Former Luthra & Luthra Delhi managing associate Karan Chandhiok, who left the firm in October 2013, has set up regulatory and dispute resolution practice Chandhiok & Associates in Delhi.
Chandhiok has set the practice up as a sole proprietorship assisted by a team of four lawyers, one of whom is former Luthra competition associate Vikram Sobti, who left the firm in September.
“It was something I wanted to do for a while, to set up something of my own, where I can concentrate on competition and also on the litigation side of things, and expand the competition practice more into a regulatory practice,” commented Chandhiok.
“I wanted to spread my wings into the [domain of] economic regulators,” he said, explaining that work at the start up involved regulators in areas such as electricity, health and petrol among others.
The firm is currently doing competition law, arbitration and corporate law work, and appearing before the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal, the high courts and the Supreme Court, he said.
Chandhiok said that the firm has already closed a case involving an abuse of dominance investigation against Hyundai, represented the All India Drugs and Chemists Association, while on the litigation side he has been focussing on compliance work such as preparing mergers and combination filings and advisory work such as on agreement distributorship, mostly for real estate firms.
Chandhiok obtained an LLB from Amity Delhi in 2006 and a BCL from Oxford in 2007 before joining Allen & Overy (A&O) the same year. He left A&O September 2010 to join Luthra in December 2010.
Being the only managing associate level retainer in the competition practice headed by Delhi partner GR Bhatia at Luthra, he said he had started up his firm on 1 November as soon as his notice period and the last major matter he was handling was disposed of.
Luthra & Luthra was not available for comment at the time of going to press.
Comments
Best of luck
It is indeed important to mention this, People might think he's another first Generation etc!!
a. Apparently, work allocation happens based on preferences then competence (which was the reason for few partner exits);
b. The firm operates like a pe fund more than a law firm;
c. Associates are denied rotation because it is a waste of firm's money;
d. While suggestions are asked for, they are never implemented (except for convenient ones);
e. There is no clear succession plan so far being spoken about formally;
f. From a democratic model the management is moving towards dictatorship model (surprised to see how associates are treated in townhall meetings).
Gone are the days when the firm had an open door policy (now it seems to be an open window policy). Till they don't fix this, guess the pattern would continue.
a. Apparently, work allocation happens based on preferences then competence (which was the reason for few partner exits);
b. The firm operates like a pe fund more than a law firm;
c. Associates are denied rotation because it is a waste of firm's money;
d. While suggestions are asked for, they are never implemented (except for convenient ones);
e. There is no clear succession plan so far being spoken about formally;
f. From a democratic model the management is moving towards dictatorship model (surprised to see how associates are treated in townhall meetings).
Gone are the days when the firm had an open door policy (now it seems to be an open window policy). Till they don't fix this, guess the pattern would continue.[/quote]
What idiotic comments.
a) Work allocation amongst partners in any law firm depends on what your specialisation is. If a partner is an M&A guy, he will not get project finance or IPR work. Where does preference come into the picture – maybe in smaller law firms, where every partner is a specialist in every field!
b) How does a firm operate like a PE fund, pray enlighten us.
c) Are associates quitting (L&L or any other law firm) because they are being denied rotation? In fact, associates do not want to do litigation for 6 months, IPR for 6 months, etc. Ask any associate. They don’t quit because they are denied rotation. They quit because of this. In any event, Karan Chandhiok was not an associate, he was a managing associate on track for partnership because of his knowledge and expertise in competition law. I would doubt that he has quit because he was not rotated and given an opportunity to work in project finance transactions
d) Which firm implements all suggestions that are provided? Even the Indian Railways has a suggestion/complaint box in every railway station. God help Indian railways if all suggestions are implemented
e) Which Indian firm has a succession plan? Please tell me. Does AZB, AMSS, Khaitan etc. have a succession plan? Can you name one counsel in a top law firm who has been identified as the next managing partner to succeed Zia, Cyril, etc.
f) Which Indian Firm has or had a democratic model? How do you say that L&L had a democratic model? When? How were the associates treated in town hall meetings? Please tell.
