With over 14 years of experience in corporate and banking litigation, what initially motivated you to pursue law as a career, and what early experiences strengthened that decision?
My interest in law was sparked quite early, I was drawn to the way legal frameworks shape real-world outcomes. I found the intersection of reasoning, language, and impact particularly compelling. What truly cemented my decision, however, were my early internships and court visits during law school. Watching senior advocates argue complex matters and observing how legal strategy could influence the course of businesses and individuals made me realize that this was a profession where intellectual rigor meets tangible change.
In your early years with law firms, what experiences shaped your understanding of banking laws and guided you toward this specialization?
In my formative years at leading law firms, I had the opportunity to work closely on recovery actions and regulatory compliance matters for major banks. My involvement with corporate recovery teams gave me a ground-level understanding of how financial institutions operate, where the friction points arise, and how legal intervention can create both risk mitigation and strategic advantage. These experiences naturally drew me toward banking, corporate and financial litigation, a field that demands precision, meticulous research, commercial awareness, and long-term perspective.
Having worked extensively with banks, corporates, and financial institutions, what do you see as the most pressing challenges businesses face today in managing disputes and compliance?
Today, businesses operate in an environment where regulatory frameworks and expectations are rising faster than internal systems can adapt. Disputes often arise not just from contractual breaches but from operational gaps, inadequate documentation, and ever-evolving regulatory landscapes. The most pressing challenge I see is the lack of proactive legal risk mitigation & management. Many entities still view legal strategy as a reactive tool rather than an integrated business function, which leads to avoidable disputes, compliance lapses, and reputational risks. As the saying goes ‘prevention is better than cure’.
You’ve also advised on digital and social media laws, as well as data privacy. How do you see these evolving areas influencing the future of corporate legal practice in India?
Digital regulations and data privacy are no longer niche concerns, they’re becoming central to corporate strategy. With the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and increasing regulatory oversight, companies must build data governance and responsible handling into their core structures. Social media presence, influencer marketing, and tech platforms are creating entirely new legal questions around liability, consent, intellectual property and reputation. I believe corporate legal practice in India is at an inflection point where traditional commercial law will increasingly overlap with technology, media and communication laws, and lawyers will need to re-equip and upgrade constantly.
What inspired you to establish Simpli-Counsel, and how does your approach to advising startups, Gen Z entrepreneurs, and corporates distinguish your consultancy?
Simpli-Counsel was born out of a simple observation: many startups, Gen Z founders, and even established businesses need practical, clear, and commercially aligned legal advice — not just legalese. After years of working with large institutions, I wanted to build a consultancy that bridges structured legal strategy with the agility that modern businesses require. Our approach is deliberately collaborative and solutions-oriented. We focus on simplifying complex legal frameworks so that founders and business teams can make informed decisions swiftly, without feeling overwhelmed by jargon or legal process.
Looking back, what has been one of the most complex or high-stakes matters you’ve handled, and what were your key learnings from it?
One of the most challenging matters I’ve handled involved a multi-jurisdictional recovery action for a consortium of banks against a large corporate borrower. The case involved layered security structures, parallel insolvency proceedings, and regulatory sensitivities. Navigating this required not only deep legal analysis but also constant coordination between stakeholders across jurisdictions. My key takeaway was the importance of strategic clarity and communication — aligning diverse teams behind a coherent legal roadmap can often make the decisive difference in complex disputes.
In your transition from working with established law firms to building your own consultancy, what have been the biggest challenges and most rewarding aspects?
The transition from structured law firm environments to building my own practice has been both demanding and deeply fulfilling. The biggest challenge has been stepping out of established institutional systems and creating operational, branding, and business development structures from the ground up. But the reward has been immense: the freedom to shape a practice aligned with my values, the ability to work closely with clients as strategic partners, and the joy of seeing the building something authentic and future-oriented.
Data privacy is becoming increasingly critical. What practical advice would you give startups and entrepreneurs on mitigating legal risks early, especially in this domain?
Startups often underestimate data protection until they face a regulatory hurdle or breach. My advice is: embed privacy-by-design early on. Map what data you collect, define clear consent processes, implement basic security hygiene, and assign responsibility for compliance. Even simple steps like robust terms of service, privacy notices, and access protocols can dramatically reduce risk. More importantly, build a culture of respect for data & privacy — because in today’s world, trust is currency.
What vision do you hold for the future of your practice, and what guidance would you offer younger professionals aspiring to build careers in data privacy and banking law?
My vision for Simpli-Counsel is to build a modern, agile legal advisory practice that combines deep subject expertise with empathy for how businesses actually function and not how they should. I see tremendous opportunities at the intersection of corporate,technology, and regulation, and want to help clients navigate this evolving landscape with clarity and confidence.
For young professionals, my advice is twofold: develop strong foundational legal skills, andstay curious about emerging areas like fintech, data privacy, and digital laws. The future belongs to lawyers who can blend legal acumen with strategic foresight and adaptability.
Beyond your legal career, you are passionate about heritage crafts, travel, and fitness. How do these interests help you maintain balance and perspective in your professional journey?
Law can be an intense profession, and for me, travel, heritage crafts, and fitness offer grounding and perspective. Exploring crafts connects me to India’s rich cultural fabric, travel fuels my curiosity and adaptability, and fitness keeps me focused and energized. These interests remind me that while our work is serious, our growth is richer when we remain open, balanced, and inspired by the world beyond our desks.
You’ve led high-stakes SaaS and IT contract negotiations across jurisdictions like the US, UK, Middle East, and India. What key legal and commercial differences have you observed among these regions, particularly in structuring and negotiating complex technology agreements?
The fundamental difference is risk philosophy and regulatory approach. US contracts are heavily liability-focused with aggressive risk shifting – broad indemnities, high liability caps, and extensive IP warranties because litigation risk is real. UK/EU takes a more balanced approach with reasonable risk allocation, but GDPR fundamentally changed data processing terms and cross-border transfer requirements.
Middle East markets are relationship-driven with conservative risk tolerance – they often require local partnerships, prefer advance payments or guarantees, and decision-making is more hierarchical. Each country varies significantly – UAE’s approach differs from Saudi Arabia’s regulatory framework.
India is extremely cost-sensitive with detailed SLA requirements and strong data localization mandates under DPDP Act. There’s preference for Indian governing law and local arbitration venues.
For AI and emerging tech, the differences are stark. US allows broad AI disclaimers and extensive model training rights. EU requires AI Act compliance with strict accountability for high-risk systems. The Middle East often mandates human oversight for AI decisions. India’s framework is still emerging but trending toward data sovereignty.
My approach: Use master agreements with jurisdiction-specific addenda rather than one-size-fits-all contracts. Build modular compliance sections that adapt to local requirements. Most importantly, understand that what works in Silicon Valley often needs significant adaptation – both legally and commercially – for other markets.
As Director-Legal (Deputy General Counsel) at Innovaccer and a close advisor to both leadership and product teams, how has your role evolved beyond traditional contract review into a more strategic business function?
My role has evolved from traditional lawyer to strategic business partnership. I’m now embedded with product and leadership teams from the earliest stages – helping architect compliance into product roadmaps rather than reviewing afterward, participating in M&A strategy and market expansion decisions, and turning regulatory requirements into competitive advantages. I’ve built legal infrastructure that operates at business speed through automated workflows, self-service templates, and proactive frameworks that eliminate bottlenecks. The result is measurably faster deal cycles, on-schedule product launches, and better strategic decision-making because legal insights come early in the process rather than as obstacles later. Legal has become a growth accelerator rather than a cost center.
From negotiating complex IT contracts to managing commercial transactions, you’ve worked extensively across highly regulated sectors. How do you stay abreast of evolving legal and regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas like data privacy and technology law? What’s your approach to identifying and mitigating legal risks in such fast-paced and dynamic industries?
Staying current in fast-moving regulatory environments requires a systematic approach, not just ad-hoc reading. I’ve built a multi-layered monitoring system that combines automated alerts, industry networks, and practical application. For regulatory tracking, I use targeted legal research platforms with custom alerts for specific jurisdictions and practice areas – data privacy updates from key regulators like FTC, state AGs, and international bodies. I also maintain relationships with specialized regulatory counsel in different jurisdictions who provide real-time insights on enforcement trends and practical legal and compliance interpretations.
Industry engagement is equally important. I’m active in relevant legal associations and regularly attend focused conferences – not general legal events, but sector-specific gatherings where regulators actually speak and share enforcement priorities. Peer networks with other in-house counsel facing similar challenges provide invaluable practical insights you can’t get from legal publications.
For risk identification, I’ve developed frameworks that integrate legal monitoring with business operations. I work closely with product, engineering, and business development teams to understand what’s actually being built and sold, not just what’s documented. This early visibility lets me spot regulatory risks before they become legal problems.
