Super Lawyer

Category: Independent Practitioner

  • Blending Advocacy, Strategy, and Technology in Modern Litigation – Kunal Sinha, Independent Litigation and Dispute Resolution Counsel.

    Blending Advocacy, Strategy, and Technology in Modern Litigation – Kunal Sinha, Independent Litigation and Dispute Resolution Counsel.

    This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team

    With over eight years of experience appearing before the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, and various tribunals, you have had a diverse legal journey. Given all that, when did your interest in law first develop? What inspired you to choose this field, especially considering that law was not always a highly sought-after career?

    Yes, absolutely. I think if I have to go back in time, it is around my high school and why I chose law. I had a keen sense of justice. I wanted to do the right thing, stand up for what’s right. More than anything, I was also, I believe, influenced by a lot of novels and movies. It would instill a lot of pride in me when I saw a lawyer really fighting for justice on screen, you know, things like those.

    So those were the points which sort of nudged me in this direction to explore more about it. Later on, I always had an inherent attraction towards psychology. I used to read a lot of Sigmund Freud and criminal psychology and other things, just out of interest. And somehow, at that time, I think especially around the time when I was graduating high school, things were really looking up. A lot of law schools were opening. Especially, what really I think made a difference in my life personally is that around that time Jindal Global Law School really came up, and I was really in awe reading about it. And so Jindal sort of pulled me in this direction.

    I also cleared the CLAT exam. I hope it’s the same exam now. And so I cleared one of these NLUs. And you know, the first week I was like, no, I’m going to drop out of law, because it brought me back to the things which I hated the most: monotony. The way it was taught there in the government institution was a lot of just reading out things. The professor would come and everybody would start taking notes, and I was like, what is happening? Why can’t we just share the notes online or come to what’s important?

    Maybe talk about law. Talk about how you apply law instead of just everybody copying the exact same thing which the professor narrates. I found it extremely useless, the way of teaching, the traditional way of teaching. Then I moved to Jindal Global Law School, and I was really impressed by the way they were teaching.

    It was a lot of hypothetical, research-oriented, open-book examinations, no note-taking. Notes were up to you, how you wanted to take them. There would be slides shared after class, so you already had everything that had been taught to you. So a lot of technologically advanced ways of teaching, which I think mirrored a lot of universities abroad, and we had a lot of faculty from abroad as well. So it was just all those mixes of things which made me understand law, and that initial attraction happened, that pulled me into the career. It wouldn’t have been possible if it wasn’t for my alma mater.

    And especially the way technology was used, and the break from monotony of just remembering case laws, citations, or sections. I mean, we had open-book exams, so all the questions were very hypothetical. I would just conclude this by saying that it’s a mix of a lot of legal dramas I saw in movies, novels, inclination towards criminal psychology, and a contribution of the university. All of them played a role.

    Strictly from a point of view of going to university for a job, I think that wasn’t my intention. I really liked it. And my family, we come from a sort of background where engineering plus MBA is equal to an IT job, something like that. So it was a tried and tested path for success. You try to do IIT, then IIM, and then you get a great job, then you move to the US, and you settle. That was sort of the ladder in which my family saw success. So this was really a breaking-tradition sort of thing for me to do law.

    From breaking traditions at home to experiencing a diverse environment in your law program, do you think this influenced the diversity in your practice as well? When you interact with peers or colleagues and notice the differences in approach or understanding, how do you encourage and motivate yourself in such situations? Additionally, how have you brought the learnings from your alma mater into your practice, and how have you implemented these experiences in running your own law firm?

    Again, it’s very difficult to word it in a few sentences, but I would say it’s a contribution of a lot of things. Let’s say, the first limb of your question about my colleagues, I would say that all my colleagues have been extremely, extremely smart, winners of different moot courts and all when we were in university.

    So, a lot of friends and everything. I think the difference which I saw was that they had a more structured way of growing in their profession. And a lot of structured internships, a lot of structured interviews to get a job and everything.

    Well, I wanted my early twenties to be about exploration. So, that way I differentiated from my friends. It’s definitely better to have more structured planning and a more concrete way of progressing in a career than just going out there in the world and just seeing what comes your way.

