Did it help you?

[...] ke naam lete hai

If GCs should do transactions because they are paid crores then by that logic all transactions across the board should be done by GCs and their teams - why only banking. Also are you on the gc bandwagon or in a law firm- because either ways it doesn’t make sense, unless you’re an altruist who believes in working for each penny you are paid and more (in which case you’re job is that rare awesome Indian legal corporate job) or an ex law firm teaching commercial laws with an accent in the law schools.

Your views are fair - and I mostly agree. But farming out work to external counsel is also a function of capacity and manpower. In-house teams in most MNC banks, for example, are quite small.

Secondly, the market (permitted products, market practices, level of client sophistication, etc.) is "lower" than, say, a London or a Hong Kong. So, we work with what we have. But it's a growing, evolving market. It's a great space to be in, either in practice or as in-house. Excellent growth opportunities, stability, etc.

Actually given the market within and outside law firms these days, Mr. Gist is far more likely to succeed than people who are able to do their jobs to the (extremely) low thresholds that this country sets for everything.

On lit side, if someone would tell me he practices "Banking law" it would mean DRT/DRAT/Sarfaesi matters and IBC matters at NCLT. For a Lit Solicitor/Attorney it would include minor documentation and advisory work even in the Insurance domain.