My mitigation approach focuses on building scalable systems rather than case-by-case reviews. I create legal frameworks that can adapt to regulatory changes without rebuilding everything. For data privacy, this means privacy-by-design architectures that can accommodate new requirements. For commercial transactions, it means modular contract structures that can be updated efficiently.
The key is making legal monitoring a business process, not a personal responsibility. When regulatory changes happen, we can adapt quickly because the infrastructure is already in place.
In the early stages of your career, you worked across diverse areas like transaction structuring, energy law, employment compliance, and more. How has this multidisciplinary exposure informed your legal thinking and approach as an in-house counsel today?
That multidisciplinary foundation taught me to see legal issues as interconnected business problems rather than isolated practice areas. Working in energy law showed me how regulatory frameworks shape entire business models. Transaction structuring taught me to think commercially about risk allocation. Employment laws gave me an operational perspective on how legal requirements actually impact day-to-day business. Now as in-house counsel, I don’t just analyze contracts in isolation – I understand how employment terms affect deal structures, how regulatory compliance impacts transaction timelines, and how operational realities influence legal strategy. This cross-functional thinking lets me spot issues other lawyers miss and provide solutions that work across multiple business functions. Instead of saying ‘that’s not my area,’ I can connect dots between different legal domains to solve complex business challenges more effectively.
You’ve worked closely with business stakeholders, particularly in the IT sector. What are some common challenges you encounter in ensuring legal compliance, and how can businesses proactively address these issues early in the process to avoid future roadblocks?
The biggest challenge is that business teams treat legal compliance as a final review step rather than a foundational design element. In commercial contracting, sales teams often negotiate terms that create operational nightmares – promising SLAs we can’t meet or data processing we can’t legally perform. On the product side, teams build features first, then discover they violate privacy laws or create IP ownership issues. My approach is embedding legal requirements upfront – I work with sales to create contract playbooks with pre-approved terms that close deals faster, collaborate with product teams during feature planning to ensure privacy-by-design, and partner with engineering on data architecture that supports both business needs and regulatory compliance. I also build automated approval workflows and self-service legal tools so teams can move at business speed without creating risks. The result is that legal becomes a competitive advantage – we can commit to terms competitors can’t, launch compliant products faster, and avoid the costly retrofitting that kills margins and delays launches.
With over a decade of experience, what initially drew you to pursue law as a career? When you reflect on your journey now, how has your vision evolved since those early days?
I was initially drawn to law because I saw it as a way to solve complex problems and create structure in ambiguous situations. Early on, I thought legal work was about finding the right answer in statutes and precedents. Over the past decade, I’ve realized that the most impactful legal work happens at the intersection of law and business strategy – it’s not just about compliance, but about enabling growth and competitive advantage. My vision has evolved from being a legal expert who provides advice to being a business partner who helps drive outcomes. I’ve learned that the best legal solutions aren’t just technically correct – they’re commercially viable and operationally practical. What excites me now is using legal expertise to unlock business opportunities that others can’t see, whether that’s structuring deals that competitors can’t match or building compliance frameworks that become market differentiators. Law became less about finding answers in books and more about creating solutions that don’t exist yet.
Recognized for your strong contributions across industries, what core values or guiding principles have anchored your legal journey? Looking ahead, what goals or aspirations do you hold for the future?
Ans: Three core principles have guided my legal career: pragmatic problem-solving over theoretical perfection, business enablement rather than risk avoidance, and building scalable systems instead of one-off solutions. I’ve always believed that the best legal advice is the advice that actually gets implemented – which means understanding business realities and crafting solutions that work operationally, not just legally. My approach has been to turn legal requirements into competitive advantages rather than compliance burdens. Looking ahead, I’m focused on leveraging emerging technologies like AI to transform how legal functions operate – building intelligent contract systems, predictive compliance frameworks, and automated risk assessment tools that let legal teams operate at unprecedented scale and speed. My aspiration is to help redefine what in-house legal can accomplish, moving from a support function to a strategic driver of business growth and innovation. The future of legal is about using technology and strategic thinking to solve business problems that haven’t been solvable before.
Legal work in high-stakes corporate environments is intense. How do you balance your professional responsibilities with personal well-being? What practices or activities help you recharge and maintain perspective?
Honestly, I’m a natural hustler – I thrive on the intensity and challenge of high-stakes legal work. But I’ve learned that raw drive without strategy leads to burnout, not breakthrough results. The key is channeling that energy where it creates maximum impact rather than spreading it thin across everything.
With experience, I’ve developed systems for sustainable high performance. I start my day with strategic work before reactive demands take over, and I batch similar tasks to maintain deep focus rather than constant context-switching. Outside work, I stay physically active and spend time with my dog – there’s something grounding about that unconditional companionship that cuts through legal complexity. I’m also involved in community animal welfare work, which connects me to something meaningful beyond corporate environments.
The breakthrough insight: stepping away from legal problems often unlocks better solutions when I return. I’ve built strong professional relationships that provide perspective during intense periods, and I’ve learned to distinguish between urgent and important – not every crisis is actually critical. This lets me stay calm under pressure and direct my hustler energy where it matters most. Sustainable excellence isn’t about working harder – it’s about managing energy strategically.
Given your wide-ranging expertise, what advice would you offer to young lawyers entering the legal profession today particularly those looking to build careers in corporate law, technology, or cross-border commercial practice?
Three pieces of advice: First, become genuinely business-literate, not just legally competent. Understand how companies actually make money, how technology works, and what drives commercial decisions. The lawyers who succeed long-term are those who can translate legal requirements into business solutions. Second, specialize early but stay adaptable. Pick a sector like fintech or healthcare and become the go-to expert, but develop skills that transfer across industries – contract negotiation, regulatory analysis, and strategic thinking are universal. Third, build relationships before you need them. The best opportunities come through networks, not job boards. Connect with in-house counsel, business leaders, and peers who’ll become your referral sources and collaborators. For cross-border work specifically, understand that legal expertise alone isn’t enough – you need cultural fluency and practical knowledge of how business actually gets done in different markets. Most importantly, think like a business partner from day one. Don’t just identify problems – propose solutions. The lawyers who advance fastest are those who make their clients’ lives easier, not more complicated.
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.
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.
From engineering at BITS, Pilani to an LL.M. in Law & Technology at UC Berkeley, what inspired your transition from a technical role to a legal career, particularly in the field of intellectual property?
I have always been someone who wanted to carve a slightly unconventional path. While many of my peers were heading towards an MBA or preparing for UPSC, I found myself questioning what would truly keep me intellectually engaged and professionally satisfied in the long run. That’s when I started reflecting deeply on my interests and I realised that law was something that genuinely intrigued me.
So, I decided to take the leap and pursued an LL.B. from Delhi University along with my first job. During my law studies, I naturally gravitated towards patent law. It was a perfect intersection of my technical background and growing interest in legal thinking. That blend of technology and law really excited me.
After completing my LL.B., I wanted to deepen my understanding and focus on this intersection, which led me to pursue an LL.M. in Law & Technology at UC Berkeley. Since then, I’ve been working as a patent lawyer, and while the transition from engineering to law was certainly a bold and challenging one, looking back now, I can say it was one of the best decisions I have made. It has been a fulfilling journey.
In what ways has your engineering background influenced your approach to patent drafting, prosecution, or litigation especially when dealing with highly technical sectors?
My engineering background plays a crucial role in how I approach patent matters. It has trained me to think logically, break down complex inventions into simpler components, and understand the technical nuances that are often central to patent drafting and prosecution. When dealing with inventions, having a solid technical foundation helps me engage meaningfully with inventors, understand the core of their innovation, and translate that into precise legal language. This ensures that the patents I draft are not only legally sound but also technically accurate and strategically strong.
Even in litigation, my ability to understand technical documents, prior art, and expert reports gives me an edge in building arguments and cross-examining technical witnesses. It helps bridge the gap between the legal and technical worlds which is essential in patent law.
Transitioning from engineering to law is quite a significant shift. What were some of the key challenges you faced early on in your legal career, and how did you navigate them?
Yes, the transition from engineering to law came with its fair share of challenges. The skill sets required in both fields are quite different. In engineering, the focus is largely on problem-solving in a structured, often individual capacity. On the other hand, law is much more dynamic and people-facing involving teamwork, client interactions, and the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly.
Initially, it was a bit overwhelming to shift from working quietly on technical problems to having to articulate arguments, think on my feet, and engage with clients, patent officers or courts. Adapting to this new environment took time, but with consistent effort and mentorship, I eventually found a rhythm. Looking back, I see this shift not as a hurdle but as an important phase of personal and professional growth.
You’ve been closely associated with the automobile industry- both through your prior engineering role at Maruti Suzuki and working on patent strategy for automobile companies. What are some of the unique IP challenges that companies in this sector face when operating in India?
