Luthra & Luthra Mumbai corporate partner Sudipta Routh has resigned while litigation partner Ashish Prasad, who was promoted only three months ago, has quit for Economic Laws Practice (ELP), reported Bar & Bench.
Routh had joined Luthra in 2010 from Trilegal to kick off its Mumbai M&A practice as its first full-timer in the city. Routh was formerly a senior associate at Clifford Chance.
Update: Routh has joined Vaishali Sharma’s start-up Agram Legal Consultants.
One year ago Luthra’s Mumbai corporate practice also lost one of its young partners, Shishir Vayttaden, to Amarchand Mangaldas.
Prasad was promoted to Luthra’s partnership in February 2015 after having promoted him to partner designate level in 2014 - a new career rung the firm had created before partnership.
Comments
http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/luthra-hires-2-partners
http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/herbies-sa-rajesh-chavda-joins-luthra-as-delhi-partner
However, they've lost a lot more senior people, even if only going back in the archives to around when Vayttaden left (who was directly relevant to this story since he was a Mumbai corporate partner, which begs the question of who is left in Mumbai corporate at Luthra exactly after Routh's departure?):
http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/luthra-ma-siddharth-srivastava-joins-link-legal
http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/luthra-partner-piyush-mishra-leaves-may-join-cyril
http://www.legallyindia.com/201409225075/Law-firms/platinum-scoops-mnk-ex-luthra-partner-nivedita-tiwari
http://www.legallyindia.com/201408074949/Law-firms/breaking-azb-delhi-scoops-ex-luthra-madhu-mukherjee-as-cap-markets-partner-after-1-year-time-out
http://www.legallyindia.com/201404154602/Law-firms/luthra-mumbai-partner-shishir-jose-quits
http://www.legallyindia.com/201402214369/Law-firms/luthra-managing-associate-karan-chandhiok-starts-up-disputes-amp-regulatory-practice
So should we have mentioned all departures and all joiners and all promotions in order to be balanced or what?
It is a type of logical fallacy,briefly put, a circular logic.
I am surprised that Kian used it and several lawyers who supposedly operate logically lapped it up and responded using that phrase incorrectly. Ridiculous!
Luthra: needs to just. wake up and see why SAM CAM AZB TRilegal all have a clear path to equity for youngsters. Old people should be taken care of, but not at the cost of young partners and professionals.
This was a short story and looking through our archives I saw that Routh was the first full-time M&A hire in Mumbai back then, which we reported as such at the time. Vayttaden was someone else who was pretty much doing pureplay M&A in Mumbai who had left recently, and mentioning him is directly relevant to that story.
If two prominent corporate partners leave in one office, which Luthra has always wanted to to grow to catch up with Delhi but not quite managed as far as I'm aware, that's a pretty significant trend and not one the firm will be taking lightly either.
Nuff said...
For the record, William Vivian John has joined in November 2011 and is a 2000 graduate and does PE / M&A, though for some reason that's never been reported on LI or elsewhere.
Deepak also joined in 2010, like Sudipto, from DSK:
http://www.legallyindia.com/201008311245/Law-firms/luthra-corporate-to-grow-up-in-mumbai-with-dsk-legal-partner
Amit Shetye joined in 2007 from ICICI and is a 2005 graduate, who was promoted in 2013 to partnership:
http://www.legallyindia.com/201308043886/Law-firms/luthra-management-strategy-promotes-two
Therefore happy to accept that Luthra Mumbai corporate is far from dead but the main point still stands that 2 out of 6 corporate / M&A partners in Mumbai have left Luthra in the last year, which are significant losses for any firm to deal with.
Sure, in a perfect world with 72 hours in a day, we could have tried to dig out the complete remaining corporate strength in Mumbai for the article but, to be honest, we can only do so much to make a firm look good when people leave beyond reaching out for comment to a managing partner or firm's PR team, who can then tell us about what remains or why their firm is doing really well despite the departure.