    So definitely, I think when I was just in law school, I think every year, like the first year I would want to be a corporate lawyer, second year I would want to be something else. So I could never really have a static thing in my mind. What happened was during the internships, I interned with IndusLaw, ITC, different places in different capacities.

    And I enjoyed the Patiala House Court trial matters the most. While talking to you, I think a lot of self-reflection is happening. And I think, again, the answer is monotony. So every day you end up learning something new, interacting with newer clients.

    So that way I got pulled towards litigation. It wasn’t my first preference in law school because I wanted to get a more stable income career and everything. So a lot of good fortune to have landed in chambers where I was not treated just like a junior or just like a person who does research.

    All the seniors I have met were very, very good mentors. And I think spending time as a mentee during those formative years is so important and depends on your luck as well to fall in these kinds of chambers. But that person can really pull you up and teach you a lot, or you can just do a dedicated task every day.

    And you may not grow at the same speed as somebody whose mentor really wants to help. So what I really realized is that a lot of your growth is not just merit, it’s a lot of relationship building. How you come across to your mentor, how much trust he has in you. So this trust starts from very basic things, like if your senior has asked you to come to court at nine and you are there at 8.45 every day, every time, you never miss a date. Little things really make a big difference. And then they start trusting you with bigger cases, start telling you to handle clients yourself. So a lot of my experience and confidence came because of my seniors who handheld me in different areas.

    So that being said, while you were establishing your career, how soon did you decide that you would go for independent practice? Because there is a lot of planning that goes in, even when you are working with or for someone, you start planning for that. So what was that particular reason or maybe what kind of thought went into deciding this factor so early in your career that you wanted to have your independent practice?

    So it was just, let’s say, more like a breakfast conversation. One of the designated seniors, now she’s a very good lady lawyer in the Supreme Court, and what she told me was that you can very well be a part of the chamber, we’ll refer you cases, you do that, do my case, and time will fly and you’ll be in your forties and you’ll still be here.

    She said, take the leap, ask your seniors to refer you cases. Open up your thing, and instead of spending time with us, go and pitch to the government, PSUs, or other places. Spend your time pitching and not in the way of asking for a job, but more like getting an empanelment and an association.

    And she said that associations never die. You’ll always be our friend in this community, but what really matters is that you tend to be comfortable. So once you’re comfortable, you might as well reach your forties, and there won’t be a day dedicated like, okay, this day he’s getting independent. So she was like, if you’re just waiting for that spark or that amazing muharat or something like that, that day is not going to happen, and you just take the leap now. And the best time to take a leap is when you have certain savings, I think.

    So you have a little bit of savings, you know you can survive for the next six months. Take the leap. Most likely, in six months, you won’t be that profitable. But these things only start coming into action when you really go independent. And all these seniors, they were also reminiscing the days they chose to be independent.

    And she said that there were times that she used to cry because she couldn’t pay the rentals or the fees of the clerk. But she held herself strong. She managed, pushed through it. And again, a lot of focus on relationship building, meeting people. Those things are very, very important.

    So it was sort of, let’s say, a cushion which I got from my seniors in the initial days. My best clients, the highest-paying clients, were the referred clients from my senior. I don’t think there was any other way I would have reached these clients if it wasn’t for my seniors. So a lot of trust, a lot of confidence they had in me to have referred to me like that.

    Having such mentors and seniors is also very good luck because it is not easy to find one. In very early stages, like when you started, even before that, you worked with several companies and a variety of law firms, both nationally and internationally, in different capacities. What was the most valuable learning that you had during that time? How did that learning shape your understanding not only about the foundation of the law but also to pave the way for the foundation of your independent practice as well? How has that worked out for you, other than your seniors and mentors being in the picture?

    Right, with respect to that, especially, I think the younger you are, it impacts you a lot more, like your first jobs would impact. The first year of working has a lot of impact and then it just gets routine.

    So there is a very significant impact in the initial years. And I think I was working in Toronto with a barrister there, and a lot of things which I incorporated in terms of, I don’t know if it is relevant to this question, but I see a lot of transparency.

    There is a lesser senior-junior gap in these law firms abroad, especially in Toronto, the US culture in general. And there is a lot of opportunity to just meet them without that fear of talking to a very senior person, which I see quite visible in the law firms here, or the kind of practice there is in chambers here in Delhi. So as soon as that comfort level is there, a lot of transparency in terms of what a person will be able to do and what he won’t be able to do is there instead.

