From completing your B.B.A LL.B from Symbiosis to pursuing an LL.M. at NYU, how has your academic journey influenced your perspective on law and policy in a global context?
What began as a spontaneous decision to pursue law gradually evolved into a conscious and enduring passion. Studying law taught me to view it not merely as a fixed framework, but as an ever-evolving dialogue across jurisdictions. At Symbiosis, I built a strong foundation in core legal principles within the Indian context, and later, my time at NYU shaped and broadened my entire perspective about it.
My motivation to pursue a post-graduation degree was a bit different from a lot of students out there. After nearly eight years of work experience, I decided to pursue my LL.M. at NYU; not as a break, but as a deliberate step to step back, reflect, and re-engage with law in a global classroom. That year was transformative. That experience allowed me to appreciate how legal systems can be both deeply interconnected and strikingly different, particularly in the areas I focused on; technology governance, environmental and energy policy. I believe that it also instilled in me the belief that a lawyer today must not remain confined within national borders or existing judgments, but should be ready to question, reinterpret, and challenge what they encounter at every step. I am also convinced that cultural context significantly shapes the way law is interpreted and enforced. Hence, my academic path enabled me to learn law in a way that extends far beyond textbooks.
What inspired you to specialize in environmental and energy policy, with a focus on emerging technologies, during your Master’s at NYU? How did that experience enhance your understanding and practice of these areas?
The real catalyst for my interest came during my time with the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance at the University of Cambridge. While researching the sustainability challenges of crypto-assets, I realized that what seemed like a niche question- whether blockchain-based assets could ever be environmentally sustainable- was in fact a window into a much larger set of issues around climate change, sustainable development, and the governance of emerging technologies. Over those nine months, I found myself asking bigger questions: how do we balance innovation with responsibility, and what role should law and policy play in steering that balance?
When I decided to pursue further study, I chose the U.S. very intentionally. It has been a leader in both clean technology and regulatory innovation, and I knew that immersing myself in such an environment would challenge me and give me the global perspective I needed. NYU was the natural choice because of its emphasis on international and interdisciplinary learning. At NYU, seminars and courses such as Environmental & Energy Law Colloquium, and Law and Global Governance, allowed me to engage with both theoretical and practical dimensions of these challenges. I learned from professors who are at the forefront of global policy debates and worked alongside peers who brought perspectives from every continent. These interactions helped me see the intricate linkages between technology governance and environmental goals in a way that was both global and deeply contextual.
That experience did more than just enrich my knowledge; it sharpened my conviction. I came away believing that solving climate and energy challenges will require not only technological innovation, but also robust legal governance frameworks that can adapt to the pace of change. It was at Cambridge where the spark was lit, but it was at NYU where that spark turned into a sustained commitment to work at this intersection.
Early in your career, what were some of the most formative experiences, and how have you integrated those lessons into your professional practice?
My most formative years were the initial three years, which were spent as a litigating lawyer under the mentorship of Mr. Anupam Srivastava (now Senior Advocate). For those three years, I had the privilege of working on a wide spectrum of matters across the High Court of Delhi, ranging from high-stakes political cases to civil disputes and recovery suits. Those experiences shaped me into the lawyer I am today. The environment was demanding yet enriching; drafting petitions, appearing before different courts, and learning to think on my feet. I entered litigation with stage fright, but my seniors’ trust and belief in me from the very first day when he handed me a file and asked me to argue before a registrar, is something that helped me as a young lawyer. Today, when I look back, that moment and many similar ones in those three years helped me shed my fear and find my voice as an advocate.
I believe that the lessons I gained from my mentors and seniors during those years have stayed with me throughout my career. The discipline of drafting in litigation helps me today when I negotiate and draft million-dollar contracts or company-wide policies at a Fortune 500 IT distribution company. The advocacy skills I mastered in court helped me adapt seamlessly at NYU, where the Socratic method requires you to engage, challenge, and defend ideas in real time. I owe much of my professional growth to those early years and to the mentorship I received in that chamber, and they continue to anchor me, along with my work, and give me confidence as I navigate newer, global domains of law and policy even today.
You’ve navigated diverse legal domains, from litigation and corporate law to compliance and emerging technology regulations. How do you adapt your approach when moving across such varied fields?
Litigation gave me the strongest toolkit a lawyer can ask for; clarity of thought, precision in drafting, and the ability to argue under pressure. These skills are transferable across every legal domain I have since navigated. Whether drafting a court petition, negotiating a transaction, or shaping Data Privacy or AI governance frameworks, the process is similar- understand the facts, identify the risks, and build persuasive solutions.
What changes is the context, and that is where adaptability comes in. Moving from the courtroom to corporate boardrooms, I learned to switch between adversarial advocacy and collaborative problem-solving. Litigation instilled resilience and meticulousness in me, and corporate practice taught me pragmatism and strategy. The combination of both makes me comfortable navigating even uncharted and new territories like digital assets or AI regulation, even after years of practice.
While managing legal and policy functions at a cryptocurrency trading platform and later at Yellow.ai, what were some of the most challenging regulatory or compliance issues you faced in the digital assets and AI space?
In the digital assets space, I faced regulatory ambiguity, which was new from what I was practicing before. When I started working for a cryptocurrency startup, digital asset regulations were not even at the nascent stage; everything was fragmented across jurisdictions, and mostly contradictory. The challenge was to build robust compliance structures in a grey zone, ensuring innovation without regulatory backlash- worldwide. Whereas at Yellow.ai, the challenge shifted to AI-driven business models, where data privacy, AI ethics, and regulatory uncertainty required foresight. Here, I guess, approaching every issue systematically, anticipating risks, and preparing strong documentation and frameworks to withstand scrutiny helped a lot.
From litigation to working in fast-growing tech spaces, the change was quite different, but as I mentioned, the approach remained similar, and these experiences taught me that in emerging fields, lawyers must not only interpret law but also actively shape it through dialogue with regulators and industry stakeholders.
In your current focus on data privacy, AI governance, and sustainability laws, what shifts have you observed in these areas, and how do you navigate these evolving dynamics?
Currently, I look after Data Privacy & Protection, AI Legal Governance, and Sustainability Laws for an IT distribution giant across the Asia-Pacific Japan region. The scale itself is humbling; advising a multinational with thousands of employees and partners requires not just legal expertise, but also cultural sensitivity, strategic alignment, and the ability to anticipate risks in markets that are at very different stages of regulatory maturity.
This role is a stark departure from my earlier years in litigation and tech startups, but the contrast has been invaluable. While litigation sharpened my advocacy and analytical skills, working with startups trained me to be agile in ambiguous regulatory spaces. Now, in a corporate environment of this size, the challenge is about building governance structures that are both robust and scalable.
The biggest shift I’ve observed is the fine balance between principles and accountability. In Data Protection & Privacy, this means embedding privacy by design into products, processes, and systems, instead of treating it as an afterthought. In AI Governance, the conversation is rapidly moving from broad ethical principles to concrete, enforceable frameworks like the EU AI Act, where businesses must demonstrate active risk management and transparency. And, in Sustainability, voluntary ESG disclosures are giving way to mandatory reporting requirements, with investors, regulators, and even consumers demanding credible, data-backed commitments.
To navigate this evolving landscape, I rely on two approaches. First, I lean on the structured thinking that my litigation and academic experiences instilled in me; fact-finding, risk assessment, and precise documentation are my constant go-to. Second, I draw on my corporate and policy exposure to design governance frameworks that don’t just tick regulatory boxes but align meaningfully with business goals, enabling companies to remain compliant while still innovating and growing.
Looking ahead, I believe the role of lawyers in these domains will become increasingly proactive. We are no longer just interpreters of the law; rather, we are architects of governance, guiding organizations through uncharted territories where law, policy, and technology converge.
Having worked at the intersection of environmental law, corporate governance, and emerging technologies, what trends do you see shaping the future of legal practice in these areas?
I believe the practice of law in my area is moving toward a far more anticipatory and integrated role than it has been in the past. Instead of being called upon to interpret rules once they are in force, lawyers are already and will increasingly be involved in shaping how those rules are designed, tested, and embedded into business strategy from the outset. In my view, this is especially true for fields like data protection, AI governance, and sustainability, where the pace of innovation is far faster than the pace of regulation.
Another change I see is the growing expectation that lawyers act as translators, not only of law into practice, but of complex issues across various disciplines. For example, when discussing sustainability with the management of a company, the lawyer will not only have to explain reporting requirements, but also connect them to investor risk, technology adoption, and long-term corporate resilience. That level of cross-disciplinary fluency is going to define successful practitioners in the coming decade.
Also, the global-local tension will only deepen as we are witnessing. We may see convergence in certain areas, like sustainability disclosures, but fragmentation will persist in fields like data protection and A.I regulations. Lawyers of the future will therefore need to be not just regulators’ watchdogs, but strategic advisors, who can help organizations craft governance frameworks that are both globally coherent and locally responsive.
In short, I see the role of the lawyer evolving from interpreter of law to designer of governance, someone who not only ensures compliance but also helps businesses earn trust, stay resilient, and lead responsibly in uncertain times.
What advice would you give to young lawyers seeking to build multidisciplinary expertise across litigation, corporate practice, and global regulatory policy?
If I were to give one piece of advice, it would be to start with litigation if you get the chance. Those years in the courtroom gave me the strongest foundation: clarity of thought, discipline in drafting, and confidence in advocacy. As mentioned above, I still draw on those skills every single day, whether I am negotiating deals, drafting contracts, or shaping governance frameworks for global companies. Beyond that, I would encourage young lawyers to stay curious and not box themselves into one practice area too early. The legal profession today rewards breadth as much as depth, and a non-linear career path is not a weakness- it is rather a strength. Every shift, whether from litigation to corporate advisory or from startups to global policy, adds another dimension to your skillset and makes you a more resilient lawyer. And I cannot overstate the importance of mentors. I was fortunate to have seniors early in my career who trusted me and gave me real opportunities, and that faith shaped my confidence and growth. Seek out mentors who challenge and guide you, and be willing to learn from every opportunity, no matter how small it seems at the time.
With such a diverse portfolio and responsibilities, how do you maintain personal well-being and work-life balance? Are there any particular strategies or resources you rely on?
For me, balance has never been about drawing a hard line between work and personal life; it’s about weaving them together in a way that feels organic in my day-to-day life. I have found that movement is my best anchor. Whether it’s an early morning workout or a long evening walk to clear my head, those moments give me the energy and mental space to reset. They are often when I do my best thinking, away from screens and meetings.
I also try to pick up new hobbies from time to time, something completely outside the legal world. Recently, it has been experimenting with different dance forms and cooking. Having something creative to turn to reminds me that my identity is bigger than my work, and it helps me keep perspective when deadlines pile up. It was early in my career, I learned how easily work can take over every waking hour if you let it. Now I’m intentional about boundaries. I’ll close my laptop at a certain time, put my phone away during dinner with family and friends, and make sure weekends have at least one pocket of time just for me. These small choices add up eventually- I have come to see well-being not as a luxury, but as a professional necessity.
In the early stages of your journey, particularly while transitioning into the world of intellectual property, what were some defining experiences that helped shape your practice in patents? Could you share any formative instances that honed your core skills?
Overall, my journey in the field of Intellectual Property (IP) has been both enriching and transformative. Each organization I have worked with has added a unique dimension to my understanding of IP, helping me grow both technically and strategically. While I have had the opportunity to learn immensely at every stage, there are two experiences that stand out. Not only because of the nature of the work involved, but also because they came at pivotal moments in my career and had a lasting impact on how I approach patent practice today.
The first was my transition into an in-house role at LG Electronics, which marked a significant turning point. Although this was not at the very beginning of my career, it was one of my earliest exposures to working in a large, innovation-driven product company. It was an exciting time as the first iPhone had just launched, reshaping the mobile industry. I was one of the few patent professionals hired outside LG’s IP team in South Korea, which gave me a unique vantage point.
This role gave me critical exposure to the intersection of product design and IP. I worked extensively on handheld devices, touchscreens, and human machine interfaces. I learned to break down products into their technical components and identify key innovation areas. It was here that I began to understand the importance of aligning patent strategy with product roadmaps, ensuring that each patent family supported not just a single product but an entire innovation trajectory.
In addition, I had the opportunity to contribute to emerging areas such as smart TVs and smart home initiatives. This showed me how cohesive, ecosystem-level IP strategy can create stronger value than isolated patents. Collaborating with different business units and cross-functional teams deepened my appreciation for how patents can be leveraged as long-term strategic assets. That early experience of helping shape an IP function within a rapidly evolving tech landscape laid a strong foundation for my future roles.
The second defining chapter came during my time at Nokia USA. As part of Nokia’s patent team, I worked across high impact areas like User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX), Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR), and digital health. Being immersed in Nokia’s global innovation ecosystem, from Nokia Research Labs and Nokia Bell Labs to academic collaborations across Europe and Asia, broadened my horizons both technically and culturally.
My role encompassed a wide range of responsibilities including invention harvesting, portfolio development, prosecution, and strategic patent portfolio management across key jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, China, Japan, and Korea. I also got exposure to work with Technical Support teams for different patent licensing projects at Nokia. This includes preparing claim charts and evidence of use analyses, contributing directly to licensing and divestment strategies.
This is where I gained a nuanced understanding of how the clarity and scope of a patent can directly influence its commercial value and enforceability. I began to think more holistically, not just about obtaining patents, but about building enforceable, high-quality assets that could withstand scrutiny in licensing and litigation contexts.
Together, these two experiences helped me develop a well-rounded perspective, one that balances deep technical insight, legal precision, and strategic foresight. They taught me to view IP not just as a legal function, but as a business enabler, and that mindset has stayed with me throughout my career.
With over 17 years of in-house patent experience, looking back, what initially inspired you to pursue a degree in law after completing your engineering? Was patent law always an area of interest, or did your passion for it evolve organically over time?
Looking back, my path into patent law was not something I had mapped out early on. It was a journey that evolved gradually, shaped by experiences, exposure, and curiosity. What started as an interest in understanding how technology impacts real-world outcomes slowly matured into a deep, lasting passion for IP and patents.