Don’t just comment for the sake of commenting
1. Partners are preferred within the same practice area. Needless to say the M&A partner won't be cribbing about losing IPR mandates.
2. L&L is run as a family business and not as a professional law firm with MS being the grand-father/ dictator. RKL is the only one trying to save face.
3. Rotation has been institutionalised across Indian and international law firms. The fact that L&L refuses to implement such a policy is just a reflection of their dictatorial attitude. In fact, there are several associates within the firm who wouldn't mind rotation even across the Litigation and IP teams, contrary to what you believe.
4. L&L doesn't implement "any" suggestion. For instance, their archaic lock-in policy which many associates have raised objections to, is still in force.
5. Just because those firms haven't revealed their succession plans doesn't do away with the fact that L&L is a family business where partners of the firm itself aren't granted equity.
6. The town hall meeting was a farce. Associates did give the so-called executive committee (which is basically just MS himself) their suggestions but were not only shot down but were targeted for raising such issues. The associates at L&L know full well that it is futile to have a constructive dialogue with the management on any issue, be it even having decent food in the pantry.
You seem to a product of the firm which is why the easy justification of "others are not doing it, why should I" makes a lot of sense to you.
[quote name="jiyo"][quote name="satya"]Why so many people leaving Luthra? I guess that is because,
a. Apparently, work allocation happens based on preferences then competence (which was the reason for few partner exits);
b. The firm operates like a pe fund more than a law firm;
c. Associates are denied rotation because it is a waste of firm's money;
d. While suggestions are asked for, they are never implemented (except for convenient ones);
e. There is no clear succession plan so far being spoken about formally;
f. From a democratic model the management is moving towards dictatorship model (surprised to see how associates are treated in townhall meetings).
Gone are the days when the firm had an open door policy (now it seems to be an open window policy). Till they don't fix this, guess the pattern would continue.[/quote]
What idiotic comments.
a) Work allocation amongst partners in any law firm depends on what your specialisation is. If a partner is an M&A guy, he will not get project finance or IPR work. Where does preference come into the picture – maybe in smaller law firms, where every partner is a specialist in every field!
b) How does a firm operate like a PE fund, pray enlighten us.
c) Are associates quitting (L&L or any other law firm) because they are being denied rotation? In fact, associates do not want to do litigation for 6 months, IPR for 6 months, etc. Ask any associate. They don’t quit because they are denied rotation. They quit because of this. In any event, Karan Chandhiok was not an associate, he was a managing associate on track for partnership because of his knowledge and expertise in competition law. I would doubt that he has quit because he was not rotated and given an opportunity to work in project finance transactions
d) Which firm implements all suggestions that are provided? Even the Indian Railways has a suggestion/complaint box in every railway station. God help Indian railways if all suggestions are implemented
e) Which Indian firm has a succession plan? Please tell me. Does AZB, AMSS, Khaitan etc. have a succession plan? Can you name one counsel in a top law firm who has been identified as the next managing partner to succeed Zia, Cyril, etc.
f) Which Indian Firm has or had a democratic model? How do you say that L&L had a democratic model? When? How were the associates treated in town hall meetings? Please tell.
Don’t just comment for the sake of commenting[/quote]
Did not understand your comment. who is the smart horse? where does he get his carrots? why is carrot important? if I am a smart horse and I don't like carrots, can I stick with Old Monk rum? I do like the stick sometimes. Depends
Too many metaphors
what is the meaning of "L&L is really going to regret letting him go easily"?? What is meant by "easily"? So, should L&L have pointed a gun at his head and forced him to stay? Even if he wanted to do something on his own. Idiotic comment
Looking at the attrition at luthra, I would presume that many 'cribbers' took that advice and quit. But then, why is the firm still being targeted that too in a stronger voices today?
Only logical conclusion is that bulk of the 'cribbers' are the ones left behind and the worst is probably not over yet. Think RKL should handle this more hands on.