    And you can also ask doubts. I think that is also one of the issues which I faced in a law firm here, that comfort level is not built where the associate can just go up to the partner and say, I have this doubt, can you clarify? What exactly do you need from me? What output can I give?

    And that person is working to the best of his ability. And there is this gap, this unsaid hierarchy, where you have to put your head down. So that sort of thing, which I did not experience in the beginning, gave me a lot of knowledge and understanding with respect to speaking directly to the senior and really discussing things with the senior. And I wasn’t just like a cog in the machine, if that is the right metaphor, where you are just doing one part and you are just showing up and doing your thing. That freedom, that open-door policy, is something which I experienced early on and I really incorporated that. Other than that, a lot of things like, I think somewhere in India, we have this colonial, British-era, archaic way of writing judgments, or these judgments which are often published and all that.

    It is so complex. It is far away from the comprehension of a layman. And I feel a certain level of clarity and predictability and structure, which I learned there, and I found it missing here. So I tend to incorporate that in whatever I can do at present in my small office.

    I try to incorporate things which I learned of transparency and making your clients understand their petitions and not get swayed away by fancy legal lingo. Especially when discussing contracts and everything, I try to really simplify for the person who is sitting in front of me, for the client, and even how I would present myself in court would also be a lot simpler. I wouldn’t just go around beating around the bush with respect to fancy words and everything. So this is something which I have incorporated.

    You have also been empanelled with the Punjab National Bank and Central Warehousing Corporation, where you regularly handle high-stake commercial and civil disputes. What kind of challenges do you see or face while managing these disputes, keeping in mind that you work for the government sector there? And there are multiple stakeholders who are also involved, so you have to take care of all the sides related to that particular challenge. So in these kinds of disputes, how do you work around them and how do you convince or formulate a strategy for such high-stake issues?

     Like most of the government PSUs I have worked in,  there have been times I’ve been on the other side. I would really think that we have to be very, very pro solution oriented and going through litigation is tedious.  The government doesn’t really want that.

    They want solutions, they want settlements. A person as a lawyer, one’s duty is not to just be very good at presenting yourself in the court. It’s to have that intention, to be solution oriented, to tell the people responsible that this is the realistic judgment.

    This is the realistic order we are about to get or we’ll get in future. And this is where we are.   So why not just try to get to a solution now instead of waiting for the court to take its due time to come to an order. So especially with all these government PSUs, my intention is to have an arbitration clause. 

     Their intention also, it reflects that they want to avoid litigation, they want to go into arbitration. They want to have quick redressal,  and as a lawyer, as their panel counsel, my job is to ensure that  the least amount of litigation happens and we can come to an understanding at the earliest moment.

    Thanks for sharing those insights. So when we started the conversation, you talked about data privacy and other aspects, and your background is also in data protection and privacy management, along with the training in Canada and Europe. How do you see the kind of evolving landscape for the Indian DPDP Act and where do you see that we stand when we compare these kinds of acts, especially the new technology-driven acts around the world and what India is doing? What kind of difference do you see, and how do you make sure that you practice it in the best format possible, keeping in mind your international clients as well?

    Well, I really think our act mirrors and reflects the GDPR, which is in Europe, and a lot of concepts are there. So very, very similar, very progressive. But just coming to the ground reality, I think this conversation should be more reflective of what really happens.

    And in our practice, what I have seen is a lot of sharing of documents within law firms, within lawyers, through WhatsApp, through emails. So one should be really, really careful with all that, about sharing confidential information, even amongst our peers.

    And first, that cultural shift has to be there to really understand that there will be consequences. In general conversations, I see a lot of lawyers talk in the cafeteria, talking about their cases. One has to be very, very careful not to disclose your clients, not to disclose anything personal, or not even say something from which a person can really predict who I am speaking about.

    So that cultural shift has to be there with respect to privacy, and I think that is missing. Also, the way our websites are made, or our shopping websites are made, or any website for that matter, it is not humanly possible to read the cookie, the privacy policy, etc.

    So really, there is a great disbalance. You can take consent from a person on a 300-page document within one second, and a person just has to click OK. It is not humanly possible to read 300 pages before entering a website. So again, regulation has to come from the side of the government or from an authority, which we are doing, because it is not a contract between equals.