During my engineering years, I was always intrigued by how innovation could be protected, monetized, and scaled. Through internships and early professional experiences, I began to realize that I was drawn not just to the technical side of things, but to the intersection of technology, business, and strategy. I found myself wanting to explore the broader picture, what happens beyond the invention itself.
That curiosity eventually led me to the field of intellectual property. I was particularly fascinated by how IP brings together technical analysis, strategic thinking, and legal structure. My initial experiences with patent work, mostly through hands-on projects and on-the-job learning, made a strong impression on me. The more I was exposed to the field, the clearer it became that I wanted to move beyond executing individual patent tasks. I was eager to contribute to broader innovation strategies and understand how legal frameworks support long-term business goals.
As I worked across different projects and domains within the IP space, I gained a better appreciation for the breadth of the field. Patent law is vast, and exposure to varied technologies and business contexts helped me understand which aspects resonated with me the most. Over time, it became clear that deepening my legal understanding would allow me to be more effective and more strategic in my role.
This was the turning point that led me to pursue a law degree. It was not about switching careers but about enhancing the one I was already building. Law helped me connect the dots between technology, innovation, and strategic value creation. It gave structure to the insights I had been developing through experience.
You’ve managed patent portfolios across major jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, Japan, China, Korea, and India. What are some of the most nuanced challenges you’ve encountered in aligning with these diverse legal frameworks?
Yes, that’s right, managing patent portfolios across multiple jurisdictions involves navigating various topics and requirements, which can present nuanced challenges when trying to align a global strategy.
One of the few topics to keep in mind is patent eligibility, particularly for software and business methods. Compared to other jurisdictions, the US tends to be more permissive but requires to show specific improvements in computer functionality or technological solutions to overcome eligibility rejections, following the Alice decision. Europe places strong emphasis on the technical contribution of an invention, where a business advantage alone may not be enough to establish patentability.
Technical disclosure requirements also vary significantly, and this can impact claim amendments during prosecution. For example, the European Patent Office (EPO) is very strict about amendments not containing subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. When making amendments, it is important to specify where the support lies in the original application. Although exact wording is not legally required, examiners generally prefer amendments that closely match the original text.
Handling of prior art and grace periods differs across jurisdictions as well. The US offers a one-year grace period after disclosure, whereas Europe generally requires absolute novelty before filing. China and India allow limited grace periods under specific conditions. These differences make the timing of public disclosures and use of nondisclosure agreements important considerations.
Inventive step criteria is another aspect to be mindful of. For example, the EPO primarily assesses inventive step using the problem-solution approach. This involves identifying the closest prior art, establishing the objective technical problem based on the differences, and determining whether the invention would have been obvious to a skilled person.
When it comes to claims, jurisdictions also vary in their preferences and fee structures. For instance, there is often a dislike of excessive independent claims, and claim fees can increase significantly with multiple dependencies or a large number of claims. Careful planning of claim scope and format is therefore necessary to balance broad protection with cost-effectiveness.
Overall, these jurisdictional nuances call for a careful and flexible approach. Understanding local laws, working closely with local patent agents and attorneys, tailoring claim language and prosecution strategies, and managing disclosures thoughtfully are important steps to building a patent portfolio that is both effective and enforceable across different regions.
What inspired your transition from practicing in the Indian IP ecosystem to pursuing an international role, particularly within the U.S. patent system? After nearly a decade of working in India, how did you navigate the shift, both technically and culturally and what were some of the key experiences as you adapted to the U.S. IP landscape?
My move to the US was not a planned career step but was driven by personal reasons. However, during my practice in India, I consistently worked with multinational companies, expatriates, senior leadership, and patent attorneys and agents from the US, Europe, and Korea. I also managed international patent portfolios and was regularly exposed to global patent laws and treaties, which provided a strong foundation for the transition.
Technically, adapting to the US patent system involved gaining a thorough understanding of its examination procedures, claim drafting nuances, and administrative and legal standards. On the cultural side, I embraced the collaborative and fast-paced work environment, learning to navigate diverse communication styles and team dynamics effectively.
Overall, my prior international exposure made the shift smoother and helped me quickly align with the US IP landscape while appreciating the cultural differences that enriched my professional growth.
In your in-house roles, you’ve worked closely with engineers and product development teams to build high-value patent portfolios aligned with business strategy. From this experience, what are some common pitfalls you often see at the early stages of innovation or idea disclosure that, if left unaddressed, can lead to challenges or setbacks during later stages of patent prosecution? How can these be proactively avoided?
A common pitfall at the early stages of innovation or idea disclosure could be insufficient technical details in the Invention Disclosures. Inventors may focus on what a new feature or a use-case is but sometimes fail to fully articulate the know-how and why behind its technical effect. This lack of depth may challenge later patent prosecution. To avoid this, we could implement a structured invention disclosure process where the patent practitioners work with the Engineers at an early phase of patent workflow and provide examples on the level of technical details needed.
Industrial Application or Utility of Inventions. It’s good to work with Inventors to demonstrate a practical application for their inventions. Jurisdictions scrutinize “abstract ideas” or “computer programs per se.” To counter this, disclosures must highlight technical effects and improvements to, for example, existing computing or vehicles, not just a new user experience.
Initial invention disclosures may focus solely on current product features, potentially overlooking future developments or competitive design-arounds. This can result in unduly narrow patent claims. It is therefore advisable to collaborate closely with inventors to explore potential workarounds, alternative technologies, and foreseeable product evolutions to ensure broader and more robust claim coverage.
By proactively addressing these areas, early ideas translate into a robust, high-value patent portfolio that aligns with business strategy.
Looking ahead, how do you foresee the role of an in-house IP professional evolving, especially in the context of generative AI, rapidly emerging technologies, and shifting regulatory environments? What skills, perspectives, or mindsets will be critical for IP professionals to stay ahead?
The role of an in-house IP professional is fundamentally transforming, demanding consistent vigilance across both technical and legal domains due to their rapid evolution. The rise of generative AI exemplifies this shift, raising complex questions from Inventorship, AI governance and evolving standards of subject matter eligibility for AI-related inventions across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, the increasing use of AI tools in patent drafting and analysis requires us to master new proficiencies while mitigating risks like data security and “hallucinations.” Staying current in these areas is crucial, allowing IP professionals to move beyond traditional counsel to provide proactive, forward-looking strategic guidance that anticipates both technological breakthroughs and their unique legal ramifications.
For patent professionals, this shift demands a deep understanding of these technologies, the ability to ask the right questions to the inventors so as to use the details to draft patent applications and create a patent portfolio that is robust, strategically aligned, and resilient to future developments (future-proof patent applications). Simultaneously, the use of AI in media and content generation is raising complex questions in copyright law, including issues around authorship, fair use, and derivative works. Navigating these emerging challenges requires both legal adaptability and technical insight.
For students and young professionals exploring a transition from engineering to law and ultimately into the IP and patent domain, what advice would you offer? Could you suggest a potential roadmap or strategies to help them stay relevant and future-ready in this interdisciplinary space?
For students and young professionals moving from engineering to patent law, the first step is to maintain your strong technical knowledge. As an engineer or STEM graduate, you have a solid foundation. Try to stay current with the latest technological trends within your specific field. Understanding the core technology is crucial, as patent law focuses on protecting innovations you thoroughly comprehend.
Next, develop your legal knowledge. Immerse yourself in legal manuals, textbooks, and case studies. You must become comfortable with legal language, statutes, and court rulings. This new legal expertise will combine with your technical background, creating a unique and powerful skill set vital for the interdisciplinary world of intellectual property. This allows you to understand the interplay between technology and legal strategy.
Finally, sharpen your writing skills. Much of your work will involve writing patent applications and legal arguments. Master both technical writing, for accurate invention descriptions, and legal writing, for clear application of the law. Also, cultivate essential soft skills like analytical thinking, perseverance, and attention to detail. These qualities are vital for success and will give you a distinct edge in this rewarding field.
Balancing a demanding career with personal well-being is no small feat. How do you maintain that equilibrium? Are there personal practices, habits, or philosophies that help you stay grounded and balanced in both your personal and professional life?
Balancing a demanding global IP role with personal well-being is vital. My approach starts with prioritizing well-being as a non-negotiable. This means regular self-care activities that recharge me. Exercise, mindfulness, hobbies, and time in nature are essential. I schedule short breaks daily to rest. Taking proper vacations allows me to truly disconnect from work. Maintaining
Effective time management helps me find that crucial balance. I plan my schedule carefully to allocate time for both professional responsibilities and personal commitments. This structured approach allows me to manage the high demands of my role without constant “on-call” pressure, creating a clear distinction between work and personal life.
A strong support network is also critical. I cultivate relationships with colleagues, mentors, friends, and family. Their guidance, emotional support, and practical help are invaluable in navigating challenges. This network provides a crucial sense of community and perspective. My personal philosophy centers on finding purpose and meaning in my work, which boosts job satisfaction. I embrace continuous learning and growth to stay adaptable.
Today, with almost a decade of experience behind you, looking back, what first drew you to law, and how did your undergraduate years shape your interest in intellectual property and allied fields?
My journey into law was less of a direct calling and more a process of discovery. Back then, I was more defined by the career paths I was closing the door on, and law felt like a world of opportunity. I treated my classes as an exploration, searching for that one area that would genuinely resonate with me. That moment finally came late in law school when I was introduced to Intellectual Property. As a still-developing field, it felt exciting, but what really captivated me was the unique space where creativity and legal protection meet.
That curiosity turned into a passion during my first internship with Mr. Ameet Datta, (formerly a Partner at Saikrishna & Associates) now the Managing Counsel at ADP Law Offices. As I watched technology evolve and brands become more valuable, I realized just how vital IP is as a shield for innovation, ideas, and expression. It was that realization that truly set my career path.
You went on to pursue an LL.M. at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre, one of the most respected programs in the world. What motivated you to choose this course, and how did studying in such an international academic environment broaden your understanding of IP law? Could you also share how aspiring candidates can enrol in such a prestigious program?
You know, it’s funny, I was getting really into IP law, but I kept feeling like I was seeing everything through a keyhole. All the thinking, all the cases, were from my own country’s perspective, and I just had this nagging feeling that I was missing the bigger picture.
MIPL stood out because it is uniquely focused on IP and brings together expertise from leading institutions such as Max Planck and the University of Augsburg. The program offered not only academic rigor but also the opportunity to learn alongside peers from across the world, each bringing their own perspective and experience. This international exposure was invaluable, as it gave me a broader view of how IP is understood and applied across jurisdictions.
For aspiring candidates, I would say the most important step is to build a strong foundation in IP during undergraduate years and to engage actively with research and writing in the field. The selection process is competitive, but genuine interest, clarity of purpose, and prior work or academic contributions in IP can make a strong application.
Alongside your studies, you published articles on significant IP issues such as copyright royalties, broadcasting rights, and the recognition of “well-known” marks. What inspired you to explore these themes, and how do you see academic writing contributing both to your professional practice and to the wider discourse on IP law?
During my course (thanks to MIPLC), I realised that writing is one of the best ways to discipline one’s thoughts and meaningfully contribute to discussions in this field. As students, we are often trained to see issues from a purely academic perspective, where outcomes are framed as either right or wrong. What MIPLC taught me instead was that in law, nothing is absolutely right or wrong . Rather, it is the reasoning and interpretation that lends weight to a position. That shift in perspective stayed with me. At the time, I chose to write on subjects like copyright royalties, broadcasting rights, and well-known marks, not only because I was working on them closely, but also because they had direct implications for creators and businesses. Over the years, I have come to value writing even more as it contributes to the collective understanding of the profession and, at times, can influence how laws are read and applied. For me personally, it became a bridge between academic study and real-world practice.
You began your professional career with Saikrishna & Associates, where you grew into the role of Senior Associate. Could you share some defining experiences from this phase whether in trademark prosecution, IP litigation, or consumer protection that played a key role in shaping your growth as a lawyer?
My early years at Saikrishna & Associates were deeply rooted in IP litigation, where I had the chance to work on matters that were both complex and high-stakes. Most of my focus was on IP disputes, and I was fortunate to work alongside some of the sharpest minds in the field. Those years gave me invaluable exposure from the intensity of courtroom practice and the rush of filings, to client interactions and my own growth as a lawyer.
Another significant phase of my career was in consumer protection, where I was entrusted with leading a team for a leading mobile manufacturer. The role required me to think beyond just the legal arguments, it was about strategy, execution, and making sure the client’s interests were protected at every stage. What stayed with me from that experience was not just tackling the legal issues, but also learning how to manage a team, set direction, and maintain consistency across multiple jurisdictions. That combination of leading people while steering complex matters was a real turning point in my professional journey and continues to shape the way I approach cases even today.
Over the years, you have gained exposure to diverse domains such as trade regulatory compliance, consumer law, employment disputes, and arbitration. How has this multidisciplinary experience been beneficial to handle complex, multi-jurisdictional matters for global clients? What sector-specific challenges have you faced while dealing with arbitrations for international clients?
My experience across these different domains has taught me that client issues rarely fit into neat legal boxes. What I have found, especially with complex, multi-jurisdictional matters, is that an issue that begins as a regulatory query can quickly intersect with consumer law or have employment implications. Having that broad background helped me to connect those dots early on. Instead of looking at a problem from a single perspective, I can anticipate how it might evolve and build a more resilient strategy for the client, which is essential when you’re navigating different legal cultures.
In arbitration, I have seen how sector-specific challenges can shape the course of proceedings. For example, in matters involving international clients, aligning the expectations of different legal systems with the procedural framework of arbitration requires careful navigation. There are also cultural and commercial nuances that need to be factored in, since what is persuasive in one jurisdiction may not resonate the same way in another. Learning to manage these differences while keeping the client’s broader objectives in mind has been an important part of my journey.
In your current role, what inspired your transition, and how are you approaching the leadership responsibilities of managing large-scale IP litigation campaigns and advising clients across multiple industries? What essential qualities do you look for when building your team?
The transition into my current role has been quite recent, so in many ways it is still a process of learning, adapting, and growing into the responsibilities that come with it. What inspired the move was the opportunity to work more closely with clients on a larger scale, not just on individual disputes but in shaping their overall IP strategy and helping them navigate complex litigation campaigns.