One key observation I have made while working with Indian automotive companies is that IP is often not treated as a strategic priority. It usually comes in late during product development, especially in a sector traditionally focused on production and supply chains. Enforcement is a major concern, particularly when it comes to tackling counterfeit products. Another challenge lies in vendor-level IP protection,many companies work with third-party suppliers without clearly defined IP ownership in contracts, which becomes a legal nightmare at a later stage.
However, the landscape is evolving. With the rise of EVs, connected mobility, and software-driven features, IP is becoming increasingly important. Buyers today often care more about tech features than mechanical specs. Yet protecting such innovations especially software and AI is tricky in India due to patentability restrictions. A proactive IP strategy is now more essential than ever.
Having represented clients in opposition proceedings and patent office hearings, how would you assess the Indian patent ecosystem in comparison to international jurisdictions? What best practices could India adopt to strengthen its system?
The Indian patent ecosystem has come a long way, especially in the last few years. Timelines have improved, rules have been amended, digitization has made filings and hearings more efficient, the Patent Office is becoming more responsive, and special IP divisions are being set up at major High Courts. However, when compared to some international jurisdictions, there’s still room for improvement particularly in consistency of examination standards and depth of reasoning in office actions or opposition decisions.
Another area where India can improve is in increasing technical training and specialization of patent examiners, especially in emerging fields like AI and biotech. Greater transparency in outcomes and timelines would also build confidence in the system. Adopting global best practices and encouraging early engagement between applicants and examiners, could also go a long way in strengthening the Indian IP ecosystem.
Your time at UC Berkeley exposed you to global perspectives on intellectual property and business strategy. How has this international exposure influenced your legal thinking and practice within the Indian framework?
Patent law is one field where the core concepts like novelty and inventive step remain largely uniform across major jurisdictions, thanks to global frameworks like the Paris Convention and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). My exposure to the US patent system and interactions with peers from over 50 countries at UC Berkeley significantly broadened my perspective on how different countries approach similar IP challenges.
This international experience equipped me to handle patent prosecution in jurisdictions like the US and EU with greater confidence. More importantly, it helped me view IP not just as a legal formality but as a strategic business tool. I now encourage clients to think about IP early and align it with their commercial objectives. It also made me more mindful of global standards in drafting, prosecution, and portfolio management. Bridging international best practices with the Indian framework has added real value to my practice and client outcomes.
With rapid technological advancements, how do you see AI reshaping the legal industry? What steps can lawyers take to remain relevant in the age of AI??
AI is a topic I am deeply passionate about. I would like to touch on two key aspects here- how AI is transforming the legal profession, and the legal challenges AI itself brings.
AI will reshape every area of law, from IP to liability and contract interpretation to competition, data privacy, and regulatory compliance. Even without a dedicated AI law like the EU AI Act, existing legal frameworks will increasingly need to address AI-related issues. The day is not far when most law firms will have dedicated AI law practice.
On the other hand, AI is also changing how we practice law. Given the template-driven and repetitive nature of much of legal work, AI tools are being widely adopted to improve efficiency. Major law firms in India have started integrating AI into their workflows. While this boosts productivity, it also raises concerns about the future of certain legal roles.
As the saying goes, “AI would not replace lawyers but will replace lawyers who don’t use AI”. To stay relevant, legal professionals must embrace technology, continuously upskill, and focus on areas where human judgment, strategic thinking, and empathy remain indispensable.
Following up on the previous question, what are the key legal issues AI raises in the context of IP law?
AI raises several complex legal questions in IP law because it challenges traditional concepts of authorship, inventorship, and ownership. For instance, most patent and copyright systems globally require a human creator or inventor but how do we address inventions or creative works autonomously generated by AI? Should the AI’s developer, user, or owner get the rights?
Another major issue is training data. AI models are often trained on vast datasets that may include copyrighted works, raising concerns about infringement and fair use. Determining the originality of AI-generated content also becomes tricky when the model relies on pre-existing works.
Additionally, protecting AI algorithms and models themselves whether through patents, trade secrets, or copyrights poses its own challenges, especially when the invention combines both software and data-driven elements. Courts around the world are grappling with these issues, and it’s prompting a re-examination of existing IP frameworks. As AI continues to evolve, significant legal reforms may be necessary to address these emerging challenges effectively.
Looking back on your professional journey, what advice would you offer to students or young professionals aspiring to build a career in IP law, especially in patents?
My advice to students or young professionals aspiring to build a career in IP law, especially in patents, is to stay curious and build a strong foundation in both technology and law. Patent law sits at the intersection of science, innovation, and legal reasoning, so having a genuine interest in understanding how things work is key.
Second, be patient. The learning curve can be steep, especially when dealing with complex inventions or international legal frameworks. Also, focus on sharpening your writing and analytical skills, they’re at the core of good patent practice.
Lastly, stay updated. With emerging technologies like AI, biotech, and quantum computing, IP law is constantly evolving.
I would especially encourage science and engineering students to consider patent law as a career option. It’s a unique field where your technical background becomes a real asset, and the work is both intellectually stimulating and impactful.
With over 15 years of experience in Corporate Law and Litigation Management, how have you observed the evolution of India’s corporate legal landscape, particularly with the emergence of tech-driven businesses?
Thank you for the question. Over the past 15 years, I’ve witnessed a remarkable transformation in India’s corporate legal landscape.
In the earlier years, the focus for most corporates was largely on traditional compliance — company law filings, ROC, SEBI regulations for listed entities, and occasional contract disputes. Litigation was also relatively straightforward, often revolving around shareholder disputes or debt recovery.
However, with the emergence of tech-driven businesses — be it startups, e-commerce platforms, fintech, or now even Web3 and blockchain ventures — the ecosystem has evolved dramatically. We’re seeing much more dynamic areas of law now shaping up, such as data privacy, cyber security, intellectual property monetization, intermediary liabilities, and cross-border tax structuring.
At the same time, the courts and regulatory bodies have also come a long way“. There’s been a sharper emphasis on codifying norms, like the introduction of the IBC, the data protection regime that’s taking shape, and robust SEBI frameworks for tech IPOs. The judiciary, too, has embraced digital filings, virtual hearings, and has shown more readiness to adapt to the business exigencies of tech companies.
From a litigation management standpoint, disputes have become more complex — involving intricate shareholder agreements, IP enforcement, regulatory investigations, or even white-collar compliance matters. We now often have to advise clients not just on ‘law’, but also on risk mitigation strategies involving technology platforms and data footprints.
In short, the evolution has been from a largely form-driven, compliance-heavy environment to a more nuanced, strategy-focused, tech-sensitive legal landscape. And as practitioners, we’ve had to upgrade continuously — whether it’s understanding how smart contracts work or guiding clients on digital evidence and cybersecurity incident responses.
What initially inspired you to pursue a career in law and how has your background as a Company Secretary strengthened your legal practice particularly in the areas of corporate governance and compliance?
Right from the initial stage of my career, I was drawn to how law shapes businesses and society. The idea of using legal knowledge to solve complex strategic problems and enable organizations to grow responsibly truly inspired me.
My background as a Company Secretary has been a huge advantage. It has given me a deep, practical grounding in corporate governance, statutory compliance, and regulatory frameworks. So when I handle litigation or advisory matters, I don’t just look at them as disputes or transactions, but also ensure they align with sound governance and compliance practices.
This dual perspective helps clients not only tackle immediate legal issues but also build stronger, compliant businesses in the long run.
What inspired your involvement in POSH awareness, and how do you approach training with sensitivity and impact? Additionally, what are the major challenges you have to deal with while spreading awareness relating to POSH?
I’ve always believed that a truly successful workplace is not just legally compliant, but also safe and respectful for everyone. That’s what inspired my involvement in POSH awareness. It’s an area where legal compliance directly shapes people’s everyday dignity and confidence at work.
When I conduct POSH training, I approach them with a lot of empathy and practical examples. It’s important to go beyond the text of the law and address real scenarios, bust myths, and encourage open dialogue so participants genuinely understand the spirit behind the Act.
One major challenge is overcoming the hesitation or awkwardness people often feel around this topic. Many fear it’s only about punishment or blame. So, I focus on normalizing conversations about respectful behavior, clarifying rights and responsibilities, and building trust — which ultimately help foster a healthier work culture.
In your experience in handling Cybercrime and Intellectual Property disputes, what are some of the most critical risks businesses face today, and how can they establish strong preventive frameworks?
From my experience with cybercrime and IP disputes, two of the biggest risks businesses face today are data breaches which can expose sensitive customer or trade data and infringement issues, especially with brands and digital content being copied or misused online.
Cyber risks have grown with increased digitization, remote work, and online data space dependency. Similarly, with global markets and e-commerce, protecting trademarks, software, and proprietary content is now far more complex.
