Vijaya Sampath, group general counsel (GC) and adviser of almost nine years to India’s largest telecoms company Bharti Enterprises and former J Sagar Associates (JSA) partner, has joined Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan (LKS) as an equity partner yesterday to head its corporate practice in Delhi.
She will continue to act as an ombudsman and advisor to Bharti group’s chairman, Sunil Mittal.
Sampath said: “I don’t think I can find a better match. We are on the same page in terms of how we think and how we react. We value professionalism and integrity”.
She added that she had worked with LKS founding partner V Lakshmikumaran for over 20 years on Bharti group’s tax advisory work.
“He has a sense of fairness, equity, value systems and integrity. Particular care needs to be taken for integrity in a tax practice”, she said.
Sampath noted that the law firm offered a good growth platform since it was still a start-up from the corporate side, but has an established tax practice and an established clientele.
“In the last 9 years I have also gained a business perspective. Lawyers only look at the legal side of a transaction, but the commercial side is equally important. I have learnt to balance the commercial aspect with the legal aspect”, added Sampath, saying she hopes to grow LKS as a full service law firm.
“In companies, some of the associates stay in the office, while in law firms all go home at night,” she joked about the cultural difference between companies and law firms, saying that even while now representing one side at a time, she would hope to foster good relations with the other party and maintain transparency.
Badri Narayanan, joint partner heading LKS’s international customs practice, spoke for Lakshmikumaran who was travelling: “Our firm is keenly focused on becoming a full service top tier law firm. We emphasise on three things – integrity, knowledge and passion, and Vijaya brings all the three to the table. We look forward to a long and successful relationship with her.”
Sampath has joined the Safdarjung office of the firm in Delhi, which also houses the team of seven lawyers that had left Khaitan & Co to join LKS’s corporate practice last year.
LKS opened a second office in Delhi last month and an office in Pune late last year, reported Legally India yesterday.
Comments
I quite agree with you. You are a dimwit.
I did not say that being a GC is a bad thing. It requires years of experience and hard work to be a GC. The last line of your comment requires divine interpretation due to bad english. "Kanga were advised Tata's" and "sat of their boards" like really?? However, ML Bhakta (Kanga & Co.) has been on board of Reliance for couple of decades now. He is an independent director and not an in house counsel. All this while he has been the managing partner of Kanga. Likewise, many senior lawyers are on the board of big companies. My point is that when a company has to save @ss, they have to look towards external counsels, in house counsels just facilitate things. Frankly, I am still trying to understand the role of an in house counsel and what mayhem would be caused if they cease to be in the employment of the company.
Dimwit, You need to come out of your socialist era hangover, the idea primarily is that unlike in the era doyens you so eloquently quote with a cavalier non nonchalance, the day does not belong to the generalist but to the specialist who know the unique needs of their client(in case of an in house only one exclusive client)both at a transactional as well as a regulatory level...
I did not say that being a GC is a bad thing. It requires years of experience and hard work to be a GC. The last line of your comment requires divine interpretation due to bad english. "Kanga were advised Tata's" and "sat of their boards" like really?? However, ML Bhakta (Kanga & Co.) has been on board of Reliance for couple of decades now. He is an independent director and not an in house counsel. All this while he has been the managing partner of Kanga. Likewise, many senior lawyers are on the board of big companies. My point is that when a company has to save @ss, they have to look towards external counsels, in house counsels just facilitate things. Frankly, I am still trying to understand the role of an in house counsel and what mayhem would be caused if they cease to be in the employment of the company.[/quote]
Dimwit, you are either a litigating lawyer or a very junior corporate lawyer, who hasn't dealt with many GCs. An in-house lawyers role isn't simply to hand over the work to external lawyers and thank them for saving the company's @ss. If you would have dealt with some, you may have known that companies don't like to send all their work to external counsel. Bharti is a great example - their in-house lawyers draft and negotiate everything from loan agreements to joint venture agreements. They outsource only the unavoidable stuff - opinions, cross border deals, transactions too large for a small in-house team to handle. Most companies, especially larger ones, want large in-house teams becuase "saviour" external lawyers are no angels - they charge more than what it takes in salaries to retain lawyers.