When it comes to leadership, especially on these large campaigns, my philosophy is pretty simple: give people a clear map and a good compass, then trust them to navigate their part of the journey. My main job is to make sure everyone understands the ‘why’ behind what we’re doing, the client’s ultimate goal. Once that vision is shared, I find the best results come from giving talented people the autonomy and support they need to truly own their work. It’s about guiding the strategy without micromanaging the execution.
As for building a team, a strong resume is just the start. I look for a certain mindset. I want people who are naturally curious, the ones who are always asking “what if?” because that’s how you stay ahead in a field like IP. I also look for a deep sense of accountability, where people treat a client’s problem as if it were their own. But above all, I look for a genuine collaborative spirit. A high-stakes litigation campaign is a team sport, and you need people who instinctively pick each other up and push each other to be better, especially when the pressure is on. That’s the kind of team that truly succeeds.
Looking back on your journey from law school to partnership, what key values have remained constant? What advice would you give to young lawyers aspiring to build a career in intellectual property especially when it comes to balancing deep subject expertise with the ability to adapt to rapidly changing technological and regulatory landscapes?
Looking back, the values that have remained constant for me are sincerity, consistency, and respect for the profession. No matter the stage of my career, I have found that showing up prepared, being thorough, and treating people with fairness has gone a long way in building trust with clients, colleagues, and even opponents in litigation. These values have shaped not only the way I work but also the way I lead. For young lawyers interested in IP, my advice would be to build a strong foundation in the subject while also remaining open to change. IP is deeply linked with creativity and technology, both of which are evolving faster than ever. The ability to understand new industries, learn continuously, and adapt legal thinking to new realities will make a significant difference. At the same time, it is important to stay grounded in the basics, because strong fundamentals are what allow you to adapt with confidence. If you combine deep subject knowledge with curiosity and flexibility, you can find a very rewarding path in IP law.
You have been practicing IP law for over 17 years, covering trademarks, patents, copyrights, and design protection. Looking back, what initially drew you to intellectual property, and how has your passion evolved over time?
I am on the path I am today because of my guru, Professor P. Vanangamudi, whose initial guidance and mentorship shaped me into who I am now. I started my career with internships in criminal law and also experimented with some LPO work, but in 2005 I developed a fascination with intellectual property. I found patents particularly interesting because they connected back to my own scientific journey. On the first day of my internship, during a project with my learned mentors Adv. Surya Senthil (Ex-Technical Member – Copyrights) and Adv. Lakshmidevi Somanath (Ex-Technical Member – Trademarks), I was asked to draft an abstract for a patent application. That day proved to be a turning point, as it revealed how the law is deeply intertwined with scientific and innovative activity in very concrete ways. I was also fortunate to have Shri P. S. Surana (Co-founder, Surana & Surana International Attorneys) as my guide and mentor, whose constant encouragement to pursue IP and litigation drew me to focus on this field from that time onwards.
In February 2009, I joined R.K. Dewan & Co., 82 years old IP boutique Firm that provided me with the right platform to grow my passion into a career. This is where my interest in IPR grew even stronger. I had the opportunity to learn, practice, and handle the next level of IP under the guidance of the luminary Dr. Mohan Dewan and the powerhouse of RKD, Dr. Niti Dewan. Their mentorship shaped much of what I am today at R.K. Dewan & Co. Prosecution had always been my comfort zone, and I was initially hesitant to step into litigation. My senior colleague, Advocate Balaji, through his guidance and strategic approach, inspired me and gave me the confidence to embrace litigation alongside prosecution.
Over the years, what started as a fascination with patents grew into a much deeper dedication to all that is IP. I have come to see how trademarks, copyrights and designs are powerful strategic assets that promote innovation, branding and commercial growth beyond just legal rights. That evolution of seeing IP as a bridge between creativity, technology and commerce still inspires me everyday, even after 17 years of practice.
You pursued a B.A., B.L. (Hons) at the School of Excellence in Law, followed by a B.Sc. in Physics and an M.L. in International Law and Indian Constitution. How has this diverse academic background shaped your analytical approach and influenced your career in IP and litigation?
I became a Registered Patent Agent due to my science background, which helped me navigate the technical side of patents. That history has been useful all along, especially when dealing with inventors or dealing with hearings with other parties and explaining their ideas.
What really added value in my practice was my M.L. in International Law and Indian Constitution. I was given the big picture and scope of international and cross border cases that covered aspects of filings, prosecution rights and parties limitations. I worked at the Chennai firm of R. K. Dewan & Co., and worked on a few general civil litigation cases, as well. I always appreciated having a solid constitutional and international background, I could be exposed to the nature of the dispute while identifying where parties would have rights, an obligation (if there were any), and jurisdictional issues.
Having appeared before the Trade Marks Registry, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Appellate Board, and Madras High Court, could you share the most memorable cases that significantly shaped your expertise in IP litigation and prosecution?
Novartis vs Cipla – 3003/CHENP/2004, Chennai Patent office:
One of the most formative experiences in my journey as an IP litigator and patent professional was the privilege of assisting and learning from Dr. Mohan Dewan during the landmark Novartis pre-grant opposition hearing before the Patent Office, Chennai. This case, which revolved around Application No. 3003/CHENP/2004 for “Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases,” stands out not just for its legal complexities but for the many lessons it imparted about the nuances of Indian patent law, especially around amendments, inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure.
The case centered around Novartis’ application (No. 3003/CHENP/2004) for a new class of tyrosine kinase inhibitors molecules with critical relevance in cancer treatment. The pre-grant opposition, filed by Cipla under Section 25(1), challenged the patent on multiple grounds, including obviousness (Section 25(1)I), insufficiency of disclosure (Section 25(1)(g)), and questions under Sections 3(d), 10(4), 57, and 59 of the Patents Act.
I experienced first-hand the intensity of argument and the importance of deeply understanding technical details and strategic legal arguments in a high-stakes Patent opposition. The proceedings, which saw formidable representation from both Novartis and the opponent, Cipla Ltd., brought several procedural and substantive issues into sharp relief.
I took part in examining prior art, dissecting the detailed claim amendments, and debating whether the reversal of an amide bond (and the resulting molecular changes) amounted to a non-obvious inventive step. The discussion on the sufficiency of disclosure was equally instructive particularly the Controller’s emphasis that, for new chemical entities (NCEs), it is the supported utility that matters most at the filing stage, not retrospective efficacy data, unless Section 3(d) is directly invoked.
This case underscored practical lessons in legal drafting, oral advocacy, and the handling of amendments under Section 59, where every narrowing of claims must remain anchored in the original disclosure. The Controller’s decision ultimately dismissed all opposition grounds, recognizing the inventive nature and adequate disclosure in the application, and allowed the patent to proceed. The clarity and logic with which the order dealt with the inventive step set a new benchmark in my understanding of patent jurisprudence in India.
I have personally argued over 400 patent matters before the Indian Patent Office, and have also actively conducted matters before the erstwhile IPAB, the Madras High Court, the Karnataka High Court, and various District Courts. Handling exhibits, preparing briefs, and formulating technical arguments in these cases has reinforced the critical importance of precision, clarity, and a comprehensive understanding of both law and technology. This experience has been a defining milestone in my practice, affirming that thorough preparation, strategic advocacy, and meticulous attention to detail are essential qualities for any successful IP litigator.
As an Advocate & Patent Agent at R K Dewan & Co., you handle brand advice, design protection, and IPR consultations. What are the biggest challenges brands face when entering the Indian market, and in India’s evolving digital and tech-driven IP landscape, what common pitfalls do innovators encounter? How can companies proactively protect their IP from an early stage?
India is an incredibly diverse and fast-moving market, with great buying opportunities but also very real issues for brand owners. Cost competition is high, squeezing brand owners’ margins, while the threats of counterfeits and infringement can damage brand owner’s reputations and market share. The complexity of regulations and enforceability adds to the pressure, and many companies, especially small to medium enterprises, fail to allocate the necessary budget or focus to protect their IP. However, many larger companies are becoming more proactive, and have dedicated IP divisions and in-house counsel to drive better IP management.
One of our clients had encountered issues while attempting to register their brand on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM), as this Govt platform intensified scrutiny on IP registrations, requiring comprehensive documentation to ensure authenticity and protect genuine brands. This was a strong reminder that the scrutiny of IP rights is more rigorous than ever. This is particularly relevant as online marketplaces keep expanding, requiring mandatory registration of IP as procurement authorities seek to verify authenticity. Too often, we see innovators engaging with their IP reactively, addressing infringement only after it happened, which is not an effective strategy in the digital and fast moving world we live in.
In short, companies entering the Indian market must recognize IP protection as a foundational business priority. A proactive approach to IP management, conducting searches, timely registration, and ensuring robust confidentiality protocols, will not only take away the pressure of challenges such as counterfeits or cost pressure, but will maximally enable commercial exploitation of innovation in a dynamic market.
You are a member of the INTA Brand and Innovation Committee. How has this international exposure influenced your perspective on global brand protection, and what emerging trends do you see shaping the future of trademarks and IP innovation worldwide?
Serving as a team leader of the Product & Counterfeit Technologies group within the INTA Brand and Innovation Committee has been an invaluable learning experience for me. In that capacity, I have been able to work with international Attorneys from different jurisdictions as we tracked global brand protection challenges, discussed emerging issues, authored articles and suggestions, and facilitated education webinars and roundtables.
This experience allowed me to see the highly variable way IP practice is conducted across countries, as it is shaped by the differing needs and differing levels of proactivity in IP practice. For example, while the US, Europe, and the United Kingdom have long-standing comprehensive infrastructure and practice in IP, I saw exciting and impressive development and, in many countries like South Korea, China, Japan, India, and Singapore, there is rapid growth and increasingly sophisticated practice in enforcement and justice in this area of innovation.
This has helped me to better appreciate that IP strategies for protection will require a more robust, adaptable, and technology-driven approach. I have also observed that emerging trends like the use of AI and other advanced technologies to combat counterfeiting are shaping the future of trademarks and IP innovation worldwide, demanding greater collaboration, vigilance, and creativity from brand owners and IP professionals alike.
Technology commercialization and contractual agreements have been a significant part of your practice. How do you navigate the complexities of IP licensing for both startups and established enterprises, and what are the key challenges involved?
In my opinion, guiding startups or medium sized businesses through the maze of IP licensing can justly be viewed as a balancing act based on knowledge and communication. One of the major challenges I see more often than not is the general lack of awareness (or desire to comprehend) responsible IP rights and licensing agreements. This is particularly true of startups. The case examples are pretty minimal, primarily because many new ventures receive limited or zero direction and experience managing and structuring these kinds of agreements.
Using a Academia-Industry partnership adds to the challenge, particularly for the commercialisation of technology and associated contracts. Parties need to specify who owns what, how the IP can be used, what will be the method of profit sharing. They also need to ensure how the confidentiality of the parties is preserved. Having the interests of all parties aligned would be preferable.
Startups may face some of these challenges given their limited resources and less power to negotiate, while established companies can face IP portfolio management challenges, as well as competitive edge protection challenges. We all know this is made even more challenging when one tries to facilitate developing constructive, industry specific, strategies for clients, as the true potential of their IP is unlocked and allowed to flourish, whose value could easily be compromised.
Your career started with internships and junior associate roles in IP and civil litigation. What early experiences have helped you navigate complex IP disputes and establish yourself as a trusted advisor?
I think my development as a practitioner was really shaped by the formative early years. I started out doing internships and then as a junior associate, and I was lucky to experience two very different but related areas of law, civil litigation and intellectual property litigating. During that time, I was not merely learning about the law in theory. I was sitting through hearings, helping to draft pleadings, and seeing the approaches that senior advocates took in court in deciding how to strategize.
My best experience was being able to balance both prosecution and litigation. So on the one hand, I had actual experience with patent drafting, oppositions, and trade mark filings, which I think taught me a very technical, detail-oriented framework, while on the other, I had the experience of working with seniors on IP enforcement issues before the Madras High Court and the erstwhile IPAB.
I learned two things: that preparation and details are very important when working with complex disputes; and then also, I learned the importance of having trust and a good flow of clarity with clients. Because when a client comes to you, they are looking for more than a lawyer. They need someone who can sort through technically complex, high-risk disputes and return clear, readily manageable solutions. Over the years, that aspect is what made me credible and established me.
Having managed multi-faceted IP portfolios and brand strategies, how do you foresee the convergence of AI, digital platforms, and global trade impacting IP enforcement and commercialization in the next five years? I visualize the next five years will see the intersection of AI, digital platforms, and international commerce, which will dramatically reshape enforcement and commercialization. Regarding enforcement, brands will increasingly rely upon AI-based monitoring systems to identify infringement, monitor supply chains, and detect misuse on e-commerce and social media platforms. Furthermore, we are already seeing the implications of the power of data analytics and image recognition methods to detect infringement much faster than traditional efforts allow.
With respect to commercialization, AI will start to re-use and re-imagine the notion of an asset, not only as a tool. Whether it is through AI-generated content, predictive analytics to inform research and development, or digital licensing platforms, businesses are increasingly going to understand that intellectual property is not merely a shield, but can also be used as a mechanism to create financial value.
For us as professionals, this means transitioning away from the strictly enforcement-based position to advising the business more strategically. We will need to align legal protection with technology adoption, but also to align the business’ global strategies. In short, the practice of intellectual property will necessitate more and more a combination of legal skills, technology adoption, and commercial insight.
Finally, what advice would you give to young lawyers and professionals aspiring to specialize in IP law, particularly in balancing litigation and prosecution on a global stage?
As I tell young lawyers, both prosecution and litigation have something to offer and embracing both helps you become better at each one. The IP practice in India has also expanded tremendously; it is no longer a “road less taken.” The competition in this domain has intensified, and the number of practitioners is now greater. Moreover, IP is not a one-stream subject; it has many distinct subfields like trademarks, patents, copyright, designs, and geographical indications, all of which require different expertise. Young practitioners should consider specializing in these subfields and develop a focus area, while retaining a broad understanding of the other sub-disciplines.