    Because if you are one big corporation, you have so much power. You have great lawyers to draft these contracts, and you expect a layman who is buying maybe a golf club, and then he will have to sign these pages, to just click OK. In a way, it is implied consent to accepting their policies.

    So there is definitely a lot of disbalance. And what I have seen is that I go to a shop and they ask for your number so easily, like it is nothing, like I have to give it. They don’t even bother with your consent.

    If you need the bill, you need to give the number. I am like, what kind of a relationship is this? You are putting pressure that if I need the bill, I need to give you the number, and then the number is just available out there, and you will be getting random calls and promotions.

    So where do we draw the line? Why don’t we have that power as consumers to say no, to say to the company that, okay, forget me, erase my data, whatever you have on me? These provisions are there, but to what extent are we really incorporating them and to what extent are we really educating the consumers about them?

    I mean, there is a huge gap. And I think as consumers, we are on the losing end of this battle. The way private data is shared, I think everybody would have experienced talking amongst their friends about a certain product and then seeing the advertisement of that online all of a sudden.

    So who is listening to what? To what extent is our data being shared? There is a lot of gray area in this, and there is absolutely a lack of transparency and a huge imbalance of power between us and the technology, the people out there who want the data. So regulation has to come from the government, from the authorities, so that there is some fear in the people or in the corporations or technology-related companies to be careful with the data.

     So true that we should be aware of our privacy as well as the child’s privacy. Nobody talks about child rights either, which is something absolutely missing from what we are doing, although it is there in the act. But if we are not aware of our own privacy, then how are we going to be inspired by child rights and other aspects.

     Absolutely. I think that it is just that the act, that legislation has to reflect or be incorporated in societal culture. And there’s seriously a big gap when it comes to that.

    Everything, even if you visit somebody’s apartment these days, they need your phone number, data, everything to let you in. And then you have been profiled. And you don’t know who’s buying this profile. How many times have you visited the hospital? Maybe the insurance company is buying the profile.

    So there’s a lot of sharing of data which a person has not expressly consented to. Consent can be skewed in a way that you click okay on a cookie policy or something like that and then, in a way, legally the companies are protected. But is it really a balanced contract?

    I don’t think so. The consumers, the regular people, have been taken for a ride.

    Keeping all this kind of technological advent and the kind of issues that arise with it and the regulations that are required, you have extensively worked in this field as well. How do you keep yourself ahead of the times and learn about all these things? Where do you learn from? What kind of research do you do around this, and what will be your advice to the younger generation who are entering this particular field in this specifically technologically advanced era? Things have changed before COVID and after COVID, the kind of world we are living in. So how do you see yourself, your practice, your firm, and how do you see the young generation learning from it?

     Right at the outset, I would say the old schoolers, the law firms, are hesitant. Even today they are very non-AI, they have these internal policies, but AI is so powerful. It’s not so easy to just reject it outright. The more realistic thing will be to adopt it and regulate it.

    And I think the younger generation, we know that you are using AI, we know that you are using it for research and drafting and whatnot. So there doesn’t have to be shame in it. Be outright. Be transparent with your bosses and professors and say that this is the kind of research you’ve collated, and as long as you’re using a tool, do good work.

    That’s what matters. As long as that tool is not misused to the extent of plagiarism, I think it’s absolutely fine. One should adopt it. I have been using AI tools for my scheduling. So imagine earlier if you typed so-and-so versus the state, versus the case number, et cetera.

    Now I can just, I have this app. I can just update my data, say put it up in my calendar for so-and-so date. So everybody’s using it and younger people are using it. It’s a great tool. So imagine going through a contract of 200 pages and you really want to understand if there are any loopholes, what exactly the termination conditions are.

    For instance, if you just go to the termination clause, there will be clauses talking about termination. But you need to really holistically understand the contract because a lot of times these clauses have a bearing on each other.

    And a lot of times these clauses are extensions of each other. So you cannot read these clauses in isolation. Let’s say one person uses AI to really understand the termination clause, or let’s say whatever period, indemnity clause in totality, and see how it assists you.

    So use AI like an assistant. You wouldn’t put your assistant’s work directly to the client. You’ll ask a paralegal to help you out and then filter things out for you, and then you apply your legal mind to it and then take it ahead. So as long as you’re using it as a paralegal or an AI agent, it’s fine.