To build a strong preventive framework, I always advise businesses to invest in robust data security policies, regular employee training on phishing and cyber security hygiene, and to have clear incident response plans. On the IP side, timely registrations, vigilant monitoring for infringements and well-drafted contracts covering ownership and licensing rights — are critical.
In short, prevention is far more cost-effective than crisis management, whether it’s through internal audits, tech safeguards, or proactive IP protection.
You’ve led several compliance audits and risk mitigation initiatives. What are some common legal oversights organizations tend to make that could lead to long-term liabilities?
A few common oversights I’ve seen repeatedly are:
Lack of proper executed contracts or poor drafting which does not cover some very critical areas which often leads to litigation at later stage
Not updating statutory registers, policies, or board resolutions in line with evolving laws which creates gaps visible during due diligence.
Overlooking related party transactions and not maintaining proper documentation, this can lead to serious regulatory scrutiny.
Failing to robustly implement POSH or data privacy norms, treating them as formality rather than embedding them into workplace practices — this often surfaces later as litigation or reputational damage.
Ultimately, many organizations focus heavily on firefighting current issues but don’t invest in building a strong compliance culture. That’s where long-term liabilities quietly accumulate. Through audits and risk reviews, my aim has been to identify these blind spots early, so they can plug gaps before they escalate into major exposures
Reflecting on your early career experiences across various companies, which lessons or moments significantly shaped your legal perspective and continue to influence your practice today?
In my early years working across different companies, one lesson that stayed with me is how critical it is to understand the business first, not just the law. I saw situations where technically perfect compliance still failed because it didn’t fit the commercial realities or missed the human aspect.
Another defining moment was handling my first complex board dispute. It taught me that beyond statutes and contracts, corporate law is often about managing relationships, trust, and strategic communication.
These experiences shaped my approach today: I try to be a solution-oriented advisor who aligns legal strategies with the client’s larger business goals, while always being mindful of governance and long-term risks
As someone committed to both legal reform and social justice, what are your long-term aspirations for your firm and your role in the legal profession?
My long-term vision is to build a practice that’s not just known for strong technical expertise, but also for driving meaningful impact whether that’s through shaping better compliance cultures in companies, supporting alternate dispute resolution to ease systemic burdens, or contributing to causes like workplace dignity through POSH awareness.
For me personally, it’s also about mentoring the next generation of professionals, fostering an environment where ethical, business-focused, and socially conscious lawyering becomes the norm.
Ultimately, I’d like our firm to be seen as a trusted partner that helps businesses grow responsibly while also championing legal reforms and social justice initiatives that make workplaces and markets fairer and more transparent
Having established a firm that offers litigation support across the country, what were the key challenges in building such an extensive associate network? How do you manage the demands of leadership while maintaining personal well-being?
Building a pan-India associate network came with its own challenges ensuring consistency in quality across different jurisdictions, aligning varied local practices with our firm’s standards, and cultivating trust so associates truly function as an extended part of our team.
It required a lot of groundwork: clear processes, regular communication, and investing time in relationships beyond transactions.
As for balancing leadership demands with personal well-being, I’ve learned to prioritize delegation and build capable teams who take ownership. I also set aside time for short breaks and personal pursuits which actually makes me more effective and present when I’m back at work.
Ultimately, I see leadership not just as driving results, but creating an environment where both the team and I can grow sustainably.
What drew you towards the field of Intellectual Property law, and what were some of the early experiences that helped lay the foundation for your practice in this domain?
First of all, thank you for connecting with me to share my story. I was quite intrigued by the name of the platform ‘Super Lawyer’. This reminded me of the film ‘The Incredibles’ wherein a character Syndrome says that if all humans will have super powers, none will be a Super hero. Similarly, in my view since all lawyers are Super lawyers, thus no single lawyer is a Super lawyer. Now coming to your question:
I think my interest in Cinema. I was initially drawn towards Intellectual Property as a practice area since I had a lot of interest in movies. I was highly inclined towards Copyright Law, since I wanted to understand how the film industry functions.
As far as early experience that helped me lay the foundation in this domain are concerned, the first litigation matter that I worked upon was a passing off suit. In that suit, over a period of time after filing the suit, Defendant had obtained registration of its trade mark and moved an application for amendment of written statement to plead its registration. At that stage, when I was too young (barely a month into the practice) I thought that the Plaintiff’s case was over since the Defendant had obtained a trade mark registration. At that stage, my then senior told me that registration of Defendant’s mark is of no consequence in a suit for passing off, which is maintainable even against a registered proprietor. He further asked me to read N.R. Dongre and Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corpn. and Anr.; 1996 PTC (16) 583 (SC) wherein apex Court upheld this position arrived at by Single Judge and Division bench of the High Court.
You argued a landmark case where the Delhi High Court, for the first time, ruled on the registrability of geographical names as arbitrary trademarks. Could you share your insights from the case that shaped the Court’s reasoning, and what do you believe are the broader implications of this decision?
To be really honest, I don’t know as to whether it was a landmark decision or not. However, Siddharth Suri vs Registrar of Trade Marks does give a guiding light for registration of geographical names as trade marks where the geographical name has been applied arbitrarily to the goods. In this case, the goods were ‘Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery’ for which ‘Andamen’ was not found to be having a goods-place association. Accordingly, the objection under Section 9(1)(b) that the trade mark designates geographical origin was not found to be attracted since Andamen (whether said to be taken from Andaman Sea or from the Andaman & Nicobar Islands) does not have a reputation for goods falling in Class 18.
The broader implications of the decision are that when one comes across a geographical name as a trade mark, they should not disregard its protection/registration just because it is a geographical name but analyze whether that geographical area has an association or reputation for goods for which it is sought to be registered/protected.
You advise clients across diverse sectors including FMCG, pharmaceuticals, liquor, book publishing, and e-commerce. Given the rapid growth of the pharmaceutical industry, what are some of the major legal and compliance challenges entities face in this space?
I think as far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned, the biggest challenge has been counterfeit products. For a consumer, who may consume these counterfeit products; disaster always lurks around the corner to make its presence felt. In other terms, the consumers are extremely vulnerable to life threatening consequences. I have, in the past, worked on multiple matters, both civil and criminal, where the Defendants/Accused produced identical drugs and it is not possible to identify the fake unless you get inputs from the team who worked on the packaging and in some cases research. The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most regulated industries; since it has to cater to safety and efficacy. Keeping this in mind, it obviously has to comply with safety and cleanliness standards, good manufacturing practices, disclosure of information and that too in line with labelling requirements. The major problem in the industry is fake drug racket, which may or may not be related to any Intellectual property and could be a completely new mark, where the ingredients told on the label will not even be present in the drug and the drug would have been sold or supplied clandestinely with no regulatory approval at all.
As a Partner, staying ahead of the curve is crucial. In your view, how effective have the current government initiatives been in streamlining the IP registration process? What further improvements in your opinion can be made?
In recent times, I could think of four initiatives done at the level of the Intellectual Property office which are commendable. First, is the possibility of search of device trade marks, which has been facilitated online by the IP office. The added advantage of this feature is that depending on the device/image the tool also suggests the possible Vienna Code Classifications; which also aids in saving time.
Second, is the enablement of a queue system for various functions and displaying it online; a real time check for hearing, review applications and examination status; which enables an entity to know as to where it marks stands in the list of hearings before the trade marks office.
Third is the Open house sessions, the IP office does with applicants and stakeholders everyday from 4.30 PM to 5.30 PM virtually to address grievances or take suggestions on any issue related to Intellectual Property Rights.
Last is the ‘Notifications/Reminders’ feature on the e-filing page and the ‘Reminders’ feature on the E-Register Page; which enables one to see latest updates on their portfolio of applications, ensuring that no important update is missed. This saves a tremendous amount of time.
In my view, to ensure a smooth registration process; the first thing that should be incorporated is consistency and standard operating procedures; so that every applicant or stakeholder has a clear idea of the chance of their application getting accepted or rejected.
You’ve worked on intermediary liability matters. How do you assess the evolving legal framework around platform accountability, especially in light of recent judicial decisions and amendments to the IT Rules? What are the core challenges in striking a balance between free expression and regulatory obligations?
I think the intention is always to balance; that’s what in my view, any legislature or government exercising its legislative powers under the IT Act, 2000 looks at while keeping in mind the protection of the people and at the same time working out the economics. So, that’s the word. BALANCE!! – the evolving legal framework in the IT Rules, especially The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [hereinafter ‘IT Rules, 2021’] indicates a tide towards control but the intent of that control is Balance; The amendments to the same in 2022 required the intermediary to make reasonable efforts so that content which is covered under Rule 3(1)(b) is, inter alia, not displayed on its platform. The intention is some sort of action; but the rule making body steers clear of indicating what sort of action (no pointers whatsoever) and leaves it as a subject of interpretation. However, what are these ‘reasonable efforts’ or what could be some examples of these ‘reasonable efforts’; for that we get an indication from judicial decisions such as the recent decision in Indiamart Intermesh Ltd. v. Puma SE; 2025: DHC:4819-DB which indicates that one of the reasonable efforts for a platform could be that each of the sellers is aware of the requirement to not display counterfeit products and to ensure that they furnish an express undertaking to the said effect to the intermediary. Apart from this, on reading of paragraph 92 of the decision, I think another indication of reasonable effort could also be not to re-list the same seller in respect of the same products whose listings have been taken down earlier.