The rivalry among young lawyers has reached unprecedented levels, particularly due to the surge of private institutions producing law graduates every year. On the positive side, this generation is skilled in the use of technology and AI tools; however, I would advise them not to use these platforms at the expense of other more dependable methods. The core of any law practice is undertaking thorough legal research, reviewing original texts, statutes, case law, and recognized commentaries.
What initially drew you to specialize in banking and finance, given that they are such niche fields? Was law always your first choice, or did your interest evolve over time, and how did your experience at law school shape that journey?
Law was always my first career choice after school, though I did take a 2.5-year break post-graduation to prepare for the civil services exams. During that time, I also enrolled in a regular post-graduation program in Corporate Laws and Management, which kept me connected with my subjects. While not getting selected did dampen the morale, I always had a stronger plan B to practice law. Banking and finance, however, happened by accident. I was inclined toward corporate laws, and during my first corporate internship I realized I enjoyed advisory work and project finance diligence more than litigation, which eventually set me on this path.
In the early phases of your career, you worked with various law firms. What were the key learning experiences that laid the foundation for your practice and deepened your understanding of these niche fields?
I started my career with a boutique law firm where my seniors gave me the right guidance and also the personal space to grow. That early trust helped me take ownership of matters in the project finance space. It gave me vast exposure in banking and finance and laid a solid foundation for my practice.
Over the past decade, you have advised several leading financial institutions and banks. From your perspective, what are some of the most common challenges clients face in large-scale finance and infrastructure deals, and what is your approach resolving them?
The most common challenge clients face is aligning their business targets with regulatory procedures and the internal legal processes of multiple lenders before disbursement. My approach is to simplify the legal risks, break them into practical solutions, and ensure the documents reflect clarity for all stakeholders. This balance builds trust and helps achieve timely closures.
Project finance and structured finance transactions often involve multiple stakeholders across jurisdictions. What have been the most significant challenges in managing the interests of various parties, including cross-border entities?
The most significant challenge is reconciling different regulatory and legal regimes while keeping the transaction commercially viable. Coordinating with foreign law counsel and managing across time zones often adds another layer of complexity. Clear communication and early identification of friction points help me act as a bridge between parties without compromising legal safeguards.
Renewable energy financing is emerging as a key driver of India’s growth. Based on your experience advising on large solar and hybrid renewable projects, what do you see as the biggest opportunities and challenges in financing India’s clean energy transition?
Currently, India’s renewable sector is full of promise with scalability, strong government push, and growing global investor interest. In recent years, I’ve also seen foreign banks gearing up for the Indian renewable market. The major challenges, however, lie in evolving regulations, land/title issues, and tariff uncertainties.
Having worked extensively on both real estate and infrastructure finance matters, what are some of the key differences and unique legal considerations that distinguish these two sectors?
While both real estate financing and infrastructure financing (like roads, ports, hotels, etc.) follow a broadly similar financing structure, real estate deals revolve heavily around title diligence of land and immovable properties. There are also RERA-specific nuances, particularly in the working of escrow accounts, which operate very differently from a standard infra sector financing deal. Each comes with its own unique risks, and navigating them requires sector-specific expertise and tailored solutions.
Looking back at your career so far, what has been the most rewarding or intriguing high-value transaction or case you have worked on, and how did you navigate its challenges?
Some of the most rewarding matters for me have been InvIT financing deals, which often involve complex funding structures at the InvIT level and on-lending to multiple SPVs. These transactions require balancing the interests of lenders with the operational realities of the SPVs. Navigating those complexities through clear structuring and negotiation has been both challenging and extremely fulfilling.
Considering the demanding nature of your work, how do you strike a balance between professional commitments and personal life, and what practices help you avoid burnout?
I believe it’s equally important to spend time with friends and family. I am also lucky to have a life partner who understands the demands of this profession, and she is truly a blessing. We follow a strict rule of avoiding work on weekends. Of course, there are times when the team has to deliver under strict timelines, and being there to support them with execution and strategy is non-negotiable. I also try not to over-commit to clients—discussing timelines with the team beforehand ensures realistic commitments and gives them a sense of inclusion.
What has been your guiding philosophy throughout your career, and how has it helped you grow and manage challenges effectively?
My guiding philosophy has been to stay curious, adaptable, and solution-oriented. Law is dynamic, and no two transactions are alike – embracing that mindset has helped me grow and navigate challenges. I believe consistency and integrity go a long way in building lasting professional relationships. Looking ahead, I see every transaction not just as a legal exercise but as an opportunity to learn, collaborate, and contribute to India’s evolving financial and infrastructure landscape. For me, the real reward lies in building lasting relationships and helping clients achieve their goals with clarity and confidence.
Finally, what advice would you give to young lawyers aspiring to build a career in banking and finance law, particularly those who wish to specialize in real estate finance? What resources would you recommend?
My advice would be to first build a strong foundation in contract and corporate law, and stay updated on RBI and sectoral regulations. This profession demands patience and consistency, so juniors should avoid being impatient and focus on diligence. Stay curious and never hesitate to ask questions, don’t let the fear of being judged stop you from clarifying crucial aspects of the practice. Practical exposure through internships and resources like legal commentaries or transaction-focused case studies are invaluable.
With several years of experience in the legal industry, and an international practice, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law? What experiences guided you toward specializing in this particular field of IP and Data Privacy, and how did your law school journey shape your career?
Growing up, I was the inquisitive child in the family, always asking questions like “Why?” “What does this mean?” and “How does this work?”, not to challenge authority, but out of genuine curiosity. So, when it came time to choose a career path, law felt like less of a decision and more of a natural evolution. After all, what better profession for someone who spent their childhood debating dinner table negotiations? Law gave me a way to turn that endless curiosity into something constructive, to ask better questions, find sharper answers, and help others navigate the “whys” and “what ifs” of the world.
But law was not my first choice. As a kid, I was equally captivated by science and believed I might one day become an aeronautical engineer. One of the defining moments that shifted my perspective occurred while watching Kalpana Chawla on the news during the Columbia shuttle tragedy alongside my father. I remember wondering, What happens when science fails? Who steps in when technology breaks down? That moment planted the seed for a different kind of career, one that still engages with science and innovation, but from a legal lens.
That curiosity eventually led me to intellectual property law, where science, technology, and legal reasoning collide in wonderfully complex ways. During law school in India, I immersed myself in this area through internships at prominent law firms, gaining exposure to a broad range of IP matters, including trademarks, copyright, technology, media, gaming and gambling, and entertainment law. The ever-evolving nature of IP, driven by innovation, fascinated me. I realized that IP law was not just about protecting rights, it was about fostering creativity, enabling progress, and balancing competing interests in a dynamic, global environment.
Thus, after graduation, I joined a law firm as an IP attorney to get a deeper understanding of the field, and just as I was getting comfortable, the GDPR arrived and I was hooked. The realization that lawyers have to adapt just as fast as the tech world made privacy law feel less like a compliance checklist and more like a moving target that I genuinely enjoyed chasing.
Eventually, that passion brought me to the Bay Area, the land of startups and innovation. Studying IP and data privacy here was not just about career growth; it was about being at the heart of change, surrounded by people building the future, and occasionally breaking things that lawyers then have to fix.
Looking back, my career has been shaped by one simple fact: I never stopped asking “why?” The difference now is that I have learned how to put those questions into memos, and a commitment to helping clients navigate the complex interplay between law, technology, and human creativity.
Starting your career with a prominent law firm, what were some key learning experiences during the early stages as you were mastering the fundamentals? Given the complexity and constant evolution of Data Privacy Laws, how did you develop an understanding of the field and stay ahead of emerging trends?
When I first started my career as an IP attorney at a law firm, freshly out of law school, I imagined a steady path through the world of trademarks and copyright. And for a while, that is exactly what I got: think counterfeit sneakers, branding disputes, and the occasional “no, you cannot copyright a concept” conversations.
But here is the twist no one warns you about in law school, clients do not show up with neatly categorized problems. They often bring you messy, modern dilemmas. And that is how I found myself dipping my toes into the complex pool of data privacy.
Working with clients ranging from mom-and-pop retailers to Fortune 500 tech giants, I quickly realized that every product launch or branding campaign had a digital component, and where there is data, there is drama.
Initially, my work was trademark-focused. But adjacent issues kept knocking on my door: copyright quirks, customs enforcement, and eventually, a new breed of question: “Hey, does our app accidentally violate three different international privacy laws?” Spoiler: it often did.
Slowly but surely, the law kept up to the technological development with the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), aka “the EU’s gift to lawyers everywhere.” The Brussels effect had lawyers and tech enthusiast everywhere scrambling to understand cross-border compliance, and enough acronyms to make your head spin. What fascinated me was not just the law itself, it was the broader question of how we regulate innovation. The boundaries between intellectual property, consumer rights, and data governance began to blur, and I realized, this was the future.
What started as a curiosity has become a cornerstone of my practice. Privacy isn’t just a hot topic, it is a critical lens for understanding the intersection of innovation, ethics, and law in the digital age.
To stay updated and ahead of emerging trends, I rely on a well-balanced mix of strategies: regularly reviewing regulatory updates and key case law, tuning into insightful podcasts and panel discussions on evolving privacy topics, and subscribing to a few carefully curated newsletters. I have also joined privacy book clubs where we regularly discuss upcoming privacy regulations and challenges faced in the field.
So, while I did not imagine a career in the intersection of IP, privacy, and consumer protection, I am glad it happened. And for all the challenges this field throws at us, one thing is for sure: Privacy law is never boring.
After over four years at a law firm, you chose to pursue a Master’s degree at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, specializing in Technology Law, Privacy Law, and Intellectual Property Law. What inspired you to focus on these areas, and how did your studies shape your understanding of data privacy laws on a global scale? Additionally, as a Research Assistant to Professor Sonia Katyal and an active member of the Women in Tech Law team, what other activities did you engage in, and how did these experiences influence your professional growth and development?
After over four years of tackling trademark disputes and navigating the growing tide of data protection concerns, I realized I wanted more than just answers. I wanted to understand the bigger picture. I was curious not just about what the law said, but why it was evolving the way it was, especially in response to rapidly shifting technologies.
Berkeley felt like the perfect fit: world-renowned faculty, cutting-edge tech-law curriculum, and if the future was being built in Silicon Valley, then Berkeley Law was clearly where it was being legally translated.
Immersing myself in this environment gave me something invaluable: perspective. Studying privacy law under experts who were helping shape legislation (rather than just interpret it) helped me move beyond the black-letter law mindset. I began to think more critically about regulatory intent, policy trade-offs, and the delicate balance between innovation and accountability.
Courses like Social Media Law and Computer Crime Law sharpened my understanding of how existing legal frameworks are being pushed by new technologies. Learning about Hollywood contracts one day and GDPR enforcement actions the next made me see just how interconnected everything is in this space, and how important it is for lawyers to be adaptable, tech-savvy, and a little creative.
Beyond academics, working as a Research Assistant to Professor Sonia Katyal was one of the most formative experiences of my time at Berkeley Law. Her work sits at the crossroads of technology, IP, and civil rights, and being part of a research project examining how copyright and trademark law intersect with identity and digital expression expanded my understanding of what the law can do, not just what it should do. It also refined my analytical skills, deepened my research capabilities, and taught me how to connect theory to real-world legal challenges.
As part of varied organizations such as Women in Tech Law and journals such as Berkeley Technology Law Journal, I had the opportunity to engage in real conversations about the future of the profession. One standout moment was interviewing Professor Jennifer Urban, Chair of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). That conversation gave me unique insight into the inner workings of a regulatory body and offered a front-row seat to the evolution of U.S. privacy enforcement.
These experiences, taken together, significantly shaped my professional growth. They helped me transition from being a subject-matter practitioner to a more holistic legal thinker. They taught me to approach problems from multiple angles: technical, ethical, regulatory, and commercial. Most importantly, they reaffirmed my passion for working at the intersection of law and technology and gave me the tools and confidence to lead in this space.
Berkeley did not just deepen my legal expertise; it expanded my entire outlook on the role lawyers can play in shaping the future.
As a student researcher at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, you worked on the Digital Rights Project, focusing on policy research related to consumer data protection and compliance with California privacy laws, including the CCPA, CalOPPA, and the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. How would you compare the data protection frameworks in the U.S., India, and Europe, particularly with your certification in these areas?
My time at the ACLU of Northern California’s Digital Rights Project offered invaluable insight into the nuanced and often fragmented landscape of U.S. privacy law. Unlike the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or India’s newly enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), both of which adopt comprehensive, centralized frameworks grounded in fundamental privacy rights, the U.S. continues to follow a sectoral and state-by-state approach, creating significant variability and complexity in compliance.
One of the most interesting projects I worked on involved analyzing the privacy implications of QR code-based restaurant ordering systems. What initially appeared to be a straightforward user interface turned into a multi-layered compliance exercise involving the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA), and the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. It served as a powerful reminder that even the most routine consumer interactions can involve intricate legal considerations, especially when sensitive data such as payment or behavioral information is collected and stored.
This experience strengthened my ability to assess data practices through a multi-jurisdictional, multi-sectoral lens, reinforcing the importance of understanding not just the legal frameworks involved, but also the underlying technical architecture of products and services. A lawyer’s ability to offer sound advice increasingly depends on their understanding of how data flows through systems, where risks lie, and how those risks intersect with evolving legal standards.
A key difference I observed between U.S. privacy laws and the GDPR lies in the scope and rigor of compliance requirements. The GDPR is both strict and expansive, there is no minimum threshold for applicability. Any company, regardless of size, that collects personal data from even a single EU resident is subject to the law. It is a deeply consumer-centric regime, with limited room for flexibility.
In contrast, while U.S. state laws like the CPRA, are also robust, they do provide some flexibility for companies, especially smaller entities and startups. Most U.S. privacy laws include applicability thresholds, based on revenue, number of consumers affected, or volume of data processed, before the obligations kick in. This approach allows smaller businesses a bit more breathing room to implement privacy compliance during their early growth stages, aligning legal obligations with business maturity. That said, it remains critical for startups to incorporate privacy-by-design from the outset, as crossing the threshold can happen sooner than anticipated. In short, the GDPR prioritizes consumer rights at every level, while U.S. laws attempt to strike a balance, offering strong consumer protections without stifling innovation and scalability.