    It’s absolutely fine. There’s no shame around it. I know my partners are really upset because of some interns who used AI and found these AI-hallucinated case laws, which do not exist. And this I’m talking about in some tier-one law firm.

    So it is concerning, but use it as an agent. If, let’s say, your intern brings you a case law, you don’t just directly sign it, right? You would go to SCC Online, a more legitimate sort of legal resource, and cross-check it. But, in essence, I would just like to say be adaptable.

    See how the situation is changing. Very soon there won’t be a lot of paralegals. As a job, it may become obsolete. Stenographers may become obsolete. So be realistic. There is an aspect of what’s morally correct and what’s not. Let’s not go there at the moment.

    But what’s real is that yes, jobs are going to move, a lot of clerical jobs will go away. So be mindful of that and use this as an opportunity to do really good legal work. Be better than your seniors because they didn’t have these tools. Now your senior would’ve taken a day to read a contract.

    You can do it much faster and try to do the law analytical stuff because your clerical stuff is taken care of. So use it like you have hired an intern or a junior paralegal and then be the person who vets everything before forwarding it to the court or client.

     Thank you for talking about all these aspects of AI and how to use those kinds of tools for your own benefit and for your work’s benefit. It has been a very enriching conversation with you where you have talked about your understanding and the way your seniors have helped you, all of it hopefully is going to help our learners to understand how they should pave their way in being not only first generation lawyer, but I would say first generation using technology at this level because this is something which is absolutely new for legal fraternity, so thank you for this conversation.

    Just adding one last thing with respect to the AI, it’s bridging the gap. Imagine if nobody has the excuse now that I do not have good professors. I do not have a good education, my college isn’t good enough.

    You have these sources, you can get access to a lot of great sources online, so there is no excuse now. A level playing field has been made because of AI and technology. So you can be anyone, you can be a first-generation or third-generation lawyer. Now the third-generation lawyers have their own challenges.

    Being under the shadow of someone, someone a great lawyer sometimes. So that kind of sometimes limits the third or the fourth-generation lawyer. So a lot of these seniors, which I know, have sent their kids to absolutely different chambers.

    Far away from their chamber so that they learn to stand on their own feet. I see a lot of LinkedIn posts about first-generation, second-generation differences. It’s not as rosy as people think to be a third-generation lawyer or a fourth-generation lawyer. One always has to show merit and everybody, in a sense, is a first-generation lawyer.

    This is not like a food business or a restaurant that, okay, it just came to you. Everybody has to show merit. Everybody has to show their skills to really last in this profession. So, in essence, now that AI is there and other technology, which makes it easier to navigate cases, easier to do research.

    One should learn all that and this is a great time to be a lawyer in a way that now you have a level playing field, you can go against the best.

    Get in touch with Kunal Sinha –

  • “The confidence that I gained as a lawyer, coupled with a structured and organized approach has shaped me as an entrepreneur today.” – Shruti Gupta, Independent Law Practitioner and Hospitality Entrepreneur.

    “The confidence that I gained as a lawyer, coupled with a structured and organized approach has shaped me as an entrepreneur today.” – Shruti Gupta, Independent Law Practitioner and Hospitality Entrepreneur.

    This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team

    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.

    Get in touch with Shruti Gupta –

  • “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.” – Siddharth Chandrashekhar, Sr. Panel Counsel CBIC/DRI & Standing Counsel CBDT, Bombay High Court.

    “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.” – Siddharth Chandrashekhar, Sr. Panel Counsel CBIC/DRI & Standing Counsel CBDT, Bombay High Court.

    This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team

    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: 

    1. Understand not just legal implications but business consequences. 
    2. Sometimes the best legal advice is telling clients what they don’t want to hear. 
    3. 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. 
    4. The moment you think you know everything is the moment you become dangerous to yourself, as well as your clients. 

    Essential Habits: 

    1. Read everything thrice, once for content, once for implications, and once again for good measure.  
    2. Make time for one pro bono brief,  at least once a month. 
    3. When you aren’t reading, attend court like an obsession: watch, make notes, learn. 
    4. 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.
    5. 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) 

    Get in touch with Siddharth Chandrashekhar –