As far as 2023 amendments are concerned; they appear to have been done majorly to have the online gaming intermediaries under a stricter control (as compared to intermediaries) , especially those online gaming intermediaries who enable the users to access any permissible online real money. A lot of compliance requirements under ‘IT Rules, 2021’ which were only applicable to a significant social media intermediary originally have been extended to online gaming intermediaries as well by virtue of the amendments done in the year 2023.
As far as your last question, I think the standard of morality/scandalous statements keeps shifting with every generation. The biggest challenge I believe is ‘viewpoint bias’ and the evolving nature of the society we live in. Thus, in my opinion there will always be shifting standards and that’s why this area of law will always be dynamic and never ending. In simpler terms, what may be kosher for one; may be outrageous for another and this will be perennial. So, it is extremely difficult to maintain that balance between free expression and regulatory obligations.
With such an enriching and diverse career, what initially inspired you to pursue law? What advice would you offer to law students and young professionals aspiring to build a career in Intellectual Property and litigation?
I am an extremely lazy person when it comes to doing things for myself. I try to take the most convenient and easy route to navigate life choices. So, resultantly, the decision to pursue law was the length of the programme; five years. No worry after school for another five years. I thought in the beginning of the law school that may be after these five years; I will know what I need to do. However, post five years, I just went with the flow. In hindsight, I think I should not have done law. I could have explored a creative vocation where my thoughts could be disseminated freely (Obviously, subject to reasonable restrictions in Article 19).
One of my advice to every aspiring professional in the field of Intellectual Property would be to be tech-savvy. To understand how content is being created these days. What are the terms of the AI platforms, which are used by us for content creation. Further, I would also recommend not to restrict their understanding of jurisprudence on intellectual property to India but analyze what is going on globally. In this decade already we are dealing with landmark decisions on intellectual property issues intertwined with technology utilised across platforms which have shown us issues which we could not have probably envisaged a few decades ago. Look at the issue that is challenging the use of content by AI platforms, ‘keyword advertising’, use of a mark in drop down menu at the back end to trigger a listing if one searches for those products on a platform, violations by virtue of deepfake technology etc. I mean, mirror websites and duping in the name of fraud schemes of investment or employment across the internet, fake domain names, domain name disputes are something that have become traditional violations of Intellectual Property and orders granting real-time injunctions are not being passed only in isolated cases.
So far as litigation is concerned, my advice has always been to be diligent and understand the background and the possible solutions through procedural laws. Litigation is not a predictable game; there are variables across stages in a matter – from inception to trial; from an ex-parte order till consequent appeals. One has to make a strategy giving all possible variables due weight.
Managing a demanding legal practice comes with its own pressures. How do you maintain a healthy work-life balance, and is there a personal philosophy or guiding principle that has helped you navigate your professional journey?
To be really honest, I am unable to maintain a healthy work-life balance. Unfortunately, my matters, the ongoing developments in the fraternity, the need for being constantly updated & networking does not allow me to shut down/switch off. While my office is five (5) days working, the only time I think I am able to be completely at peace is when I sleep or I read. I read a lot, and have also in this process edited a few comic books. These are my only escapes apart from occasional films in theatres or at home. A lot of professionals, who might be really busy may say that they spend time with their families; switch off on weekends etc. Kudos to them!! I am never able to shut down. There is a constant barrage of thoughts in my head unless I am sleeping, reading or watching anything. I am constantly thinking of what needs to be done, are we on top of all our matters, has the team done all the compliances etc. There is a constant urge to ensure everything is under control and all bases are covered. This leads me to not have a work-life balance.
The only guiding principle that has helped me to navigate my professional journey is sincerity and time management. One has to prepare as much as they could for a matter while giving other matters also their due importance. One has to give every advice keeping all the ethical considerations in mind. I try my best every day to do and pull off a lot, sometimes much more than I actually can. Sometimes I succeed; sometimes I don’t. On days I succeed, I stay calm and think something constructive has been achieved. On the remaining days, I am just too hard on myself.
Looking back at your career and the successful practice you’ve built today, what were the key experiences that initially led you toward pursuing law? What moments or influences made you choose law as a career? Additionally, how did your time at NLU Gujarat shape and deepen your passion for the field?
I was drawn to law after witnessing how legal complexities often overwhelmed individuals and businesses, creating unnecessary barriers to their goals. A defining moment came during my undergraduate years when I saw a family dispute escalate simply due to lack of proper legal guidance. This showed me that law isn’t just about statutes, but about people and relationships.
NLU Gujarat was transformative. The practical learning approach, diverse legal exposure through moot courts and internships, and exceptional faculty mentorship developed the critical thinking skills that guide my practice today. The institution’s emphasis on real-world application deepened my understanding of law’s potential to create positive change.
In the early years of your practice, what experiences helped you build a stronger understanding of the law and laid the foundation for your career? Could you share some key lessons from that period that would benefit our young readers?
Working across different practice areas initially provided invaluable insights into how various legal disciplines intersect. A pivotal experience was advising a struggling startup on restructuring, which required understanding corporate law, employment regulations, and tax implications simultaneously teaching me that modern legal practice demands interdisciplinary expertise.
Key lessons for young practitioners: embrace every learning opportunity regardless of how mundane it seems; develop strong communication skills to translate complex legal concepts into actionable business advice; build relationships based on trust and transparency; and stay curious; the law evolves constantly, and successful practitioners evolve with it.
What inspired you to establish your own practice? What were some of the challenges you faced in the beginning, and how did you navigate those obstacles?
I wanted to create a practice that delivered personalized, innovative legal solutions while maintaining the highest ethical standards combining the expertise of larger firms with the agility and client focus of boutique practices.
Initial challenges included building credibility, establishing a client base, and managing financial constraints while maintaining service quality.
I navigated these through strategic relationship building, delivering exceptional results on smaller matters to build credibility, and focusing on becoming specialists in chosen practice areas rather than trying to be everything to everyone. We never compromised on quality to win business – a principle that ultimately distinguished us in the market.
Cross-border transactions often involve navigating multiple legal frameworks and jurisdictions. How do you manage the complexities of these deals? What are the critical legal considerations businesses must keep in mind when engaging in cross-border transactions, and how do you ensure compliance with international legal standards while advising clients?
We manage complexity through systematic due diligence across all relevant jurisdictions, collaborating with trusted local counsel worldwide. Our framework maps regulatory requirements, tax implications, and compliance obligations for each jurisdiction involved.
Critical considerations include foreign investment regulations, tax treaty implications, currency exchange controls, sector-specific restrictions, dispute resolution mechanisms, and enforcement challenges across different legal systems.
We ensure compliance through jurisdiction-specific checklists, regular regulatory updates, and maintaining relationships with qualified local counsel. Our approach emphasizes early identification of potential conflicts between legal systems and structuring transactions to minimize regulatory friction while ensuring comprehensive documentation that anticipates cross-jurisdictional enforcement challenges.
With the evolving landscape of CSR compliance, what trends do you foresee emerging in the near future? Additionally, could you share how you guide clients in aligning their CSR strategies with both domestic and international laws?
Emerging trends include mandatory climate disclosures, supply chain responsibility requirements, and stakeholder-centric reporting. We’re seeing convergence between ESG standards and domestic CSR requirements, with increased focus on measurable impact assessment and integration with business strategy.
We guide clients by conducting comprehensive assessments of applicable domestic and international obligations, then developing CSR strategies that exceed minimum compliance while creating genuine business value. Our approach emphasizes robust documentation, impact measurement systems, regular compliance audits, and integration of CSR considerations into business decision-making processes.
Start-ups face several challenges when it comes to establishing their legal foundations. What are the most common legal hurdles that start-ups should address early on? How do you assist them with crucial aspects like intellectual property rights, employee agreements, and business structuring?
Common hurdles include inadequate business structuring, insufficient IP protection, poorly drafted founder and employee agreements, and underestimating regulatory compliance requirements.
Our approach begins with comprehensive business structure analysis considering investment plans, tax efficiency, and regulatory requirements. For IP, we conduct thorough audits and establish protection strategies including trademark registrations and robust confidentiality frameworks. Employee agreements require balancing company protection with talent attraction—we draft comprehensive contracts and establish equity participation frameworks.
We emphasize establishing good governance practices early, including board structures, decision-making processes, and compliance systems that become crucial as startups scale.
