So you want to become a litigator on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court? Are you dreaming of becoming the next superstar Bombay counsel like Fali Nariman or Janak Dwarkadas?
As you’re beginning your career, here are a few things you might want to know:
1. It’s all about appearances
If you’re a counsel in Bombay, you have to make yourself seen in court. On the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, that means that you have to sit in the library on the 2nd floor, and visit the Bar Association room on the 3rd floor, ever so often. You have to become a familiar face, so that solicitors recognise you and eventually give you work.
In fact, it’s said that you should sit in the Original Side library all day during court hours.
Now, here’s the catch – you won’t actually get any work done in the Original Side library.
There are no plug points where you can plug in your laptop.
There’s a nominal WiFi system, but it doesn’t work.
It’s too noisy with too many distractions.
There is very little place on the tables for you to keep your papers.
In fact, to a very large extent, the Original Side library on the 2nd floor is meant to be nothing more than a waiting room, where lawyers sit, wait and often socialize until their cases “reach”, i.e., until their cases get called out before the judge.
As a junior counsel, though, you have to act like you’re working in the library – you have to be seen ordering books there and reading. That will give solicitors the impression that you’re busy, and so you will get work, or at least that’s the idea.
There is one more thing you need to know about the library though – it has a many books that you might not find in your senior’s chamber, and so it’s important to be able to know how to get books there.
2. The library is a strange place
As alluded to above, the Original Side library on the 2nd floor of the Bombay High Court is quite a strange place.
First of all, there’s an informal system of assigned seating.
Everyone recognizes that there’s one table (at the far end of the main room as you walk in) which is the “Tulzapurkar” table, where the Tulzapurkar brothers sit. Another table, in the center of the room, is the extended Chagla table – where Iqbal Chagla and others from the Khursetjee Bhabha chamber (including the likes of Janak Dwarkadas and JP Sen) sit.
If you’re a junior to one senior counsel, it would be considered very odd if you sit at another table in the library without good reason.
So, for example, a Chagla junior wouldn’t be caught dead sitting at the Tulzapurkar table, if he can help it. Of course, it goes without saying that you have to give your seat to a senior counsel if you’re sitting at his place in the library.
Second, the manner in which you have to order books in the Original Side library is a bit odd. While seated at your table, you have to raise your hand, snap your fingers loudly to catch the attention of a librarian, and then yell out the name of the book you want.
It all looks a little colonial to me. I can imagine some white British lawyer sahib yelling out in 1875 in the High Court library, “Eh, coolie, Contract Act laao”.
Can you imagine sitting in the library at Oxford or Yale, and ordering librarians to get you books like this?
Third, it’s very hard to identify who the librarians are in the library when you’re starting out.
That’s because many lawyers’ peons also sit and wait in the library where the librarians sit. So when you raise your hand, snap your fingers, and call for a book, don’t be surprised if the librarian you’re hailing does nothing, because he might not be a librarian at all – he might be some lawyer’s peon.
3. No attorney-client privilege
There’s another thing you’re likely to notice when you start your career as a counsel.
There’s almost no attorney-client privilege at the Bombay High Court.
Lawyers often conduct conferences in the library on the 2nd floor, or in the Bar Association room on the 3rd floor. These can be heard by anyone who’s sitting nearby. I find it extremely strange that lawyers discuss strategies with clients in open areas like this. It’s also sometimes embarrassing to conduct a conference when your friends are nearby.
4. You will start slow
No matter who you are or what your family background is, you will get very little work in the beginning.
On the Original Side, you will get few or no chances to appear and argue (even less so if you don’t belong to a “legal family”).
Your senior at the Bar will pay you no money.
This is not necessarily a bad thing – it ensures that you’re not an employee for your senior, and that you can take outside work as well.
5. There are many entry barriers to litigation
You will often see that there are two kinds of lawyers who become counsel: (i) children of lawyers or judges; or (ii) children of business families.
There are a few reasons why this is so:
First, counsel practice is a big risk.
You make little or no money in the beginning. If you have to pay rent or earn money to provide for your family, counsel practice is not for you, because you won’t make enough money for at least a few years.