This comparative analysis between the EU, India, and U.S. frameworks highlighted a fundamental truth: privacy compliance is not one-size-fits-all. It demands not only legal fluency but also a contextual, practical understanding of industry, technology, and jurisdiction. This foundational experience continues to shape my approach to privacy law, grounded in strong legal analysis but always mindful of the evolving global and technological landscape.
Being admitted to both the Indian Bar and the State Bar of California, how has your dual qualification benefited your practice? What advice would you give to aspiring legal professionals aiming to clear the California Bar Exam?
Being dual-qualified in both India and California, two jurisdictions that are home to some of the world’s most dynamic and disruptive startups, has significantly enhanced my ability to provide cross-border legal counsel, particularly in the areas of intellectual property and data privacy. This dual qualification allows me to advise clients navigating regulatory requirements, commercial expansion, and product launches across both legal systems. Where Indian law is rapidly evolving through legislative reform, California’s legal landscape is shaped by a combination of statutes and robust regulatory enforcement. Understanding these contrasts enables me to craft nuanced, business-oriented legal strategies that are tailored to the specific jurisdiction and sector.
As for the California Bar Exam, its reputation as one of the most challenging in the U.S. is well-earned, but not insurmountable. My advice to aspiring legal professionals is straightforward: treat it like a full-time job. Success requires consistency, discipline, and a well-structured study plan. I truly believe that the exam does not test intelligence, it is more about mastering the method, developing exam endurance, and performing under pressure. If you can commit to the process fully, passing the exam is absolutely achievable.
Ultimately, the effort is well worth it. Being admitted in California has opened up exciting opportunities to work at the intersection of law, technology, and innovation on a truly global scale.
Throughout your distinguished career, what strategies have you employed to maintain a healthy work-life balance? What guidance would you offer to others striving to manage both professional ambitions and personal responsibilities?
Let’s be honest, achieving work-life balance in the legal profession is often more aspiration than reality, something everyone talks about, but few actually manage to pin down. The nature of our work is demanding, high-stakes, and often time-sensitive. But over the years, I have learned that if you do not actively protect your personal life, your professional life will quietly take over every corner of it.
One mindset shift that has served me well is this: Don’t make work your life, make it part of your life. Law is what I do; It is not all of who I am. I have come to believe that you cannot be a high-performing professional if you are constantly running on empty. As the saying goes, you can’t pour from an empty cup!
For me, this means setting clear boundaries where possible. I carve out non-negotiable time for things that replenish me, whether that’s exercise, travel, sports, time with family and friends, or even just reading something that has nothing to do with legal theory. I also try not to romanticize the hustle. Being available 24/7 does not make you indispensable, it often just makes you exhausted. And, let us be candid: no matter how good you are, you are replaceable to your workplace, but not to your health, your loved ones, or yourself.
My advice to younger legal professionals is that ambition is important, but so is sustainability. If you are building a long-term career, you need to treat your time, energy, and wellbeing as strategic assets. Learn to say no. Take breaks without guilt. Celebrate small wins outside of work. And most importantly, define success on your own terms, not just by billable hours.
At the end of the day, being a fulfilled person makes you a better lawyer!
Growing up in Siliguri, far from the conventional legal hubs, what influenced your decision to pursue law, and how did your years at Chanakya National Law University shape your early perspective on the profession?
Growing up in Siliguri and studying at Don Bosco School shaped me in many ways. At home, the environment was always encouraging. I was an average student in academics, but active in debates, quizzes, and other co-curricular activities. With the benefit of hindsight, those experiences built my confidence- something I still consider as my biggest asset. Initially, I was preparing for a career in engineering, but somewhere along the way, I realized it wasn’t something I could truly be passionate about. My parents stood by me wholeheartedly. It was then that I decided to choose law.
My years at CNLU were truly defining. Coming from a younger NLU, we were always conscious that we had to work harder to stand out. A new institution brought with it both challenges and opportunities, and much like our university, we were eager to carve out our own space in the larger scheme of things. Those 5 years taught me the importance of taking ownership of one’s plans and seeing them through. Most importantly, CNLU gave me the final clarity that litigation – with all its pros and cons- was the path I really wanted to pursue. That conviction has guided almost every professional decision I have made thereon.
In the initial phase of your career, you worked closely with the litigation team for over four years. What were some of the most formative experiences during this time, particularly in handling matters related to taxation, constitutional, and regulatory law?
I began my career with the litigation team at PDS Legal, New Delhi, under Mr. Tarun Gulati. I had interned there during law school and was fortunate to receive a pre-placement offer in my final year. As someone new to both the city and the profession, I found tremendous support from my team and colleagues, who helped me settle in and grow.
The foundation of my advocacy was built at PDS Legal- right from drafting and preparing a matter to eventually presenting it in court. If there is one lesson I particularly carry from those years, it is that effort alone is not enough; planning and organisation are equally critical. Clients and colleagues alike value a professional who is methodical in approach. My seniors were patient and supportive, and my peers were always helpful, which kept the momentum going in what could otherwise have been a daunting phase. Looking back, my time at PDS Legal not only gave me the skills but also the confidence and clarity to eventually venture out and establish my independent practice.
Transitioning from a structured law firm environment to establishing your independent practice in 2021 must have been a pivotal moment. What motivated this move, and what were the initial challenges and learnings in setting up on your own?
I had always wanted to establish my own practice. The satisfaction of building something of your own is unparalleled, and that desire kept me motivated. At the same time, my early days in litigation taught me that there is only so much you can prepare from the sidelines – you have to take the plunge, start from scratch and build gradually.
The switch was not easy. Coming from a law firm where I was constantly working on heavy matters to suddenly having only a handful of briefs was a stark contrast. It is natural to have doubts and question your decision. But if you ask me, the real trick is to hang in there. Independent litigation is a choice you make every single day, despite the distractions and the reasons that may tempt you to leave. In the end, this profession rewards perseverance and patience. If you stay the course and keep developing yourself, things do fall into place.
Since then, you have handled a wide spectrum of commercial, criminal, and civil disputes. Could you share one of the most challenging cases from your independent practice that significantly strengthened your confidence as a litigator?
It is difficult to pinpoint a single case that became the fulcrum of my practice. For me, it has been a series of moments that reassured me I had made the right choice in setting up independently. One such matter was when a doctor’s license to practice had been suspended by a High Court in a contempt proceeding. I had the opportunity to lead the matter in the Supreme Court, and we managed to secure the desired relief. That case gave me something invaluable at that stage- acknowledgment, financial stability, and, most importantly, confidence as a litigator.
Another turning point was when I first started handling criminal matters. Having had little exposure to criminal law during my time at the firm, those cases initially felt daunting. But they also reinforced a simple truth: in litigation, effort makes all the difference. If you are willing to put in that extra bit of preparation, you will eventually find your footing. Both these experiences strengthened my belief that perseverance pays, and that independent practice, though challenging, was the right path for me.
In 2025, you achieved the distinction of becoming an Advocate-on-Record. What inspired you to pursue this qualification, how was your preparation journey, and in what ways has the AoR title impacted your practice and professional opportunities?
Becoming an Advocate-on-Record was always a clear goal for me once I started my independent practice. Practising in Delhi makes you realize very early how competitive the profession is, and that the Supreme Court is the final stop for matters from across the country. When you pitch for mandates in the Supreme Court, the first question often asked is- Are you an AoR? If your answer is no, it does have a bearing, especially with clients outside Delhi. Qualifying the exam, therefore, gives you that foot-in-the-door and instills an additional layer of confidence in clients.
Preparing for the exam definitely demands seriousness. Like most who clear it, I had to balance practice with study, which sometimes may get a bit difficult. I was fortunate to have friends and seniors who supported me—whether with study materials or helping me manage my matters. But I believe one thing must be acknowledged: preparing for the AoR exam is in itself an enriching experience. Irrespective of the result, you come out a better professional.
Alongside your practice, you often engage with law students through moots and guest lectures. How do you view the balance between active practice and mentoring the next generation of lawyers?
I genuinely enjoy interacting with students- there’s always a fresh perspective and a new learning to take away. Having been on that side of the spectrum myself, I know how good it is to have people from the profession engage with you. Judging moots or delivering guest lectures is also a great way to sharpen my own legal acumen, whenever you discuss an issue, you inevitably end up learning too. Balancing it with active practice is not always easy, but whenever I get the opportunity, I truly enjoy taking it up.
Looking ahead, with your growing independent chamber and experience across varied domains, what vision do you hold for your practice over the next decade, and what advice would you offer to young lawyers aspiring to build a career in litigation?
For me, every professional is a brand in himself, and the journey is really about improving that brand each day. My vision over the next few years is to evolve as a reliable practitioner and to build a team that is known for being effective and dependable in the legal community. Reputation in this profession takes years to build but can be lost in a moment, so the aim is to grow steadily, sincerely- and also to enjoy the process along the way.
I don’t think I am in a position to give advice, but I can share my story. If there’s one thing I have learnt, it is that this profession rewards patience, perseverance, and planning. At the same time, litigation is not a one-time choice; it’s something you must choose every single day despite the distractions and difficulties. And while doing all of this, it is equally important to have fun and enjoy the process- because that’s what makes the journey worthwhile.
With new legal developments and judicial precedents emerging almost daily, how do you keep yourself updated on the latest trends and ensure that your practice stays aligned with the evolving legal landscape?
For me, curiosity and social consciousness are an asset in this profession. A lawyer should always be curious about the things happening around him, both inside and outside the courtroom. I genuinely enjoy reading, and I feel any lawyer who enjoys reading will always have an edge. We live in an age where information is power, and with technology, access to that information has become much easier than it used to be. There are plenty of platforms today that help us stay updated with what’s happening around.
But beyond books and screens, our courts themselves are exciting places to learn. I’ve often found that indulging in conversations in the corridors, sometimes over a simple cup of coffee, leaves you walking away with more insight than you bargained for. That in itself sounds like a good deal !
Having built an impressive legal career spanning over seven years, and continuing your practice today while also excelling as a hospitality entrepreneur, what first inspired you to pursue a career in law?
I was the kid who always sought logic for everything and anything and asked a zillion questions. Growing up, the world of contracts, negotiation and consequences attracted me and I was drawn to the idea of transactions and their intricacies and would pester my father who is a businessman to know more about how things worked.
I grew up in a relatively conservative city of Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh, where females did not have it easy and small things had to be bargained and negotiated. All of this led me to admire people who could negotiate, resolve disputes with clear communication and well-reasoned logic. This also drew me to law as a field where I could advocate for others and use my communication skills to bring about meaningful change.
When I pursued higher education at Shri Ram College of Commerce and later at Campus Law Centre from where I pursued my LLB, I got fascinated with litigation. The fast paced dynamism and the strategy of litigation drew me in and I got hooked. I was very fortunate to have a fabulous mentor in my senior, Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Senior Advocate and Barrister at Fountain Court Chambers. Working with him introduced me to complex commercial arbitrations and was one of the best foundations that someone can ask for. My academic journey, which eventually took me to Cambridge University for my Master of Law, only deepened that conviction.
You began your professional journey practicing before some of the highest courts and tribunals in India before transitioning into hospitality entrepreneurship. What motivated this shift, and how did your legal acumen prepare you for the challenges of running and expanding a business?
After practising litigation full-time for several years, during the pandemic I got an opportunity and I made an unconventional road into the world of hospitality. At the time when the world was dealing with covid and everything underwent lockdown, one of our hotel’s in Dehradun was undergoing renovation. Being the foodie that we both are, we, (Abhishek, my husband and co-founder of the restaurants) decided to start a small pizzeria called Coco Osteria to introduce Neapolitan pizzas to Dehradun in a space that vibed with us. We started small, more like a passion project than a commercial venture, and in a short span of time, Coco took off and how.
The hospitality business is fast paced every day is a new challenge. It requires one to be dynamic in decision making, in pivoting and adapting to the changing environment. The skills and mindset I honed through law like critical thinking, problem-solving, and resilience in high-pressure situations will always be in my DNA and they have proved invaluable in building and growing my restaurants.
Your work in litigation, arbitration, and corporate advisory has honed skills in analysis, negotiation, and risk management. How have these shaped your approach to strategic business decisions and navigating compliance, contracts, and negotiations?
My background in litigation and arbitration has taught me how to assess risks and outcomes before taking any business decisions ensuring that all business decisions at LP Hotels, Coco Osteria, or Monsoon are backed by clarity and are not left to chance.
My legal acumen has taught me to have a structured yet flexible approach to decision-making in hospitality. All skills come in handy and help me in the hospitality industry whether it is navigating the compliances and regulatory frameworks or negotiating leases or vendor partnerships or dealing with my team.
The confidence that one gains as a litigation lawyer is unparalleled. We are constantly juggling between different contracts and industries and have to be adept at keeping up with whatever is handed out to us. The confidence that I gained as a lawyer, coupled with a structured and organized approach has shaped me as an entrepreneur today. All of this helps to make decisions that balance innovation and sound business policies.
Based on your experience, what are some of the most common legal pitfalls first-time entrepreneurs overlook, and how can they proactively avoid them?
One of the most common legal pitfalls entrepreneurs (whether first timers or experienced) face is entering into business arrangements without formal, well-drafted contracts. Many rely on verbal agreements or generic templates, which can lead to disputes over responsibilities, revenue sharing, or exit rights.
Another overlooked area that entrepreneurs often overlook is protection of intellectual property whether it is trademarks, logos, or proprietary content. Another gap I often come across is that of compliance with local regulations from licenses to labour laws. This I have realized is a big issue especially in industries like hospitality or F&B, where health and safety standards are stringent.
To avoid these, I recommend that all entrepreneurs should invest early in legal groundwork. They need to get the basic things in place, nothing fancy. They should ensure that all contracts are vetted, register necessary IP’s, and get help to ensure compliance with regulatory frameworks. Even if budgets are tight, seeking basic legal advice at the outset saves significant costs and risks later. I believe that maintaining proper documentation is equally important so that there are no issues later when the company grows.
In leading operations, branding, and strategic development, how does your legal background influence your leadership style and problem-solving approach?