Given your expertise in handling family estate disputes, what aspects of family law do you feel need more focus or reform? How do you approach succession planning for high-net-worth families, especially when dealing with complex cross-border elements?
Family law needs greater focus on alternative dispute resolution and preventive legal structures. The current system often exacerbates conflicts rather than resolving them constructively.
For high-net-worth succession planning, we begin with comprehensive family and asset mapping, then develop flexible structures adaptable to changing circumstances. Cross-border elements require careful jurisdiction selection, appropriate trust structures, and documentation that anticipates enforcement issues across different legal systems.
Our methodology emphasizes family governance frameworks including family constitutions, communication protocols, and dispute resolution mechanisms, with regular plan updates to reflect changing family circumstances and regulatory environments.
Trust formation is often a delicate issue, especially for business families. Could you elaborate on your approach to setting up trusts and advising clients on succession planning? What are some common misconceptions businesses or individuals might have about trust formation, and how do you address these?
Our approach begins with thorough understanding of family dynamics, business structures, and long-term goals, then designing flexible trust structures that serve multiple purposes while maintaining adaptability.
Common misconceptions include believing trusts provide absolute asset protection, assuming trust formation means loss of control, and underestimating ongoing compliance requirements. Many don’t understand differences between trust types and their specific applications.
We address these through comprehensive education about trust mechanics, clear explanation of rights and obligations, and realistic assessment of benefits and limitations. For business families, we focus on structures facilitating business continuity while providing appropriate family financial security, often involving multiple trust vehicles and governance frameworks for family participation in business decisions.
Your commitment to fostering diversity in the legal profession is commendable. How do you ensure aspiring lawyers have the mentorship and opportunities they need within your firm? What qualities do you look for when mentoring young lawyers, and what advice do you offer them as they navigate the legal profession?
We ensure opportunities through inclusive hiring practices, structured mentorship programs pairing senior and junior lawyers across practice areas, meaningful work assignments, and regular professional development workshops.
In mentoring, I look for intellectual curiosity, ethical grounding, strong communication skills, and resilience. Technical skills can be taught, but these fundamental qualities determine long-term success.
My advice focuses on building strong foundational skills, maintaining ethical standards regardless of pressure, developing business acumen alongside legal expertise, and understanding that successful careers are built on relationships and reputation. Most importantly, find meaning in your work – legal practice provides unique opportunities to make positive differences in people’s lives.
With your demanding career and leadership role, how do you personally manage work-life balance? Additionally, how do you encourage your team to maintain a healthy balance while excelling in their roles?
I maintain balance through disciplined time management, prioritizing high-impact activities, delegating effectively, and protecting family time. Sustainable success comes from managing energy, not just time.
For the team, we’ve implemented realistic project timelines, adequate staffing, flexible work arrangements where possible, and measure success by results and client satisfaction, not hours worked. We encourage time off and maintain open communication about workload concerns.
Most importantly, I model healthy balance myself. Teams take cues from leadership, so demonstrating that it’s possible to excel professionally while maintaining personal well-being encourages others to do the same. We celebrate achievements and recognize that sustainable careers require attention to both professional and personal development.
Let me begin with a very basic and very important question as in what shaped this particular thought process of pursuing law as a career and what kind of a vision actually evolved over these many years while you are practicing law. After doing it from National Law University, Jodhpur, what kind of perspective or aspirations were there when you started and where it has moved? What kind of challenges have you faced? We would love to hear that story.
When I was in school, I was not very much aware that there is something like a five-year law course. I had heard about National Law School, Bangalore in way. I had heard that there is one legal institution in Bangalore, which produces high quality professionals in law, but law was not my first choice, primarily because I never thought in that direction.
So, I did my higher secondary, 11th and 12th with commerce as a specialization. And my first focus at that point in time was to get through to a good college in Delhi University, colleges like the Hindu College, SRCC, or St. Stephens, or similar colleges if possible.
So that was my first aim, to get into good institutions at Delhi University because Delhi University is one of the best institutions in Asia actually. And especially when I was completing my 12th in the year 2001, it was one of the best in India, in fact, the best in India in terms of the number of colleges it had, number of courses it had and the quality of students it had drawing good resources from across India. So that was my focus. When I was in class 12th, around six months before I was to sit for my 12th exam, I got to know that there is someone I know who is in National Law School, Bangalore, but I had not spoken to him as such.
But I got to know that he’s from National Law School, Bangalore. And that is where I started finding more institutions of such nature in India. At that point in time there were only three or four National Law Universities in India. One was National Law School, Bangalore, the other was NALSAR, Hyderabad. The other NLU was National Law Institute University, Bhopal and NUJS had just started, I think in the year 2000 itself. There was limited visibility of these institutions also. I’m from Jaipur, the capital city of Rajasthan. Maybe students from metro cities like Delhi, Bombay, Chennai, Bangalore, would know more about these institutions. Students from tier two cities did not know much about it.
When I was in school I was not very much aware that there is something like a five year law course. I had heard about National Law School, Bangalore. I had heard that there is one legal institution in Bangalore, which produces high quality professionals in law, but law was not my first choice, primarily because I never thought in that direction.
When I got to know there were three or four institutions, I filled up my forms, applied to National Law School, Bangalore, and applied to NALSAR, applied to Bhopal, and wrote their entrance test also. While I was doing so, there were a lot of talks about an NLU to be set up in the state of Rajasthan.
There were a lot of parallel discussions between the government officials about when to set it up. So NLU, Jodhpur was to be set up in the year 2000, but for certain reasons it could not be set up. And it was decided very, very close to, let’s say, April and May, 2001, that NLU will be started in Jodhpur, in the new academic session. Next three months actually. And it was there in all local newspapers, et cetera. I also read about it. I had already given a couple of entrance tests for other national law schools at that point in time. I also gave an exam for NLU, Jodhpur. I was successful in securing a rank there and getting selected
And that is how my journey began. In parallel, I had taken admission in one of very good colleges in Delhi University. I withdrew my candidature there and went with Jodhpur. There was a reason I went with NLU Jodhpur. You know, the institution just started. So, there was no legacy for the institution as such because the 2001 year was the first batch of the institution. And the prospectus of NLU Jodhpur, a very small, 10-page prospectus was written by our first vice chancellor- NL Mitra. And I can tell you that the 8- or 9-page prospectus spoke volumes of what that the institution (NLUJ) could be.
It was worth a 100 pages prospectus. And in fact, one of my close ones who was senior to me, he read that prospectus in his free time. He told me, if you get a chance to join this institution, do join this institution because the way the prospectus is written, I think this institution will be a very good institution.
And exactly that happened. I got through NLU, Jodhpur and there I started my journey as a law student. Mind you, I never thought that I would join a legal profession as such, but it happened. And initially it was very, very difficult. We had two shifts of classes in NLU, Jodhpur. The first shift was from 8:00 AM to 12:30 PM and then there was a lunch break.
We did not have our own campus for the first three years. So, there was a transitory campus in the local university campus, basically, for us, a small campus. And then we were living in a hostel, which was far away from our university campus. So, we will come back to our hostels and then there’ll be a second shift of classes from 4:00 PM. The timetable said it was up to 7:30 PM in the evening, but it’ll stretch to 8:30 PM or 9:00 PM. And the second session classes were undertaken in the canteen area of our leased building.
We had no infrastructure as such. No physical infrastructure as such. The only thing we had with us at that point in time was that all of us, over a period of time, were mentally united. Subconsciously united over a period of time that we are going to create an institution of great eminence.
And we take pride in ourselves that we are part of the first batch of the institution. Otherwise, being part of the first batch of any institution is in a way an experimental step If things go well, the institution becomes well known. If things don’t go well for three, four batches, institutions take time to actually grow over a period of time that way. But as I said, our batch, we had a very limited number of 41 students. Over a period of time, we got subconsciously united and took pride that we are part of the first batch, and saw that as an opportunity.
That first batch is the most important batch because this is the batch, which is laying down the foundations for years to come.
But there was a great opportunity for all of us and that is where I would use this platform to also thank my first vice chancellor, professor, Dr. NL Mitra, a great man. He had the vision right from day one, how he wants that institution to be and only, and only because of his vision. Our institution started doing well right from the first batch. And his vision, we were able to imbibe to some extent over a period of time.
There is no one who can guide you generally or guide you how to apply for LLMs. There is no one who can guide you on how to crack into tier 1, tier 2, 3 law firms or top legal jobs in companies. And that is where we got a lot of exposure because there was no one to guide us.
We were our own torch bearers. So, we did a lot of trial and error. Actually, we studied a lot at that point in time, processed more information, that is something which really helped all of us. It also helped me a lot because by the end of my second year and the start of my third year, I knew what areas I should specialize in, and how I should take it forward.