And if a firm does not respond to our requests for comment, which for the most part Luthra has not been doing for a while for god knows what reason, they only really have themselves to blame if a positive spin is lacking on coverage of two partners leaving them.
So from that perspective, I don't feel particularly hard done by or that Luthra are being unfair, credit to them. But in my humble opinion I still don't think their approach is not a good PR strategy for one of the Top Six firms in the country...
What kind of logic is that Kian? Did you expect that people never became partner in the M&A space after 2010? People too diversify. Also, Shishir was not an M&A lawyer. He specialised in securities law.
Also, BIkash, Amit, William, and Deepak THM are all M&A lawyers! William was an intergal part of the Capgemini deal!
Simple rule: Clise your eyes and pretend it's a dream. That way it will feel like one in the end.
Wake up Mr. Wannabe Managing Partner!
If, according to you, no one is left at Luthra, how are they doing some of the most marquee deals - Capgemini, Starbucks and several IPOs in the last year? Or are you fabricating their role on these deals?
If a firm chooses not to answer to you (because it is not answerable to you for anything), does that mean you go hammer and tongs and rail against it at every opportunity you get? You are beginning to sound like a baby being denied candy.
Talent goes where it is welcome and remains where it is well-treated. It's as simple as that. In Sudipta's case, a personal desire to strike out in a small firm and turn entrepreneurial can hardly be construed as a vote against the management. It's like saying the Bansals left to start Flipkart because they couldn't tolerate Bain.
The talent pool in most large firms is deep enough to sustain an erosion of human capital. While Sudipta leaving is damaging, everything will find its equilibrium level in time. Luthra is resilient firm with a strong deal pipeline.
Get your reasoning skills sorted, Kian. And for the love of God, be a little positive sometimes.
Love,
Xoxo
2. Where exactly have I said there's "no one left at Luthra". I asked in the comments, with 2 important corporate partners leaving it begs the question of who exactly is left there. Seems like a fair question that's now been duly been answered: 4 partners out of 6. Done.
3. Before you go calling anyone a baby, you do realise that you and the others are getting really upset about literally one line in a story: "One year ago Luthra’s Mumbai corporate practice also lost one of its young partners, Shishir Vayttaden, to Amarchand Mangaldas." If you or a firm's management don't care about media coverage, why should you care so much about one line on a bloody website? Yep, exactly.
4. Even our headline was rather boring without much, if any spin. We could very reasonably have gone a lot stronger and far more negative if we hate Luthra so much, as you seem to imply.
Here are just some of the facts and the obvious narratives, since you seem to be unaware: Routh leaving is one third of Mumbai's corporate partnership gone. He was the first high profile lateral hire they made in Mumbai corporate. He may not have left because of any bad blood, but the end results for the practice are similar (though by no means fatal).
Ashish Prasad left only 3 months (!!!) after making partner. I don't know the background, but if partnership is not sufficient to retain your lawyers, management should be asking themselves some serious questions of why this happened.
Luthra is obviously still a top firm with many massive clients and marquee deals (though they've not made much of a dent in the reign of AZB and Amarchand, and Khaitan has apparently long ago overtaken them, according to several rankings we have no control over such as RSG's).
But in fairness, Luthra has been going through a tough transitional period with a new but potentially risky and unpopular strategy intended to make the firm stronger - (way back in 2014 when Mohit Saraf and Rajiv Luthra were admirably some of the most transparent managing partners out there, Saraf explained:
http://www.legallyindia.com/201308043886/Law-firms/luthra-management-strategy-promotes-two
They've clearly made a choice since then to avoid the media as much as possible, I assume because they felt it was hurting them more than it was helping. Fair enough, that's their prerogative, even if I disagree with the decision.
But likewise, whether you like it or not, it's also mine or anyone else's prerogative to comment on how they've been doing. And purely judging by the little news that has leaked out about the firm in the last year, I think it would be hard to call their new strategy a resounding and unqualified success.
But please correct me if I'm wrong and there's a facet of Luthra's story that's not being told. I hear recovery is stronger and management is certainly spending a lot of time on BD and getting new business. Anything else we should know about?