My legal background has a profound impact on my leadership style and my approach to decision making. I am thorough more often than not, I am able to anticipate problems and issues before they materialize which gives me an edge in dealing with them.
Also, true to my legal profession, my leadership style is proactive, detail-oriented, and solution-driven. One thing that I learnt through my legal career was to listen and to be empathetic. This is one of the biggest advantages that I may have learnt because hearing out people is crucial to building relationships and solving issues. A lot in this hospitality industry is driven through relationships, with guests, partners, and teams and the ability to balance firmness with empathy has been invaluable.
I encourage my team to think critically, ask questions, and to become creative in finding solutions. Ultimately, my legal background gives me the confidence to take bold decisions because they are thought out and calculated decisions.
Having studied at globally reputed institutions like the University of Cambridge and Stanford Graduate School of Business, how have these experiences broadened your perspective on integrating legal thinking into entrepreneurial growth?
My time at University of Cambridge and with the Seed Programme of Stanford Graduate School of Business has truly been transformative, not just academically but also in shaping how I think.
At Cambridge, the rigorous legal training gave me a broader perspective and taught me to analyze issues and to look at both risks and opportunities within the framework of the law, and to value precision in reasoning. Stanford, on the other hand, offered a completely different lens, one that emphasized innovation, design thinking, and growth-oriented leadership. The programme at Stanford helped me understand business and how to chase growth in business. It taught me that calculated risks are crucial for success in business.
Together, my academic pursuits have given me a unique blend of these perspectives that helps me to approach hospitality entrepreneurship with both caution and creativity. I can safeguard the business legally while also pushing boundaries to introduce novel concepts like Monsoon’s regional food journey or Coco Osteria’s award-winning dining experience.
It is these learnings that led me to introduce Neapolitan pizza’s to Dehradun through Coco Osteria, to launch its first ever craft cocktail bar called CinCin, to introduce a regional Indian restaurant that brings together a menu inspired by our travels across India in Monsoon or to start the Dehradun Food Literature Festival, that ignited meaningful conversations about food, culture, and storytelling, reinforcing the need to preserve and celebrate India’s diverse culinary heritage.
In my experience, my academic experiences reinforce my belief that law and entrepreneurship are not at odds, in fact they complement each other. Legal thinking provides structure and resilience, while entrepreneurial learning fosters vision and adaptability. Bringing the two together has been central to how I build and grow ventures in a way that is both sustainable and forward-looking.
In a constantly evolving business landscape with shifting regulations and compliance requirements, how do you ensure you remain informed, adaptable, and ahead of the curve?
On the legal side, I regularly track regulatory updates, attend professional workshops, and rely on peer networks to interpret how new laws might impact operations. In hospitality, adaptability is equally critical so I work closely with consultants and subject-matter experts to stay compliant while also ensuring innovation is not stifled.
In this dynamic world and ever evolving hospitality industry, I make it a point to stay ahead through constant learning and innovation. For example, after introducing Coco Osteria, we (Abhishek and I) travelled to Italy and took classes to learn the art of pizza and pasta making. We also ensure that our team attends professional workshops regularly to keep up with the industry. Apart from this, I make it a point to keep myself informed through constant engagement with industry networks.
We keep and encourage a positive and agile mindset at work. Our team has also imbibed the same and this helps us be proactive with changing dynamics and to align our work model.
Looking back, what advice would you give to lawyers considering a transition into entrepreneurship or leadership roles in business?
To any lawyer considering entrepreneurship, I would say while your acumen and ability to analyze, negotiate, and anticipate risks will be your biggest advantage, be open to new learnings. Business, unlike law, requires a certain risk taking ability, to take quick decisions and to adapt when things don’t go as planned.
My advice would be to be willing to “unlearn” bits. As an entrepreneur you have to be quick and not over analyse all decisions. A lot of decisions that you make as an entrepreneur are driven by intuition and practicalities rather than what seems logical.
As lawyers, we are very independent but to grow in business, one has to have a good team and has to rely on the power of collaboration so it is important to build a good team.
Entrepreneurship comes with its own challenges that one doesn’t encounter as a lawyer, so it is important to keep grounded and to focus on what is important.
How do you balance the demands of your legal practice with your entrepreneurial ventures, and what do you gather from it on maintaining work-life harmony?
Balancing a legal practice with entrepreneurial ventures has certainly been one of the most challenging yet rewarding aspects of my career. Law teaches discipline, structured thinking, and the ability to compartmentalize, and these very skills I have carried forward into managing hospitality operations. I rely on clear prioritization: when I’m working on a case, my focus is entirely on the matter at hand, and when I’m at the restaurant or with my team, I’m fully immersed in the business. I am truly present in whatever task I am involved with.
This dual role has also taught me the importance of delegation and as I have mentioned previously on building strong teams. Neither law nor hospitality is a solo pursuit, and having people I can trust allows me to shift roles without feeling overstretched. On a personal level, I’ve learned that balance doesn’t mean dividing time equally every day, but ensuring that over the long run, each aspect of my professional and personal life receives the attention it deserves.
I derive joy from the intellectual rigor of my law practice as well as from the creatively driven world of hospitality. I truly believe that when a career is driven by passion and when one enjoys what they are pursuing, it does not feel like a chore or a burden. While I still practice law, I find the same sense of purpose and challenge in hospitality, making both careers deeply fulfilling in different yet complementary ways.
What inspired you to pursue a career in law? Was there a particular moment, influence, or personal experience that drew you to the legal profession?
Since the time I learned to read and write, I have been a voracious reader. This passion led me to a deep interest in literature, history & political science. Everything I could lay my hands on, from William Shakespeare to Edgar Allen Poe to George Orwell and William Wordsworth to Arthur Conan Doyle, Oscar Wilde & of course Haruki Murakami. I was fascinated by how stories shape society and I was certain that I would either end up as a journalist chasing and breaking news stories or a writer churning out books and articles.
My family of lawyers, journalists and politicians encouraged me to develop my writing skills by reading. Contrary to popular belief, being a second generation lawyer is not always easy. In fact, like in my case, the bar was already set high by the rest of my family, and I knew that nothing less than excellence would be acceptable should I decide to join the legal practice and forge a career in law. However, my first choice was to be a journalist.
But one day during the Diwali/Winter break in my final year of studying for my Bachelor’s degree in Arts as I had made no plans to spend time in recreation with my friends, I decided to attend a cross-examination being conducted by my Advocate aunt when I watched her meticulously extract the truth with surgical precision from a witness on the stand with. The next day I requested my father, who had a flourishing legal practice in civil disputes and trial courts, if I could intern with him for a week. He agreed on the condition that I had to work even harder and put in more hours that week than the rest of the interns and not look at the clock. The first day I sat with him while he painstakingly drafted and re-draft a legal notice meticulously with the skill of what I could barely fathom. We must have spent close to 16 hours that first day, and much to my surprise, I was back again the next day where we spent another 16 hours, and I kept my word, I was the first to arrive and the last to leave. At the end of that week, I made up my mind to pursue a career in law.
Thus, Law wasn’t a detour, it was a logical conclusion of my evolution from being just a writer to being one who writes to ensure that justice is available to everyone in need of it.
What motivated you to pursue your master of laws degree (LL.M.) from Queen Mary University of London? What aspects of the program & institution aligned with your academic and professional goals? What are your key takeaways & experiences from your time there ?
If the degree of Bachelor of Laws was the foundation for my legal practice , my Masters in Law at Queen Mary, University of London was what built the edifice from which I could have a world view of international legal trends at and the ever widening scope that law provides to ensure a more equitable world. Out there I wasn’t analysing just the law in theory, but society and the way we function in relation to the law which gave me tools to further my learning.
Most of India’s statutes have either been drafted while we were a colony of the British or are based on laws in the U.K. In that sense Queen Mary offered me a historical mirror coupled with a modern lens, which made it ideal for my practice in Corporate & Commercial law. I chose Queen Mary because its LL.M. was famous for being both rigorous in theory and incredibly practical. It felt less like a classroom and more akin to partaking in real world legal scenarios. Three factors converged to create the perfect storm: In fact, prior to my LL.M. degree I had already been advising startups on Transactions, Litigation Avoidance advisory and Pre-Litigation when I realized that understanding international commercial law wasn’t optional anymore, it was the only means of raising India to the highest international standards. Second, London’s position as a global financial hub meant access to case studies that textbooks simply cannot replicate. Third, QMUL’s University’s faculty included practitioners who wrote the rulebooks on disputes and dispute avoidance.
My Master’s Degree in law laid an emphasis on comparative legal systems which proved invaluable to me now in my legal practice. Part of socialising and networking would regularly involve heated debates with faculty and peers which were our own version of the Oxford Union debates where we dissected existential legal conundrums faced in transactional agreements under Indian, English, American (Delaware), and Singapore laws. These were followed by a round of Hors d’oeuvres and drinks for which the lawyers who had failed to win the crowd would have to pay for it. The program’s real value wasn’t in the lecture halls but in the conversations that followed afterward. Late-night debates at the pub about whether certain aspects of media law really needed new legal frameworks, weekend trips with peers, faculty and chance encounters with renowned QCs & KCs.
These sessions taught me that Law isn’t just about a set of rules, it’s the art of predicting human behavior within social constraints. That became my mantra. Even my dissertation became the foundation for later advising several startups on their transactional and regulatory strategies. My London experience taught me that legal advice without commercial context is akin holding G.P.S. hardware with no connection to satellites and software, technically sophisticated, but practically useless. London offered something Mumbai could not at that time, proximity to the birthplace of commercial law and traditions that govern global transactions even today. London taught me two things: how to use the law with surgical precision and how to survive in a multi-cultural metro much akin to my own home city of Mumbai, with the only difference being that it wasn’t ‘Home’.
Queen Mary wasn’t just a campus; it was a court room without borders. I chose it for its emphasis on comparative commercial laws and of course, being in London, the commercial capital of the world was the icing on the cake. Every lecture was an eye opener to the world’s legal machinery and watching it in motion. We didn’t just study corporate and commercial law but we debated it with both present and future public policy influencers. It provided me with the opportunity to interact with vanguards and scholars of law and economic policy in our classrooms and campus. Of course, having such as alumni consists of stalwarts including India’s former RBI Governor Mr. Urjit Patel, Economist Pranoy Roy & Davidson Nicol, the former Under Secretary General of the United Nations makes it stand out even more.
Legal expertise without cultural fluency is like using complicated words with no proper context in an unrecognisable language. The LL.M. taught me to be multi-lingual in legal traditions essential for any lawyer serious about Start-up advisory in our globalized world.
In the early stages of your legal career, what experiences or matters significantly enhanced your understanding of the Law? Are there any pivotal moments that helped shape your professional trajectory?
If law school is your boot camp, then your initial few years of practice are akin to active combat duty. My father who was my mentor when I joined the profession has a saying: “Every mistake you make costs someone else money, time, or opportunity, so be extremely alert you may make new mistakes, but never repeat the old ones which you must use as a means of from your old ones which you must use as a means of enhancing your knowledge.”. Those words transformed how I approach every Start-up advisory engagement.
Every lawyer has that one case or a few early on in their career that serve as their trial by fire. Mine involved a tech Start-up whose founders had structured their equity like a Rom-Com love triangle, complicated, dramatic & destined for disaster. As we worked towards reconstituting the documentation, one thing was clear to me, ‘Startup Law’ (as people have labelled it) isn’t about preventing problems, it’s about creating efficient solutions for smart people who often make predictable mistakes. That client taught me three things: First, documentation matters, but context matters more. Second, the best legal advice often sounds like business advice. Third, sometimes the best service you can provide to a client is talking them out of their own cleverness.
Another pivotal moment came during my first due diligence exercise for a Series A round. Thirty hours into document review, I discovered a licensing agreement that could torpedo the entire deal. The lead investor later told me that I didn’t just save them money, I saved them from becoming a cautionary tale. My (Late) Grand-mother, who was a highly respected and loved State Legislator once told me: Good lawyers know the law; great lawyers understand the story behind the enactment of that law. That’s when I realized that due diligence isn’t treasure hunting; it’s about defusing land mines. These experiences of multiple successful people shaped my philosophy: Be the lawyer who prevents a crisis, not one who profits from it.
One of my first major transactions involved a then small scale e-commerce startup with revenue in different jurisdictions and compliance documentation in none of them. It was like being asked to perform surgery with a plastic knife. We spent several weeks creating the legal infrastructure for them which in fact should have existed from day one. One of its founders later said, ‘We thought that legal documentation was trivial until we realized it was life support.’
You advise & litigate for several major government bodies as a Senior Panel Counsel for the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)/GST Intelligence & Central Board of Indirect Taxes (CBIC) as well as Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), & Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Board (MHADA) AND being a legal advisor to several Start-Ups in the tech & media space on the other how has working across such diverse institutions influenced your legal approach? What have been some of the most challenging matters among them?
My experiences with government agencies and statutory bodies taught me to navigate bureaucracy not as an obstacle, but as a playing field where real business gets done. This perspective proves invaluable when guiding startups through regulatory approval processes. Of course, I have been blessed and privileged to have had the opportunity to work with some of the most intelligent, upright & hard-working officers right from the grass-roots level Inspectors & Superintendents to Legal Advisors/Officers from right at the top up to (Chief/Joint/Deputy) Commissioners, A.D.G., Deputy & Joint Directors, so I have to give them credit where it’s due. If I have to sit and name them all that in itself would be a fairly long list.
Diversity proves invaluable for Start-up advisory work. When advising media houses or fintech companies, It’s not just about understanding MCA, RBI, SEBI, SWA regulations, It’s about deciphering the Regulatory and counter party mindset, the concerns that keep regulators awake at night, and how policy gets translated into practice.
That lesson now translates directly into how I work with startups and media houses. I cannot count the number of times boot strapped founders have met me and said “We don’t need the paperwork, it’s fine, we trust each other” only to reappear a few months later realising that when disputes arise trust flies out of the window. My early career showed me that cross-checking every consent form, every signature, every assumption can mean the difference between smooth sailing and sinking fast.