I knew it like other students also subconsciously, because we have already tried and tested a lot of things. A lot of things didn’t work out. Only a couple of things worked out for us. So, we knew. It’s like saying, you know 1000 ways a thing will not work, indirectly you know one way the thing will work.
This was my experience at NLU, Jodhpur. I was very interested in corporate laws to start with because I had a commerce background in my 11th and 12th class that really helped me, and I was from ICSE board, so I don’t know now, but at that time ICSE board, some subjects were highly specialized.
For example, the economics that I read in class 11th and 12th was that time very similar to BA economics honors student was doing in Delhi University in second year or in the third year. So that was the level of certain subjects. I had a lot of interest in economics, commerce, and accounts.
That is something which really gave me a head start, an automatic head start when I was reading corporate laws, actually, because corporate laws are all about companies, companies actions, how company is dealing with stakeholders. I had done a bit of it already when I was in higher classes of my school, so that gave me a head start, and that gave me a lot of confidence.
It’s not only about confidence. Confidence has to be backed by substance over a period of time. How to generate that substance? Now, a lot of good students are writing blogs. They’re doing podcasts, they’re making videos on discussions, etc.
They’re joining panels or contributing to panels. But in my time, there were only limited avenues that were available. As far as your visibility is concerned, there was not much branding for legal institutions that time as much as it is today. There were no rankings as such other than some India today ranking and a couple of them.
That also came later on, I think in 2005, 2006, 2007 but 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 there were no rankings as such, like we have today. We have a lot of rankings, a lot of brand building exercises. In fact, I go to a lot of networking events. I see representatives of legal institutions also being present there and networking there, branding their institutions.
So those things were not there. The only thing you could have done on your visibility on your institution was winning moot courts or writing articles. Even writing articles. They will select journals like All India Reporter, Criminal Law Journal, Company Law Journal and a couple more, and they will primarily prefer practitioners for article publications. Practicing advocates, a lot of practicing advocates and retired judges wrote in All India Reporter that was very famous and very esteemed. And must be even today, I presume so and so room for us as a student, for any student that point in time was less.
Again, that’s an opportunity. You see, mental perspective is very, very important. Very important. So, if you have a positive mental perspective, you see everything as an opportunity. Some of us had informal groups within our batch. In our batch only 40 students were there. So some of us decided that we will try to publish articles in criminal law journals, company law journals, et cetera.
We tried; we were failing. Then suddenly, a couple of us got published in Company Law Journal, Criminal Law Journal, All India Reporter. That gave us a huge impetus that now a journal which publishes articles of practicing lawyers, retired judges, or some judges also. Has published our article. That is a big confidence boost for us.
Others also started trying, then we had a lot more people trying, there was a lot more traction. More traction, possibility of getting positive results is more. If there are two people trying for something, and then there are a hundred people trying for the same thing, the chances of success are more with a hundred people as opposed to only with two people, right?
So that is something which really helped us, that also helped us to create an ecosystem of excellence. That is important because initial years with the first batch, second batch, third batch, and fourth batch law is not a simple course of study. It is very difficult. It is not like any other courses. It is very distinct. It is spread over five years and each year, each semester is different from another semester. So it cannot be that you have done very well in the first four semesters and next six semesters you will do well. No, it is also not that you have not done well in the first five semesters, that you will also not do well in the next five semesters.
You can always come back. That helped us to create a positive ecosystem for ourselves and indirectly for the institution also, because initially what happens is an institution is known by the students. Later on, students are known by the institution because so much of batches, so much of hard work has gone into the foundation over the years’ time and again.
And to motivate us at that point in time we were also trying to follow what other students, very, very good students of like institutions are doing in their fourth year or maybe in their fifth year, so that we can also emulate them, learn from their experience.
If somebody from NLS got into the World Bank, it also gave us a hope that we can also do so. If somebody wrote a book in another institution, it also gave us hope and motivation that we can also publish a book while we are in our fourth year and fifth year. Who is stopping us? That five years shaped all of us, shaped me a lot. When I started my journey as a first semester student, to be honest, I was not sure that I was going to survive for five years.
I thought I may have to drop out after the first year because it was not easy. There was a lot of regimentation at play. You had classes right from 8:00 AM to 9:30 PM effectively, it was too difficult for us actually. Typically, when people go to college, people think that they will have more free time.
That’s how people think of going to colleges of any university anywhere in the world, but when we went into college, it was upside down. We had less time. We had no time actually. So I did not think that I would even survive one year. But somehow, we kept on moving together. And being part of the first batch, I think was the most beautiful opportunity that all of us got. I’ve completed 18 years since I’ve graduated. All those trees, all saplings were planted by us. The first batch, second batch, and the third batch. So, it gives us more identification with the university that way. And the university also recognizes us.
I have a lot of gratitude for that institution. Moving from institution to practice of law, as I said, I was always very interested in corporate laws. I used to read a lot of articles on international forums, I think its Practical Law today, that point in time it was West Law.
I used to read a lot of journals, corporate law related topics or articles and used to follow them. That time there were a lot of changes in the Indian corporate law sections also, like there was a lot of talk about corporate governance in 2003, 2004.
I still remember Narayana Murthy Committee report, Naresh Chandra Committee report, Cadbury Committee report 1999. So again, it gave us a lot of impetus to actually use these changes to our advantage. For example, I wrote 20 plus articles when I was in my fourth year and my fifth year. And all those things helped me. They gave me a lot of topics actually. I was very well aware of what is happening around me in relation to corporate laws, corporate governance, securities law, and I took that as an opportunity to write about them, build my visibility, talk about them, and try to get the right internships.
Once you have known your ecosystem, you have known your ground well then you know what is your next step? What is your way forward? Without it, it is very, very difficult. So, I know that I’m very interested in corporate law, securities law. I was trying for an internship within college when college applied. Nowadays scenarios have changed a bit, but at that time, the College Replacement Association was doing.
I wanted to intern at SEBI, for example. I got a chance to intern at SEBI, and again, I was fortunate. It was a 4-week internship. The day I joined, I was given a task to make a compendium of orders passed by SEBI for the last three years. I did this internship in 2004. So, when I went onto the intranet website of SEBI, we had access because we were interns there, I saw that there were around 550 orders that SEBI had passed.
I had to summarize those 550 orders in a tabular format given by my senior, who was assistant legal advisor at that point in time. And I did that day in and day out. I used to enter the SEBI office like everybody else, and I used to stay in that office till 9:30 or 10:30 PM. By 5:30, 6:00, 6:30 everybody would’ve left.
So, either the office caretaker, et cetera, were there, or I was there. Or maybe a couple of seniors, those who had urgent deliverables also, because it’s a regulator, those were there. So, I had a chance to analyze more than 500 orders passed by SEBI. It gave me a wonderful exposure.
I could not have gotten that in my entire career because I do not think any lawyer or anybody in a particular stream would analyze 500 cases at one go, because you don’t. Because you go by what is your client requirement? What is the nature of the case? You see select precedents, you don’t see 500 cases as precedent, but I was very, very fortunate.
So, while I was doing that it augmented my learning in corporate laws. When I came back to college, I knew inside out about all SEBI regulations, the sections, the provisions, which SEBI order got overruled by SAT in the last three years because of the work I have done. So, I was very fortunate in that way.
I carried on my learning. I read more on securities law, for example, more on corporate laws. In our institution, one thing also which really helped me, I am part of the first batch in India of a five-year integrated law force in law and management, BBA LLB, and then Jodhpur started that course in 2001.
That also gave me an impetus because I had commerce as a background, and BBA was a natural next step to commerce background. So, whatever was to be taught in law school.
Because you see, law school focuses more on law. As opposed to BA or BBA or BSC, et cetera. The BBA part I had already done in my school, more than 90% of it. So, I could focus more on law in the later years to come. And somehow my internships were such, they helped me to explore myself as a person also and myself as a future professional also.
I did my first internship with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, MKSS. MKSS is the pioneer organization in right to information in India from early 1990s led by Aruna Roy. I did an internship with them, a ground internship with them in a village. In the outskirts of Udaipur district.
There was no conveyance, et cetera. It was a national highway; these national highways were not like express highways of today. There were two lane national highways and you had to take a lift. There were no buses, you had to take a lift on a lorry or a tanker or a truck passing by.
And I did my internship in that village. It was the year 2002, I lived with them, I also carried out what they had started, actually social audit. What they will do, they will form a team, they will go to different districts, monitor the development project there, and actually do a social audit of what is written on the paper and what on ground development has been done.
And there I also met Mr. Arvind Kejriwal. Because at that point in time his organization was working for right to Information in Delhi. So, I was with him as a part of his team. We were four or five team members in formal groups doing different parts of social audit, et cetera. So I was fortunate that way also, if I see, so now. And if you remember, 2002 was also a time of Gujarat riots, and this organization, what they were doing, they were trying to inform people about the riots going on, so that people are actually aware. It was May and June in Rajasthan, in the outskirts of Rajasthan, Udaipur. And we had a cycling project wherein we’ll go to different villages.
