White & Case has elected 28 lawyers to partner globally, including two non-Indian lawyers who are connected to the firm’s India practice. In New York, intellectual property (IP) associate Raj Gandesha became a partner, while in Singapore local partner Nandakumar Ponniya was elevated to the global partnership.
Gandesha is a Canadian national qualified to practice in New York, who has been previously involved in events with the US-India Business Council and studies about the IP landscape in India, according to several websites.
Ponniya is a Singaporean national and qualified lawyer who is triple qualified in New York, England and Singapore and specialises in arbitration, having advised in various India-related disputes. [White & Case press release]
Comments
And, I don't think Zia is India trained either. Could be wrong.
And, I don't think Zia is India trained either. Could be wrong.[/quote]
Zia did her law degree in Cambridge and then masters in Harvard. The cambridge degree satisfies the requirements of Advocates Act for enrolment in India.
So a canadian guy with indian ancestry makes partner at an american firm. Bloody useless piece of journalism.
It's a 3 paragraph summary of a press release, about 2 lawyers involved in the India group of a foreign firm that is quite active in India.
The news is definitely relevant (at least for those of us who like to keep a tab on such stuff).
What amazes me though is that foreign firms hold-out some of their lawyers with some India connection (even if that connection is nothing more than a family name) as their India practice partners. Reality is that many of these guys have no experience re India, leave aside India related work. Also, when they can advice only on laws of the jurisdictions they are qualified in, wonder why they brazenly pretend to be qualified in terms of advising on "India business". At best, they may have advised Indian companies needing advice on the law of their jurisdiction. Usually, they don't even have that experience!
Food for thought. Maybe we'll see a Mint piece on this. Although, its bound to ruffle feathers of the wrong (i.e. powerful) birds.
I think that often times it is not so much about firms pushing people forward, sometimes OCIs or NRIs simply feel like being involved in the India practice because they like the country, want to get back to their roots, have some family connections, etc. etc.
Maybe that's naive, but I doubt that foreign firms just go around and say, hey, you look Indian, why don't you do this India deal? Do correct me if you have any counter examples...
I have nothing against the article or W&C.
I was making a point that some people are not aware of – due to the excellent BD efforts of some firms! The truth is, very few foreign firms actually recruit dual-qualified Indian partners. Most just project partners with Indian names for their BD efforts; projection is through advertisements, BD and staffing policy re India-flavoured matters, including deals like foreign subsidiary of Indian company purchasing a foreign asset. None of their “India practice” extend beyond foreign law governed Indian deals happening abroad or role as international counsel on some Indian deal - usually in areas like sophisticated projects or mega-M&A where government/PSUs, and some select few big Indian companies, want international counsel to provide inputs to Indian counsel. Also Kian, firms actually do staff people with India connection on India deals – they are not so naive as to miss on that! Don't tell me you are not aware of this!
“Gandesha has been doing talks and research related to India” – talks yes, research no. The only research these partners do (through associates) is for profile building, like writing an article or preparing some talk on/in India where they have to add a couple of slides on India specific points e.g. Indian case law, FICCI views, comparison of Indian law with foreign law etc.
As unbelievable as it may sound, BD efforts and erroneous perceptions have ensured that some people are unaware of what India practice really means. You did nothing wrong by reporting the story the way you did. I rather meant that a story on these lines by a journalist who is widely followed would be great :)
Cheers.
And yes, i really appreciate your continuing love for trilegal.