As a consequence, it’s only if you come from a reasonably well-off family and if you have a flat to stay in without paying rent that you can afford to become a counsel. It’s only the sons/daughters of lawyers/judges (or those from business families who are reasonably secure financially) who can brave the risk of becoming a counsel.
Second, getting a position in the chamber of a senior counsel is very hard in Bombay.
There are reasons for this. When you join a senior in Bombay, you join that senior for life.
The senior doesn’t pay you anything, and that means that he can’t fire you. He’s stuck with you for the rest of his life.
That means that a senior will be very cautious before taking someone on as a junior. If law firms like Amarchand, AZB or J Sagar hire newbie nobody lawyers from a National Law School, and then don’t like their work, they can always get rid of them.
Not so for a counsel, which is why it’s so hard to get into a senior’s chamber in Bombay.
As a result, it’s usually only the sons/daughters of the well-connected – again, children of lawyers/judges or businessmen (businessmen who have hired senior counsel in the past and so know them well) – who can get into these chambers.
6. Moot courts were a joke
If you enjoyed mooting as a law student, and thought that you would get into litigation because of it, you’re in for a rude shock.
First of all, moot courts were all about the law, but litigation is about facts.
In moots, students often skip the facts by saying something like “if your Lordships are conversant with the facts of the case, I will come to my arguments in law…”
This is unheard of in counsel practice on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. In fact, it’s often said that law schools teach you to apply complex law to simple facts, whereas in litigation, you apply simple law to complex facts.
Second, preparing memorials for moot courts does not train you for preparing pleadings on the Original Side.
Memorials are like written submissions, which come only at the end of a heavy case. Preparing pleadings, on the other hand, is nothing like writing a memorial.
It’s a remarkably mundane process, where you have to respond to each and every paragraph of the pleadings made by your opponent (the process is called making “para-wise denials”) and you have to “deny and dispute” everything which goes against you.
On a lighter note, you will learn to use redundant repetitions while drafting in counsel practice. For example, you will write phrases like “deny and dispute” or “repeat and reiterate” often.
Third, you will never get the luxury of only preparing for one case for several months, like a moot court. Often, the papers will come to you only a week before the case comes on board. Often, you will have many matters to work on such that you can't give all your time and thought to just one case.
Oh, and one last thing.
When someone asks you for your “number” in court, don’t give them your cell number. They’re only asking what your number is on the board.
Good luck!
VakilBombay tweets at @VakilBombay and is a Junior Counsel of the Bombay High Court. Learning to count only in gms. Finding out that real courtrooms are more entertaining than the ones in movies.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Walking fast on corridors will help you get more matters!
Though Rohan cama (son of senior counsel Mr. J p cama) Mayur Khandeparkar (son of retd justice RMS Khandeparkar) vishal kanade (son of sitting judge v m kanade) all have family connections, still they are all very brilliant and hardworking.
My personal favourite among the newer lot is Mayur. I like the way he argues his point, aggressive with conviction.
It reminds me of the controversy of Justice D.B. Bhosle sometime back!
I personally don't think there is anything wrong in appearing in the same court where your father practices as long as you are not appearing before him.
As far as prejudice goes, that I have seen even if the judge and the lawyer are unrelated
Among others maybe Zal Andhyarujina !!
Seniors in Delhi HC do, and some of them pay their juniors pretty well.
If the Delhi litigation market has gradually evolved little liberally towards juniors, why cant the same happen in Bombay?
I hope one of the senior councils (preferably pravin samdani xP) fights or case in bhc for harrasment.
PS: I am not from WG and have never been a part of it.
But Dhawal will still be there eating our salary.