Despite my LL.M. specialisation I never restricted myself to one particular area of practice, which is why I now am able to decipher matters ranging from Income Tax disputes, Customs act & GST related Writs, Appeals, Bail & Anticipatory Bail dealing with Tax Evasion, NDPS cases, Housing disputes & other laws. Working across government bodies is like playing five-dimensional chess with tax intelligence, urban planning, housing rights, anti-evasion laws being the pieces on the chess board. Each brief requires switching mental gear and watching details with varied legal lenses. I’ve argued tax evasion by breakfast and housing and society related issues in the second half.
Working with multiple statutory bodies is like being a legal anthropologist and a linguist, each institution has its own culture, priorities and rules, both written and unwritten. My empanelments read like a tour of some of India’s most fascinating legal statutes including The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, Finance Act & Income Tax Act under the CBDT, the Goods & Services Act, Customs Act & Narcotics & Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act under the CBIC & DRI and the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, to name just a few.
Each case has been fascinating and just like fingerprints no two cases are alike but one of my most fascinating as well as challenging one has been a Writ Petition filed by one of the world’s largest manufacturers of automobiles having it’s parent company based in Germany who had sought to quash & set aside a $1.4 billion Show Cause Notice issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs based on investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for wilful tax evasion misclassifying imported car parts to avail lower import duties. In that case, I was led by the Learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) of the Government of India who used to regularly fly down from New Delhi to argue the case. It was like solving a Rubik’s cube while being blindfolded where every move in one dimension affects others. That case taught me that regulatory strategy isn’t merely about simple compliance or the lack thereof with statutory provisions which may appear uncomplicated but a complex choreographed play involving multiple issues which ought to be viewed from multiple angles to get a holistic picture and arrive at what requires to be followed in practice.
Another case involved the challenge to an incorrect and manipulated technical opinion given by a multi-national consultancy firm to a multi-national South Korea based conglomerate who imported electronic equipment worth billions of dollars under a wrong entry based on the aforesaid technical opinion.
Yet another case involved a challenge to a pivotal aspect of tax administration which involved the transfer of a group of cases from one Assessing Officer (AO) to another and was crucial in ensuring the smooth functioning between two different state jurisdictions of the tax administration where the Assessee raised objections to the change in jurisdiction.
The diversity proves invaluable for startup advisory work. When advising Start-ups and individual entrepreneurs, I don’t just have to understand and simplify regulations I have to understand the regulatory mindset, the concerns that keep regulators awake at night, and understand how policy has to get translated into practice.
My government litigation experience taught me to navigate bureaucracy not as an obstacle, but as a playing field where real business gets done. This perspective proves invaluable when guiding Start-ups through regulatory approval processes. It has helped me to represent my private clients in their attempt to bridge the gap between legal theory and public policy reality.
Each role brought with it unique challenges, serving on regulatory panels involves balancing innovation with protection, investigating financial irregularities requires detective skills which they don’t teach you in law school, and where policy advisory work demands thinking beyond individual cases to systemic implications.
Yet another challenging matter pertained to a multi-agency investigation into a scandal involving small individual investors on the one hand and a group of companies, whose interests ranged from real estate development to cattle rearing to broadcasting services. Over three years, multiple stakeholders, and countless sleepless nights later, we crafted a resolution that protected investors while preserving innovation incentives. The experience taught me that public service isn’t about serving the law, it’s about serving justice through the law.
The experience of working with government bodies and statutory bodies transformed my startup advisory practice. I don’t just help companies comply with regulations; I help them understand the ‘why’ behind the rules. When founders grasp regulatory intent, they can work smoothly within set boundaries rather than riding rough shod over the set perimeters. These roles have made me lawyer, policy analyst & virtual entrepreneur. When advising CBIC on procedural lapses or individual entrepreneur clients, I often have to translate complex regulations into implementable steps. That cross-sectoral experience honed both my legal acumen and empathy to various causes.
You’ve actively participated in pro bono matters & causes varying from human rights to animal welfare, including filing public interest issues before the hon’ble Bombay High Court. What drives you to take up such socially significant and often challenging cases? In your view, what role should pro bono work play in a lawyer’s practice? You’re also a legal advisor to Sanctuary Foundation and Fur-rida’s Animal and Rehabilitation Trust, NGOs dedicated to Animal Welfare & rehabilitation in Mumbai, how do you balance both out?
Pro bono work, for me, began as a calling of my conscience. As a lawyer when you only litigate on behalf of those who can afford it, you are not helping the cause of justice but only helping those who are already privileged. Pro bono work always reminds me why I became a lawyer: not to rake in the money, but to actively work towards changing our world for the better, using the opportunity to advocate for a better, fairer and more equitable society. Billed clients feed the body. Pro bono work feeds the soul.
But here, before I even begin to think of taking any personal credit I must mention that it was the elders in my family for instilling whose values instilled in me makes me give back to society. My Late grandfather, an industrialist paved the way by social and charitable work. My Late grandmother was a Mumbai City Legislator and later Maharashtra State Legislator from the 1990s to the early 2000s. My Late uncle, also a businessman, sacrificed his business interests to champion the causes of the common man and was well known as a vociferous advocate of causes who many felt were lost causes. Just the three of them were responsible for providing basic sanitation and piped water connections to lakhs of residents of informal settlements in underserved parts of (South) Mumbai and also later went on to build study centres and gymnasiums for the poorer class of citizens who could not afford these “luxuries” throughout (South) Mumbai.
I grew up watching my father put in the same dedication and hard work into his pro bono clients that he would into his millionaire clients and once (while I was very young) I asked him why he did this, he simply said, If I don’t, then who will? … and that rational question just stuck with me. My mother gave up a very promising career as a journalist to teach journalism, creative writing and conduct writing boot camps. My brother, now a high-profile Surgeon still spends days working pro bono and organising medical camps in rural Maharashtra where there is little to no expert medical facilities. Another uncle is a senior journalist who has covered some of the most ground breaking issues of the time, not stories about luxury but the ones that no one else dared to cover because he felt that someone had to take up such matters. Another aunt gave up her job as a Banker to teach children.
When the Covid-19 pandemic hit India people had to take recourse to the Covid vaccine as it appeared to be the only defence against it. However, some unscrupulous elements took advantage of the rush for the vaccine and started administering mere saline water and passing it off as the Covid Vaccine. When my aunt, and I heard of it we couldn’t ignore it. The idea that thousands of people were tricked into believing that they were being given the vaccine when in reality they were not, shook both of us. Our PIL on this issue wasn’t just about a legal remedy, it was about restoring public faith in the ability of the law in dealing with such unscrupulous elements.
What continues to drive me is the belief that law must serve those who can least afford it. If startups look to me for guidance on shareholder rights, ordinary citizens need me for something far more basic: the right to life and health. In my view, pro bono isn’t charity, it’s oxygen for the soul. It reminds us why we became lawyers in the first place. As William Scott Downey had aptly put it, Law Without Justice is a Wound Without a Cure.
Pro bono litigation is not mere work without purpose in monetary terms, it’s about priceless work for those who cannot afford to pay to get good legal representation. I believe every lawyer who has crossed 10 or more years of practice must dedicate a part of their practice to Pro Bono Litigation. Otherwise, we risk becoming mere paper pushers and money making soulless machines instead of custodians of real justice.
Once I found myself in the thick of a case involving a teenage boy who died after being detained and allegedly tortured by the police whilst in their custody. The boy, barely 17 years old from Mumbai’s Dharavi slum district, was accused of stealing a mobile phone. After being released from “routine police detention” in July 2018, he complained to his parents and siblings of his torture by the police while in their custody. Soon after his release, he developed a fever, and his condition deteriorated rapidly, and he tragically passed away within a week. The post-mortem report mentioned pneumonia as the cause of his death. To everyone but his family, the case was as good as closed. The family’s grief was not just raw, it was distrustful of the very system that swore to protect them and it was absolutely justified in refusing to take their child’s body for his last rites for nearly two years until the High Court ordered a second post-mortem. For those two years, the body lay unclaimed in a morgue, almost frozen in time. But the law did not forget him and nor did I.
I wasn’t new to litigation then, but here I learned something every statute book misses: law isn’t just about sections and precedents; it’s about instilling trust in those for whom laws are enacted. The Hon’ble High Court’s order was a pivotal moment it showed me about the compassion and kindness of judges and it showed me that you don’t need to have the loudest voice to tilt the scales of justice in favour of the helpless and restore faith in the judiciary. It also sharpened my skills in due diligence because when you’re digging through contradictory medical reports and hospital records, you learn how to scrutinize details like an auditor hunting for hidden liabilities.
Taking on that case was not about earning any fees as it was completely pro bono, it was the weight of my conscience which guided me to do so. That case became my personal reminder that law is not always swift, but it is relentless. Sometimes you carry files that weigh more than law books they weigh with grief, suspicion, and silence.
Another matter that shaped my formative years was one that involved a medical negligence case where a woman contracted Hepatitis C after a hysterectomy at a famous South Bombay hospital. A team of surgeons and doctors, one operating theatre, and a chain of negligence right from the top, it was a puzzle of medical protocol and accountability. For a young lawyer, it was baptism by fire. I spent nights reading medical manuals, learning how a surgery should be conducted, and finding out with what went wrong. What it taught me is that the devil truly hides in the documentation.
Pro bono cases also tend to surprise you and throw you into the deep end, no fees, minimal support, high legal stakes for those involved. But they also teach you to think creatively and advocate fiercely. They’re a bootcamp for both skill and conscience. Pro bono work teaches you humility: you are not always the smartest person in the room, sometimes you are the only person standing between injustice and justice.
Animal welfare law in India is like a crossword puzzle with half its clues missing. As advisor to Stranctuary Foundation and Fur-rida’s Animal Rehabilitation Trust, I have actively helped them get set up as well as look into internal policy and legal fine print. I’ve worked on matters involving animal cruelty, harassment from societies against members from using elevators or accessing common areas with their pets. These cases taught me that education is as vital as litigation. Sometimes, the law needs a lawyer often it needs an earnest storyteller. “Until one has loved an animal, a part of one’s soul remains unawakened.” – Anatole France
Pro bono work should be mandatory in every lawyer’s practice, not as a penance for making money, but as a training for making better decisions. Every PIL or Pro Bono Writ I advise on makes me a sharper commercial lawyer because it reminds me that law exists to serve, not the other way around. Plus, there’s practical value: Pro bono cases often involve cutting-edge legal questions that commercial clients pay premium rates to explore. It’s continuing education coupled with social service. My pro bono work began with the simple realization of the advice of my (Late) grandmother who told me: Corporate law pays your bills, but public service will reward you with a clear conscience and a good night’s sleep. When you spend your days crafting shareholder agreements and due diligence reports, you can lose sight of law’s fundamental purpose of protecting the vulnerable and ensuring fairness. Pro bono work keeps me honest.
Every time I review a startup’s employment policies, I remember the domestic workers whose rights I’ve advocated for. Every time I structure a complex transaction, I’m informed by cases where transparency could have prevented injustice. It’s enlightened self-interest: Better lawyers emerge from engaging with law’s moral dimensions, not just its commercial applications.
And oddly, these cases have made me sharper in my commercial practice. Start-ups come to me with messy equity structures, hidden liabilities, and co-founder disputes. I approach those files with the same rigor I did in the case of the boy’s family who allegedly died as a result of custodial interrogation, digging until the truth emerges from a metaphorical mountain of dirt and stones which seek to hide it. Pro bono makes your professional muscle stronger, because when you stand against the State or against a famous hospital with unlimited resources and a legal team the size of a small army for free, a mere shareholder squabble doesn’t scare you.
Why take up pro bono cases? Because the power of the law is meaningless unless it reaches those who most need it. The directing of a second post-mortem after a teen’s death or holding doctors accountable for medical negligence are milestones for society and for any lawyer involved in pursuing such cases.
Looking ahead, what is your vision for the future of your legal practice? How do you see your personal journey evolving within the legal field? In a profession that is both demanding and dynamic, how do you maintain focus, purpose, and mindfulness?
My future vision is to promote people to start building a hybrid practice where commercial matters fuel a strong public interest wing and not just something which has purely commercial motivation. Think of it as the Robin Hood model: charge the rich, fight for the voiceless.
The future belongs to lawyers who can speak three languages fluently: Law, business, and technology. I’m building a practice that serves as a bridge between these worlds, helping founders navigate not just current regulations but anticipate future ones.
As for purpose: I want my legacy to be measured not in my tangible assets, but in barriers removed, regulatory hurdles that no longer impede innovation because I found simple solutions, and compliance frameworks that enable rather than constrain entrepreneurial ambition. My goal isn’t to be the most famous lawyer or the richest one, it’s to be the one clients trust with their most important decisions because they know I’ll give them efficient solutions within the parameters of the law and not just some short sighted temporary balm for any problems that they could encounter.
The legal profession needs fewer disruptors and more steady ships. Staying focused requires principled pragmatism. When faced with ethical dilemmas, I ask not ‘What’s legally permissible?’ but ‘What would I want my family & friends to be told about me as a lawyer and a human?’ This compass has never steered me wrong. I see myself evolving into policy advisory roles, where law meets legislation. I mentor young lawyers and young law students, and I hope to use this to build a legal aid network where all of us endeavour to focus just 30% of our time and resources towards pro bono legal aid in india focussing on individual cases and causes ranging from human rights, prevention of domestic violence and animal welfare cases.
My five-year vision: Become the first and last go-to legal strategist for Tech & Media Entrepreneurs and Start-ups tackling challenges such as: Intellectual Property Protection, Transfer & Monetization, Data Privacy & Compliance, Fund-raising & Investor relations, Content Liability & Platform Responsibility, Technology Contracts & Partnerships, Regulatory & Policy Navigation and the biggest & most common one being: Dispute Prevention & Legal Crisis Management. These companies don’t need traditional lawyers; they need legal pioneers who can craft frameworks for technologies that don’t yet have regulatory precedents. Maintaining focus requires what I call ‘productive paranoia’ constantly asking ‘What could go wrong?’ not from anxiety, but from genuine curiosity. Mindfulness comes from remembering that every legal document I draft affects real people’s lives and dreams.
My endgame? To be feared by crooks, respected to be fair by counter-parties and of course, followed by puppies, especially the ones that have no place to call home.
