Madras CJ slams conditional fees | Lawyer service tax | Engineers trounce Amarchand lawyers on TV quiz | SC on dead pilgrims | Freshfields MP: Lawyers are like meerkats & more

Monday, 23 July 2012 By Legally India Legally Wired

Madras HC Chief Justice M Yusuf Eqbal hits out at conditional fee arrangements (CFAs) being entered into by lawyers representing motor accident victims. “It is a great sin to the legal profession that lawyers are taking a percentage of the compensation awarded to accident victims. In MCOP cases, legal ethics should come into play. When family members of an accident victim seek legal help, lawyers must take it as a God-given opportunity to serve the people,” he said. [IBN Live]

Delhi HC shuts down a juvenile court because it was not busy enough [Indian Express]

Amarchand Delhi senior associate and associate get bested by Pune engineers in NDTV game show [NDTV Goodtimes]

The new service tax on lawyers: Another explanation proffered [ITAT Online]

SC Justices BS Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar suo motu order J&K gov to provide medical aid and facilities to dying Amarnath pilgrims, will investigate further [PTI]

Former Freshfields managing partner: Lawyers are like meerkats. Analyses what makes 21st century law firm work with Oxford zoologists [FT]

Wiredconditional fees

Comments

DigitalAsian 23 Jul 2012, 13:37
+0 -0
Conditional Fee Agreements are causing serious concern in England as well. I am sure the UK will pass legislation changing the way personal injury cases are funded.
Chiefs Court 23 Jul 2012, 14:20
+0 -0
Liked the 'silo busting' article of lawyers. Interesting and I think quite true. Thank you.
kianganz 23 Jul 2012, 14:28
+0 -0
Indeed, a good read. Incidentally, as an aside, the journalist who wrote it, Gillian Tett, is immensely respected and one of the few who wrote about the credit crunch before it happened. She is also the sister of a Freshfields partner, which might explain the choice of topic and subject...
x 23 Jul 2012, 17:14
+0 -0
Your story on the ndtv item may be incomplete. Suggest you wait a bit and then revise.

Also the two persons are not senior associates.
kianganz 23 Jul 2012, 19:27
+0 -0
Sorry, I don't quite understand - why is that story incomplete?

As far as I know, both persons in the video are actually senior associates, according to my sources.
Hashtagurbase 23 Jul 2012, 20:16
+0 -0
Checked. They aren't. your sources are wrong kian. Guess you aren't quite that up to date on mass :D
kianganz 24 Jul 2012, 17:38
+0 -0
Got a second confirmation - it does indeed appear that only one of the two is a senior associate. We regret the error and have corrected.
x 23 Jul 2012, 20:09
+0 -0
because your earlier line about them being trounced was more accurate.

and your sources are wrong.
kianganz 23 Jul 2012, 20:16
+1 -0
Trounced is in the headline - used different wording in the main copy to vary it a little.

Although, they did win two very old Blackberrys, and possibly a 2GB iPod Shuffle.

And to be fair, it is quite stressful being on TV, so we can attribute the trouncing to nerves perhaps.

One of them is definitely a senior associate, according to his linked in, and I was told the other is a senior associate, or maybe a principal associate? Would be grateful for confirmation.
x 23 Jul 2012, 20:37
+0 -0
dude they are lawyers. they shouldn't even have been on a technology quiz show. what were they even thinking. and as if they don't already have old blackberrys, working in amarchand.

i think the other one is only an associate. not a pa for sure. has amarchand announced its promotions?
PR 24 Jul 2012, 05:03
+1 -0
[quote name="x"]dude they are lawyers. they shouldn't even have been on a technology quiz show[/quote]

A lawyer should know only law? A lawyer should not know about technology or general knowledge stuff? Good thinking, you belong to mental asylum.

My batchmate at law school was a rockstar at business quiz, he managed to reach finals/win prestigious events like Tata Crucible and ET quiz. He continues to be a lawyer besides bringing laurels to his organization/college.
x 24 Jul 2012, 10:06
+1 -0
thats not the point dude. a lawyer can know other stuff. but if he isn't good at it he shouldn't go [...] on TV. these guys clearly knew nothing about technology. they not only brought shame to themselves but also to lawyers.

[...]
techlawyer 24 Jul 2012, 10:58
+2 -0
Wow X, you really do need to get a grip, it's just a quiz.
gladamnotx 24 Jul 2012, 14:32
+0 -0
Wow! So much angst!
[quote name="x"]they not only brought shame to themselves but also to lawyers.

[...][/quote]
alumini 24 Jul 2012, 10:13
+0 -0
Saw the quiz. If i was still in Amarchand and had participated, my team would have won!
snats 24 Jul 2012, 13:01
+2 -0
The lawyers only lost because Kris Srikkanth was on the Engineering team.
alumnus 24 Jul 2012, 13:19
+0 -0
[quote name="alumini"]Saw the quiz. If i was still in Amarchand and had participated, my team would have won![/quote]


Wow coming from someone who cannot even spell alumni right. :p
muphryslaw 25 Jul 2012, 12:40
+0 -0
alumnus is quoting alumini, which is the handle of the comment he/she was replying to.

stop being condescending without doing your DD first.
Tech lawyer 25 Jul 2012, 12:54
+1 -0
Stop being stupid and do your dd first. The reply was also to alumini's comment only.
bloated balloons 25 Jul 2012, 21:04
+0 -0
WOW. You really messed this us didn't you?
techlawyer 24 Jul 2012, 16:46
+1 -0
Why didnt you? Also you do know this not a nomination quiz rt? There was actually an entry test. And it was not an Amarchand team.
Goodness 24 Jul 2012, 10:36
+0 -0
Your website is just vicious Kian. A simple quiz show provokes such nasty reactions. Unbelievable. Your encouragement of this permeating culture on LI is shocking.
Right to free speech 24 Jul 2012, 11:33
+0 -0
It's not about Kian or website buddy. Anyone can give his opinion here and since we are mostly lawyers here, we feel duty bound to reply to comments which are illogical.
Indifferent Troll 24 Jul 2012, 13:30
+4 -0
@Right to free speech - don't think Goodness is questioning your right to free speech. He/she is only commenting on the tenor of the comments here, which one has to agree with is always hostile no matter the topic of discussion. Us lawyers seem to have so much pent up angst and hate.

If one follows your arguments that we lawyers are duty bound to question illogical statements maybe we should start with Kian and then X. A 20 point difference in the final scores is not a trouncing. Especially if the other episodes have had ended with 40/50 point differences. So unless Kian and X have stronger words than trounce for those margins lets reply to their logic first.
hastagurbase 26 Jul 2012, 12:34
+0 -0
Interesting how Kian chooses not to justify his Amarchand bashing?
Tech lawyer 26 Jul 2012, 22:08
+0 -0
Only smut sells..even kian knows that
green lantern 24 Jul 2012, 17:30
+0 -0
the freshfields partner's analysis says: "law firms only work if there is an intense collaboration and group spirit."
somewhere in the sub-conscious, clents know this too- hence the lure of the old, establisged firms which have demonstrably survived strong factions. explains why some new clients still go safe with say a crawford over say the new bright heaps of acronyms. not that this is a good thing, just to explain a behaviour.
Commenting is closed for this article.