The OS has a lot of trial matters: the bulk of the work on the appellate side consists of second appeals and WPs. In second appeals, one comes the closest to a moot (where the facts are more or less admitted and specific questions of law are framed prior to the final hearing)./ The Appellate Side Bar has much less "glory" than OS practice, but arguably contributes more to the development of the law as such. It has also produced excellent advocates: Justice Gajendragadkar is an illustration. On the AS, juniors are paid by seniors and are also allowed to take up matters on their own. The AS is not really a dual system: people do filing as well as appearing themselves (though some have now begun a more 'pure counsel' practice). The OS Bar is dominated by Parsis and Sindhis, the AS by Marathis (perhaps because the OS has a lot of work from the solicitor firms of Bombay, while the AS has all its work from the "mofussil" of old times and cities outside Bombvay where the solicitor culture was not at all dominant). In the AS, it is not important to "be seen" in the right places: most work for juniors comes from direct referrals from the senior, or from matters where the junior appears and argues in the absence of a senior. It is easier to argue and appear as a junior on the AS than the OS. The work isnt as "glamorous": there are not as many hard commercial disputes; but the work involves optically less glamorous areas (which, IMHO, have more legal nuances) such as property, family laws, etc; rather than headline-grabbing work. But if someone is comfortable with working at "LAW" as opposed to running around for interim reliefs, the AS Bar in Bombay is an excellent place. Unfortunately, for far too long, the AS has been seen as the poor cousin of the OS. I wonder what the reason is that. Surely, a lawyer doing glamorous work is not necessarily a better lawyer than one who does challenging-but-not-headline-grabbing work?
Out of curiosity I did a search on the HC website for Reported Judgments on the AS and the OS. Bulk of AS judgments are final disposals in Writs, Family Court appeals and Second appeals. Bulk of OS reported judgments arise out of Notices of Motion and Chamber Summons: again indicating the different type of practice. On the OS, considering the commercial nature of most disputes, the focus is on motions etc. rather than final hearings in suits. (I am ignoring the Income Tax final judgments: as I said earlier, all ITXA are filed on the OS, whether the ITAT Bench is in Mumbai or in Pune) This is quite natural: as a court of first instance, the focus will be on factual disputes as pointed out in the article also. The law points are argued at an interim stage, or at stages of pleadings for amendment, return of plaint etc; hence the bulk of reported judgments are in final hearings of interim motions rather than final hearings of the suit.
Many may not know but Janak Dwarkadas and Darius Kambata both are a part of the extended Chagla chamber...Mr. Dwarkadas was infact one of Mr. Chagla's first junior's in Bombay HC and so was Mr. Kambata....Mr. Chagla was one of the first lawyers to be offered a direct elevation to the Supreme Court and would have retired as the Chief Justice of India in 2003 but like his legendary father M.C Chagla ...he too turned down the offer... He is also one of the most influential lawyer in the country today...he dominates the Bombay bar like no one does... mite not b relevant bt he is also the father in law of one of the most influential figures in India...the Tata Grp Chairman...
The Giants on the Appellate Side include Shantaram Narayan, Raosaheb Mandlik,Barrister Kirtikar, Sharaosaheb Vithal, AG Desai, Divanbahadur Shingne etc... The names on the OS such as Inverarity, Kanga etc are well known to most lawyers, but the leaders of the Appellate Side are less well-known. Excellent biographical sketches of AS leaders of the old days will be found in Vacha's book on the history of the HC
Admit we have a bit of a Bombay HC blind spot, but it's no intentional bias and we have been trying to increase our coverage:
www.legallyindia.com/tag/bombay-high-court
You can do your bit to help too - do send us an email or anonymous tip if there's something interesting in the Bombay HC we should be covering, ideally with a phone number for someone involved if possible...
Cheers
Kian
1. Did you just write JP Sens name alongside janak, chagla, tulzapurkars et al.
2. You're a little jealous of your junior peers.
3. You have no idea what you are writing about.
4. Did you just compare JP Sen (designated this year) with Seniors for over a decade, if not more.
5. You have no idea about drafting a Plaint.
6. You are from GLC.
And free advise:-
Go back to your hometown or join a law firm.
And more free but mandatory advice:
Dont ever reveal your real name.
In Ittavira Vs Varkey (A 1964 SC 907) the august (?) court has ruled that 'courts have jurisdiction to decide right or to decide wrong and even though they decide wrong, the decrees rendered by them cannot be treated as nullities'.
In Misrilal Vs Sadasiviah (A 1965 SC 553) the apex court has ruled that 'there can be no interference in revision merely because the decision is erroneous in law or in fact where there is no error pertaining to jurisdiction'.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first