Focus and mindfulness? I journal, I used to learn Salsa & Bachata, popular latin american dances, I also took up MMA and found that to be a great stress-buster, I spend time taking care of my dogs as well as feeding a few community dogs. I take breaks from the screen. “The law is a jealous mistress, but she respects a loyal one.”
I have one rule which most of my clients are already aware of: if it’s urgent I’ll be drafting and doing research even if it’s 3am or a holiday, but if it doesn’t need urgent redressal I stop working by 9 pm. Balance isn’t a luxury, it’s how I keep the fire burning without burning out.
Based on your extensive experience across sectors, what advice would you offer to young lawyers just starting out in the profession? Are there any particular resources or habits you would recommend to help them build a strong foundation?
Your law degree is just a learner’s license. The real exam begins in court. Try and read at least one interesting case law a day or at the very least. Argue (respectfully) with your peers. Your opponents and counter-parties are not your enemies. In litigation, your opponent is your adversary, but only inside the courtroom, they are your peers, your colleagues, your juniors and seniors outside the courtroom, treat them all with the same respect once your matter is over that you would want them to treat you with.
Even if you’re being appointed just for an adjournment, read the entire case, carefully, make sure if given the opportunity by the court, you answer correctly and confidently, most judges asking you about your case are providing you with an opportunity, they know they may lose time with a young lawyer, but they are trying to help you and not put you in a spot.
Your counter-parties are not your adversaries, you have a common goal, mutual co-operation and trust go a long way here, far longer than brow beating or one-upmanship. Write even when no one’s reading. Don’t confuse over-confidence with Confidence. But humility is better. Young lawyers often worry about the wrong things.
Here’s what actually matters: Master the fundamentals before chasing specializations. You can’t advise on complex M&A structures if you don’t understand basic contract principles. It’s like trying to compose symphonies before learning scales.
Your first five years will feel like everyone’s speaking Latin while you’re struggling with the alphabets, that’s okay, read and re-read. The lawyers who succeed aren’t the smartest ones, they’re the ones who can admit ignorance, ask better questions, and turn feedback into improvement rather than taking it personally. Clients hire lawyers to solve problems, not to demonstrate legal knowledge. Be solution-oriented, not statute-oriented.
Stop thinking like a student who merely asks for answers and start thinking like a strategist who helps clients navigate ambiguous situations. Law school teaches you what the law says; practice teaches you what the law means.
In start-up advisory, I’ve learned that founders and investors speak different languages, even when using the same words. ‘Aggressive timeline’ means ‘next week’ to founders and ‘next quarter’ to VCs. A founder once wanted to structure their Series A with several different classes of shares: one for each team member’s ‘unique contribution.’ We simplified to three classes and closed the round in half the time. Then there was the time that Start Up wanted to grant equity to advisors before clarifying their intellectual property ownership. We sorted IP first, advisory agreements second. One recent challenging due diligence involved a company with operations in four countries, three legal entities, and legal documentation that looked like abstract art.
Good legal advice feels expensive until you need it, then it feels cheap. My approach is preventive medicine for businesses, identifying potential complications before they become complications. Whether it’s crafting founder agreements that anticipate future disputes, structuring employee equity plans that scale with growth, or creating compliance frameworks that evolve with regulation, the goal is always the same: Build legal infrastructure that enables business success rather than constraining it. Benjamin Franklin said, ‘An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ In startup law, an hour of careful drafting can prevent months and sometimes years of expensive litigation. Don’t aim to be the smartest/richest lawyer. Aim to be the one your client calls first when they need a solution.
Four Non-Negotiable Principles:
Understand not just legal implications but business consequences.
Sometimes the best legal advice is telling clients what they don’t want to hear.
Your career will be defined not by the cases you win, but by the problems you prevent and the trust you build. Be the lawyer people call not just when they’re in trouble, but when they want to avoid trouble altogether.
The moment you think you know everything is the moment you become dangerous to yourself, as well as your clients.
Essential Habits:
Read everything thrice, once for content, once for implications, and once again for good measure.
Make time for one pro bono brief, at least once a month.
When you aren’t reading, attend court like an obsession: watch, make notes, learn.
Kindness, not money, makes the world go round. Be Kind… Always, especially when you would not benefit. Be kind to those less fortunate than you, how you treat a clerk or a peon is a lot more telling of your character than how you behave in front of a Judge or a Senior Advocate. Be kind to people, be kind to animals.
You don’t have to be the biggest fish in the court-room or the negotiation table, remember piranhas bite more sharply (but remember, above all, Kindness)
You’ve mentioned that your advent into the field of law was almost accidental, as you initially planned to pursue an MBA in Pune but were influenced by friends studying law. How did that unexpected shift shape your career path and your approach to the profession?
I completed my schooling at a Government school in Rajasthan. In 2006, I moved to Pune for further studies. As everyone knows, Pune is often referred to as the “Oxford of the East.” At that time, Business Administration was in high demand, so after completing my schooling, I pursued a BBA in Pune. During those days, I had a few friends and acquaintances who were studying at various law schools. In the evenings, we would often meet for tea or simply hang out. They would share their experiences about academic activities, court visits, and legal studies. Listening to them gradually developed my interest in law, and I began considering admission to the field. Before enrolling in law school, I worked with the Symbiosis Group for a few months. However, when the time came to make a final decision whether to pursue an MBA or law. I was not fully confident and remained unsure. It was then that my father guided me towards pursuing law. With his approval and encouragement, I finally decided to enroll in law school. Most importantly, till date, my father has been a constant source of motivation and support, especially during a difficult phase when I felt like giving up legal practice and considering another career path. His encouragement has always kept me going.
You have conducted highly contested divorce cases, resolved long-pending disputes through mediation, and handled matters ranging from custody to NRI divorces. How challenging is it to navigate cross-border family disputes, particularly NRI divorces, and what key stakeholders are usually involved?
I have been practicing law since 2013, Over the years, I have handled hundreds of matrimonial disputes and cases in Ahmedabad, Pune and Mumbai, and have also appeared before several Hon’ble High Courts in India also before the Hon’ble supreme court of India. One common aspect in matrimonial disputes whether contested or mutual consent, whether involving NRIs, is that they often revolve around key issues such as claims of alimony, division of immovable assets, child custody, and other financial considerations. In such matters, the role of a lawyer is not limited to representing a client in court; it is also about guiding all stakeholders toward what is reasonable and achievable. In NRI divorce cases, the first challenge is often the logistical aspect ensuring the presence of parties or enabling their participation through virtual hearings, which most courts now facilitate. In mutual consent divorces for NRIs, the process can be straightforward once formalities are understood and complied with as per the law and procedure. From my experience, NRIs are usually clear about their terms, conditions, and settlement formulas, but it becomes the lawyer’s job to draft, execute, and present those terms in a legally sound manner so that there are no future disputes, particularly regarding child custody or financial obligations, another is regarding the if any joint property in foreign country and one of the spouse is in India and not looking for forward to go back., when I talk about long pending divorce cases I recall one particular case where a client had been contesting a matter for years. And later after a few years he came to me with the mindset of “ that he would only like to contest” rather than resolving it. After understanding his case history, I advised him that litigation should be the last resort, and that he should first try to settle the matter through communication either directly, via lawyers, or through mediation. Initially hesitant, he eventually followed my advice. Within three months, the matter was resolved amicably, something that could have been achieved years earlier had proper guidance been given. From my practice, I have learned that in matrimonial litigation especially highly contested and long-pending matters mediation is often the most effective tool. The key is to fully understand the facts, the parties’ financial capacities, the complexity of the issues, and the emotional aspects, and then to guide the stakeholders toward a reasonable middle ground. I firmly believe there should never be a point where a lawyer loses hope of settlement. Keeping that hope alive until the very end, unless a final order is passed, is essential in family disputes.
With over a decade of experience before the Family Courts and High Courts in both Gujarat and Maharashtra, what procedural differences have you observed while practicing in these jurisdictions?
This is indeed a very important question, because understanding procedural differences is crucial when practicing in different jurisdictions. Yes, there are significant differences between Gujarat and Maharashtra, and I have learned a great deal from working alongside lawyers in both states. When it comes to procedures, there are differences in the prescribed formats for filing applications, the method of preparing compilations, and the specific documentation requirements. The process for exhibiting documents also varies slightly between the two jurisdictions. In family matters, I have observed differences in the conciliation and mediation processes. The filing procedure itself also differs. For example, in Maharashtra, one can file a matter without physically going to court; everything can be done virtually through the court portal. Even the administration of an oath can be completed virtually by uploading a video, which is not the same in Gujarat. These procedural nuances highlight the importance of adapting to local practices while ensuring compliance with the law.
Your practice emphasizes amicable, reconciliation-focused solutions. What trends have you noticed in the growing use of ADR in matrimonial disputes, and how do you see it shaping the future of family law?
Yes, I strongly believe that there should be amicable solutions in matrimonial disputes because it is ultimately a question of precious time of life. If one is able to take a timely decision and resolve the dispute, it is far better than letting it remain in court for years, which rarely leads either party anywhere. However, it is important that both parties are willing to be reasonable with each other, even while keeping their differences, and remain focused during mediation. Nowadays, I see that even the Hon’ble Supreme Court actively promotes mediation in many matters. In my experience, Family Court judges also often take the initiative to speak with both parties, understand their concerns, and encourage amicable settlements. If the parties show willingness, mediation can be a highly effective tool. Such solutions can be facilitated by any authority through various methods, including formal mediation or counselling. Sometimes, emotions run high and parties are initially unable to take rational decisions. However, after proper counselling, they are often in a better position to make fair and reasonable decisions. Therefore, irrespective of the situation, I always advise that Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and amicable settlements should be explored, as they are often the best way to ensure a fair and lasting resolution.
You began your career as a Legal Associate under senior advocates before founding your own firm. What lessons from those early years continue to guide your courtroom strategy today?
Yes, I began my career working with a lawyer who had many years of experience. I learned a great deal from advocates during my time in Pune and later in Ahmedabad. One of the key lessons I have learned is that if you wish to succeed as a litigation lawyer particularly in matrimonial matters, which often involve divorce, custody disputes, alimony, maintenance, and domestic violence, the first and foremost skill you need is to listen carefully to your client. You must understand where the real problem lies, while also respecting the emotional circumstances of the parties. I have also learned that you should never be judgmental when listening to clients. Instead, your role is to ensure you understand their circumstances fully. From my seniors, I learned the importance of proper drafting and being thoroughly prepared with arguments. I recall that when I was assisting senior lawyers, they would take detailed notes point-by-point and spend hours preparing final arguments for divorce cases. Contrary to the perception that matrimonial litigation is straightforward, I have found it to be complex, involving significant factual and legal research, especially since family disputes often involve many incidents that form the grounds for divorce. As per High Court and Supreme Court judgments, it is essential to keep updating oneself on recent case law. I have made it a habit to learn continuously from court proceedings, by listening to arguments and closely studying judgments.
What motivated you to establish your own practice, and what vision did you have for it in the beginning? How did you overcome the initial challenges?
It is always a challenge to choose litigation as a career after completing law. Initially, I opted for corporate work, but later my father motivated me to practice in court. He advised me to go to the court every day, whether I had a brief or not. I had no contacts who could help me enter the field of litigation, so I followed my father’s advice. I began visiting the court daily and interacting with lawyers. Eventually, I met one of my professors from my graduation days, who was also a practicing lawyer. I sought his help and asked if I could join his office. He told me that he didn’t have many matters at that time but could refer me to someone else. He gave me a reference to another advocate in Pune. When I went to meet this advocate, he asked me just one question: “When do you want to start?” My answer was, “I can start right now.” He immediately agreed and told me I could join and start working. I didn’t even go back home. I began working on the brief that very day. The second thing he told me was, “You will have to work hard, I will take care of your basic needs and concerns.” That assurance gave me the confidence I needed, and that is how my journey began. And this is how my journey started for my first client. One thing I learned early on is that you never know where clients will come from. They may walk in from anywhere, even from the court corridors. Sometimes, they may watch you argue in court, be impressed with your performance, and later ask for your contact details. In this profession, your performance is what pays you both in the form of clients and valuable contacts.
What inspired you to choose matrimonial and family litigation as your primary specialization, and how has working in this niche shaped your perspective on law?
Yes, my interest gradually shifted towards matrimonial law. Since I started my practice, I used to accompany my senior in family court matters assigned to me. Most of these cases, particularly matrimonial disputes, involved domestic violence and divorce. Slowly and gradually, this became my primary practice area. Although I have also handled other matters, over time my focus has increasingly been on matrimonial disputes and family matters. While I would not call it a specialisation, with experience I have gained significant exposure in this field. As I have already stated, dealing with matrimonial matters is not easy. It requires a great deal of skill, patience, and the ability to handle sensitive human emotions. I believe this area of law has immense potential, and one should continue to explore, understand, and work in depth within family and matrimonial matters
Having such a diverse practice now and over a decade of experience, what advice would you give to new entrants in the field of law?
All entrants in the field of law must be prepared to work hard, especially in the initial stages. One should not assume that any particular branch of law is not worth exploring. If an opportunity comes your way, it should be accepted and explored, as it may eventually lead to your mainstream practice. Therefore, do not make up your mind too early or immediately after graduating from law school. Take up different matters, handle them diligently, and if needed, seek guidance from experienced senior lawyers or practitioners in that particular area. Learn from each experience, as this gradual exposure will help you discover your true area of interest and expertise.
Managing a practice across two jurisdictions can be demanding. How do you balance professional commitments with personal life, and what activities help you unwind and recharge?
Yes, certainly, sometimes it requires motivation, but right from the beginning I chose to practise in two jurisdictions. As far as personal life is concerned, it goes without saying that law is a profession where, especially in the initial years, one has to compromise on personal life and carry the pressures of professional responsibilities. Being a noble profession, law demands complete dedication and 100% commitment. There is no other option but to prioritise professional life first. After a certain number of years, personal life also finds its balance, as family members begin to understand the efforts and challenges of a lawyer’s journey. Eventually, it becomes a routine. So yes, whether personal or professional, at the end of the day, life goes with the flow, and with time one learns how to manage both.