Any of the above particularly unfair?
Mwah,
K
1. I hear that Luthra is more transparent internally than they used to be, sharing profit figures and billings a bit more transparently between partners than they used to. Seems like a good move.
2. If anything, all this constant crying whenever we do a Luthra story that isn't all glowing praise is making my spider sense tingle that we're hitting a raw nerve... It definitely sounds like there's an interesting story to be told that we've been missing, even with all the CAM-SAM and other exciting things going on in the market...
I don't recall such a high percentage of comments from you on any article on LI. You only help prove a point that there is something more beyond just Luthra "not responding to you".
Who has the raw nerve now??
1. You, again, mistakenly impute that Vayttaden's leaving is a sore point. It isn't. In fact, he wasn't an M&A lawyer, but a securities lawyer. As you may (not) know, the firm has rebuilt the practice. That apart, there are 7/8 partners in the Mumbai office with a headcount of 50 lawyers.
2. Nobody wants incessant pandering or positivity. It's unreasonable to expect it from a "journalist" of any hue or as our someone called them - "press workers".
3. Let me acquaint you with a concept in management - "Everybody's carrot tastes different", I.e., everyone is after a different reward - someone wants a title/cash/more autonomy/ a better view from the office window etc etc. Understand that - and don't perpetuate your naïveté on most counts.
4. While you may be doing a fine job of running this tabloid, being so opinionated on this (and other?) story as a "journalist " really does not paint a pretty picture of LI and its supposed independence, if any. #acchedin #dothaybhai
Hugs and kisses (the legal kinds),
Xoxo
1. Without getting too personal, you trying to imply that the firm did not mind when Vayttaden left for AMSS, is false from what I've heard. As I've said, it's not fatal and I'm sure the firm as a whole have got over his departure a year later, but strategically it doesn't help losing who I believe was one of the highest billing young Mumbai partners when you're trying to build a Bombay practice and compete in the market with other firms that are growing more rapidly and increasing revenue & profits.
2. You suggesting that when people leave, law firms shouldn't really care in general because their brands are so big and people are fickle? Fine, then definitely don't get upset by the one-liner in the story that said "another corporate partner left a year ago", or read any other partner move stories on LI.
3. Journalists are more than entitled to opinions in opinion columns, everyday life, Twitter, Facebook and in comments on websites last time I checked. Even so, nothing I wrote in these comments is particularly unfair or untrue.
Anyway, we don't seem to fundamentally disagree on anything (other than with your and other a) slightly clumsy attempts at PR, or b) your stooping to ad hominem trolling).
Ok thank you byeybye xx :)
Also, by your logic, if Reliance stopped giving exclusive access to, for instance, the ET, because they are upset about the ET's comment section being too critical, the ET should just bloody stop writing about Reliance, yes??!!!?!?!!!!!!
Hmmm, nice.
But that doesn't and shouldn't really affect my job or perception, so your point is a bit of a non-sequitur.
But as I said, I'm happy that you're happy, keep it up!
How do firms such as Amarchand, Luthra and AZB (where in some cases upwards of 50% equity is owned by the promoter partners) stay competitive?
If, for argument's sake, these firms make 100 crore profit, of which 50 goes to the founders, then that leaves only 50 crore for the other equity partners (let's assume there are 10 non-founder equity partners, resulting in a profit per equity partner (PEP) of Rs 5 crore).
In a more broad-based firm such as Khaitan (I understand the promoters don't have a hugely higher equity than others), JSA or Trilegal, they'd only have to make Rs 50 crore of profits to be able to offer the same non-founder profit per equity partner (PEP) of Rs 5 crore.
Therefore the promoter-driven firms may have to be 50% more profitable to be able to match PEP of other firms, making them inherently less competitive in scouting talent, unless the founders volunteer a hit on their profits to shore up what other partners get?
Of course this is complicated somewhat by salaried partners, but the rough principle would also apply, does it not?
Can anyone shed some light on how this works in practice?
Is that true across the board?