting parts of the advocate and anti-lib lobby.
My 2 cents, happy to hear contrary views.
The thing is that most of these guys are simply not fit to be partners at this moment. Thats not to say they'll never be partner material. Perhaps after another 2/4 yrs. 7-9 yrs is pretty quick by any standard and there are lawyers who made partners in the last 1/2 yrs who are still immature and lacking all-round skills. I bet most of this bunch were as surprised to be promoted as folks outside the firm .
Amarchand has too many at the top and the bottom and theres a serious quality control issue. Young lawyers are leaving in packs because of poor leadership. The best thing to do would have been to keep the majority of these new partners as PAs for a couple of years longer, inform them that they are on "track" and let them mentor juniors. Thats a win-win.
Another problem of this kind of mass promotion is that its simply unsustainable. How long ccan AMSS keep adding 10-15 partners a year? When they do its gonna create a logjam and it wont be pretty.
Anyways, not my firm so this is just by 2c.
Bulk deals like this (had a similar number last year), will mean that very soon all that place will have is partners!!