The Bombay high court has designated 11 new senior counsel, including three outside Mumbai, Economic Laws Practice (ELP) partner Vikram Nankani, and one woman, Anarkali Agni in Goa.
The new senior counsel are, according to the notification on the Bombay high court website, are:
Outside Mumbai
- Anarkali Agni (Goa)
- Pratap Rau Sardessai Nitin Narain Naik (Goa)
- Vinayak Daulatrao Hon (Aurangabad)
Mumbai
- Sanjay K Singhvi (labour / industrial matters, appearing for unions / workers)
- VK Ramabhadran (original side shipping lawyer)
- Vikram S Nankani (ELP civil and commercial disputes, criminal and regulatory partner, including tax and economic offences),
- Ranjit Anandrao Thorat
- Prasad Sudhir Dani
- Atul Gajanan Damle
- Pankaj A Savant (original side)
- Mustafa Saleh Doctor (original side)
Senior counsel are not allowed to continue in law firm partnerships and must run an independent counsel practice, which usually means that they resign from the law firm.
ELP managing partner Rohan Shah commented in a statement: “Vikram’s designation is an event of great pride for ELP. Consequent upon this designation, and as part of the regulatory requirement, Vikram will retire as a partner of ELP. Vikram shall in his capacity as senior counsel continue to work with the relevant ELP services team on all ongoing clients, and matters, that he is concerned with. ELP wishes Vikram the very best in his role as senior counsel.”
Only last month, Vaish Associates partner and head Ajay Vohra was designated as senior counsel, while Bangalore saw the elevation of Poovayya & Co managing partner Sajan Poovayya.
Mumbai law firm Paras Kuhad & Associates founder, Paras Kuhad, was designated to senior counsel in 2011.
For two years running, the Bombay high court had failed to designate any women to the senior counsel ranks, adding to the woeful statistics of only six women designated out of 203 new senior counsel in Mumbai and Delhi in 20 years until 2011.
The Supreme Court in 2013, however, designated four senior counsel, of whom three were women.
Hat-tip to @superselector5.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I heartily compliment Cyril Shroff on his forthright view published sometime ago regarding Counsels and congratulate him on his decision to set up an inhouse cell. I hope other big leagues follow suit.
You know that since the time the dual system was abolished I have strongly been suggesting to all friends in the profession that save for matters which require special knowledge and skill, in routine matters, our dependence on counsels, particularly seniors, should be reduced. It had become a joke that solicitors are only post offices transferring papers from clients to counsel and did not apply their mind to the matters. I have myself been appearing in court and have been encouraging all colleagues who can. This has made me somewhat unpopular with some in the counsel fraternity.
I agree that advocacy in court requires different skills then preparation or instructing. However, how many matters require such specialised presentation and handling? I do respect and even admire some of the counsels and for that matter even the system when it comes to intricate matters, matters requiring in depth experience and knowledge of a particular branch of law and matters with high stakes. Even our courts have allowed face value syndrome to grow and Senior Counsel Gown glorified and with the system being what it is, clients do not want to take chances and opt to pay for the insurance of having a senior with face value, irrespective of whether the matter otherwise calls for it.
This has resulted in to most of the Counsels who have acquired standing to develop an attitude which is highbrow and not truely professional. Instructing attorney and client is always on the tenterhook as to whether the counsel who has accepted the brief, even held conference, will be dependable enough to be available when the matter is called out or listed. The blame is always given to the system, which to an extent is true, but are they also not responsible for the system being what has become? Without the knowledge of the Attorney or client, private discussions are held between counsels representing rival parties for mutual accommodation in disregard of the impact on the client. Intimations in advance about non availability are not given. Adjournments even when taken for their own convenience are charged. And most of all, there is no sincerity to the client and the focus is only on working out as many briefs as can be possible with least efforts. In depth study of facts and law is bye gone generally. Common professional courtesy of responding to calls or messages is lost. It is as though they have no duty or responsibility and the Attorney and client have to keep chasing them and by accepting the brief they have done a great favour and obligation, irrespective of whether they appear or not. The “face value” syndrome and ‘senior” label has also added to the attitude of arrogance.
I know I am treading on a dangerous path of offending many of my friends whose professional abilities I admire and respect and this is bound to offend inflated egos of many and even provoke retaliation, but I also trust that many fair minded of them may accept reality.
Irritatingly Yours,
MG
Just look at the Junior Counsel's at Bombay HC who appear for adjournments for the Big & Small Firms! Its not often that junior associates from law/solicitor firms appear themselves.
cyril only pushes agenda which benefits Cyril. No doubt he thinks his years of drafting "agreements" entitles him to a senior's gown. Haha If you read his other "forthright" views you will see how "forthrightly" he bats for himself (such as no entry for foreign firms). [...]
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first