So it doesn't matter that a dimwit like you can't grasp the benefits for companies to retain in-house lawyers, because most companies around the world do and have for decades. So quite trolling around and go back to working for the in-house counsel who's sanctioning your fees (and ergo lifestyle).
"Jealous"
"Jealous"[/quote]
Your comment is "idiotic"!
Are you referring to my comment as idiotic? Or Bhajan's comment?
Are you referring to my comment as idiotic? Or Bhajan's comment?[/quote]
Of course, Bhajan's comment ! :-)
Are you referring to my comment as idiotic? Or Bhajan's comment?[/quote]
Of course, Bhajan's comment ! :-)[/quote]
You both are idiots :)
You sure have lot of time posting lengthy comments during office hours (Jobless). However, I don't enjoy such luxury as we work u c. Catch ya later. Till then, do what you guys are best at..stare your comp. Buhaha..
You sure have lot of time posting lengthy comments during office hours (Jobless). However, I don't enjoy such luxury as we work u c. Catch ya later. Till then, do what you guys are best at..stare your comp. Buhaha..[/quote]
Thanks for confirming my appraisal of you as (a) a junior and (b) a troll.
You sure have lot of time posting lengthy comments during office hours (Jobless). However, I don't enjoy such luxury as we work u c. Catch ya later. Till then, do what you guys are best at..stare your comp. Buhaha..[/quote]
One by one shall we:
1. Lots of time...that we do have to drive you slaves!!
2. With the money GC's pay you for the "work" you claim to do, you better be working!!
3. Staring at the computer is something all modern lawyers do these days... unless of course you are one of those Tishazari chattriwalas who stare at their typewriters all day!!
Damvit: idiot with lot of time.
Besides, pay, prestige and generous perks, GCs have something alien to slaves toiling away in law firm labour camps: work-life balance.
I find it really demeaning how we law firm types suck up to these GCs all the time - for a few pieces of silver.
Any, even marginally more, enlightening comments on the topic, will of course still be published.
I agree with you. The whole discussion started on a decent note. My sole point was that being an in house counsel has a very limited scope of work as compared to law firm lawyers. Read my previous comment that being a GC requires years of experience and hard work, however, certain people here don't/can't/won't read what's in front of them. Rather they will use terms like idiots, jealous, dumbo, dabba etc.
I have several friends who are working as in house counsels and wish to join a law firm but they fail to do so. Even in previous news reported by LI, we have seen people leaving companies and joining firm. Again if lawyers are pretty happy being with the company, good for them. Else people like Pramod, Vijaya and Veena Sivaramkrishnan move on to join law firms. And that's where my case rests.
Regards,
Applying an anti bullying policy are we?
It is not just me... look at the recommendations to In-house Counsel's posts vs. Dimwit's!
It is not just me... look at the recommendations to In-house Counsel's posts vs. Dimwit's![/quote]
I had promised myself that I would not revert but you have compelled me to. Well, in house counsel and I have discussed, fought and finally settled. Your comment was uncalled for. Who made you the judge btw? My good cheer is, however, considerably enhanced by your long distance psychoanalysis. So please don't poke in between as the discussion is over and about your independent views, well shove it..
It is not just me... look at the recommendations to In-house Counsel's posts vs. Dimwit's![/quote]
I had promised myself that I would not revert but you have compelled me to. Well, in house counsel and I have discussed, fought and finally settled. Your comment was uncalled for. Who made you the judge btw? My good cheer is, however, considerably enhanced by your long distance psychoanalysis. So please don't poke in between as the discussion is over and about your independent views, well shove it..[/quote]
Something to chew upon dimwit...
http://www.thelawyer.com/what-you-are-not-taught-at-general-counsel-school/1013016.article
Ms. Vijaya Sampath is indeed an equity partner at L&S. We have confirmation for the same from L&S.
Best regards,
Prachi