We had targeted, I think 50, 60 villages. We’ll go, we’ll interact with them, spread awareness, also talk about the right to information, et cetera. So, we would cycle along with 50, 60 more people along with us in the daytime in May and June in Rajasthan for the entire day. And we did that for seven days. And those bicycles were not sports bicycles, if you remember that black and yellow, those bicycles. So, these kinds of challenges, we do not know when we are in them. We do not understand or actually know how they are shaping us, but our experiences are actually shaping us. So, my internship in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan also shaped me. Shaping me in terms of leadership skills, spreading awareness, having a team moving along with the team is all about leadership skills.
Otherwise, unless you are on the ground, you don’t get to learn leadership skills, team skills by doing a management course. You have to be on the ground. You have to connect with people. You have to relay what you want to relay to them.
Now, spreading awareness in the remote village of Rajasthan is very, very challengeable because forget about English, you will not find people, those who will even speak Hindi, they’ll speak Marwari or different languages because different areas have different nuanced languages also. Interacting with them, relaying to them how right to information relevant for them, they will not understand, right?
Because what they are concerned about is three times the food and clothes to wear. That’s the basic and all requirements. In remote villages, that’s the reality even today. And talking to them about the right to information, if you are successful doing that, I think you are the best salesperson in this country if you can do that.
So, I got exposed to these kinds of leadership skills, experimentation also, practical experimentation also. I did my second-year internship with Prashant Bhushan. So, you can see the trail. I was with Aruna Roy, Arvind Kejriwal and my next step was with Prashant Bhushan. So, Prashant Bhushan, I interned. We worked a lot on public interest litigation. Again, a very, very good experience, because law is all about well-rounded professionals. You may be practicing in a particular stream, but if you are well-rounded, your knowledge base is wide, your receptivity is wide, your perspectives are more, and that is what helps you in differentiating between yourselves and others, basically, this is your USP.
Any lawyer or any student who has more perspectives is a couple of steps ahead than any other knowledgeable student. Any professional who has more perspective is two steps ahead of any other professional having a host of degrees, host of experiences, best of salaries, does not matter. It’s all about developing perspective over a period of time.
In that way, my internships also helped me. Then I interned at KPMG, Bombay in my fourth year. I learned how accounting firms are important for legal practice or corporate law. Because when you think about law, you think about law in isolation or in silos, actually, it doesn’t happen.
Law requires a context to operate. Without the context, we will not be able to apply law. Very famously, our vice chancellor used to say, and I think there is a question on that also in subsequent discussion pointers, he used to say, you have to be master of fact rather than to be master of law.
If you are a master of fact, you will know how you will apply the law known to you. If you’re not a master of facts, you don’t have expertise on your facts or a subject matter, then how will you apply law? How will you get desired results? It’s all about doing a very nuanced interpretation or nuanced practice.
How do you nuance it when you are able to filter through a lot of information? How do you get more information? You have to know more and more about your facts, and then you get to know that these two statements are the most material statements. I’m basing my case on this; law is applicable on this.
So, before you become a master of law, you have to become a master of facts. I was actually judging one client counseling competition in National University Aurangabad. And I really love that concept because as lawyers, we forget about as a law student, as lawyers, we take years and years to learn the art of client counseling.
What does the client want? How is the client placed? How can he get relief? What should suit him? All this is client counseling, and we take years to actually understand this. I’m very happy that some of the institutions are taking the lead and organizing something like mediation competitions, client counseling competitions, because these are very nuanced initiatives as compared to the moot courts.
Because moot courts, you have a problem at hand. The facts are already with you. The problem statement is already with you. You don’t have to do anything. You have to read the problem statement. You have to apply law and argue. Moot court is all about that. But in a client counseling competition, or a mediation competition, you have to take out information from your client as much as you want, as much as it is relevant, and then use your knowledge to actually supplement.
That is why these initiatives are excellent initiatives. Some of the institutions are doing. I think all institutions should do it. They should have a course in client counseling. We have courses in mediation, but we should also have mock trials and courses in client counseling, because that is what we do as professionals, right from day one. Because day one, when you join as an associate or a zero, your senior may tell you if you’re practicing in the M & A department of a law firm and can tell you, okay, we require X, Y, Z information from the client. Why don’t you call him and take information from him? When you call the client and take information for him, you have to have certain basic knowledge so that you can tell the client why this information is relevant so that he’s more forthcoming and seamless to give you information.
Otherwise, clients would think that person is only asking for information, time and again, time and again, and time and again. The art of asking relevant information. And nuancing your interpretation and practice around it is the legal practice for me, be it contentious, be it litigation, be it non-litigation. Non-litigation at times can become even more difficult actually. So, if you are an M&A lawyer, private equity lawyer, or venture capital lawyer, it’s not about representing your client on the table. It’s also understanding what are the expectations and interests of other stakeholders. Reading the room. And after understanding the interest of other stakeholders, how do you actually manage the stakeholders together to cut the deal?
What happens if something is of much interest to your client, something else is of much interest to another client. And the same is the case with other stakeholders. You will never crack a deal together. There have to be middle grounds, there have to be nuanced positions. How do you do it? You have to have that mental perspective to understand the interest of other stakeholders.
Like we say, a good lawyer is a lawyer who understands the mental framework of judges as if he’s the judge, as if he’s asking the questions, so that he can preempt the questions and include it beforehand while arguing and in his pleadings. The same thing applies for corporate lawyers also. Also thinking from the mental perspective of the other stakeholders.
Counterparties also, because you see, you are saying X and you are not moving an inch at all. The other party is saying Y he is also not moving an inch. What is happening? The time is getting wasted for the clients, the clients may love you for your skills, for a couple of meetings, three meetings, four meetings.
After that, they would want to see how you actually solve this problem. And that’s what the practice is all about. Nobody is hiring lawyers, for example, to not do the deal. They’re hiring lawyers to do the deal, to act as a fulcrum, to act as a catalyst. So as a lawyer, if you’re reading the room well, understanding everybody’s expectation and the interest well understanding your client interest as well.
Then you know in your head that what is good to have for you and what it must have for you, good to have will have 30 items, for example, must have, will have only two items. You do a trade between good to haves to get much must to have. You have to close the deal. My idea talking about this at length is that law students and early legal professionals should focus on developing as much as mental perspective, definitely, and as much as interpretations, other perspective, nuanced perspective as possible. And, it comes with an interactive set of people.
Also, it comes when you take interest beyond your call of duty or beyond your work. So in our transactions, we have financial advisors, we have tax advisors, then there is a client who is talking about commercials. We, as the corporate lawyers advise on, let’s say 70% on commercials and 30% on law.
This is how corporate law transactions work actually, to be honest, now, if you only focus yourself to law and don’t understand what is the objective of the parties commercially. Then it may be very difficult for you to close the deal because you are on the table, on a deal table, you see important people are there. From the key managerial personnel to the directors and the senior managing director. Those are the kind of people there on the deal table. And as a lawyer, you are also on the deal table. That means you have to contribute. Not only with the knowledge, but providing a nuanced solution. Because knowledge will give you a lot of information.
But out of that information, what you pick as a solution is your capability. And that is why some legal professionals are more famous, command premium. Because if you hear their argument, be it in non-contentious practice or in contentious practice, they’re very focused.
They know five counterarguments for one argument and vice versa. They know five arguments for one counterargument, because first they think what the counterparty will think, or thinks. This is what he may tell us. I’ve got my arguments already ready. And to top it up, I also have my own arguments.
I also understand the commercials of the parties. Not only law. Again, we spoke about master of fact and master of law. Here master of fact means understanding the commercials of a transaction for a corporate lawyer because you are expert in law. And you have to ensure that there is a marriage between law and commerce.
That’s how the deal will get done. And that is what should be your capability. So, coming back, we were discussing internships. I was very lucky doing internships at very, very good places.
Then I sat for a campus interview. I was successful in getting selected into various law firms. I joined the Luthra and Luthra offices. It was a very good legal organization having top marquee work in India. I got a lot of opportunities to work on some outstanding transactions which also helped me to understand the relevance of a legal professional.
I understood the relevance of a legal professional is not only about drafting agreements in your laptop or your desktop. Relevance of an illegal professional is actually to get all the parties together and agree on a common solution. That is more important because once that is done, anything can be documented.
Otherwise, the mental perspective, which early lawyers have, new entrants have, law students have, is that they think of documentation first, agreements first, law first, and requirements of the client later. It should be vice versa. Understand the requirements of the client first, requirement of the stakeholder first, and then documentation, then comes legal knowledge, so that you can give a very nuanced and to the point USP, which is your legal opinion or your legal interpretation that you are taking. Your clients will love you for that. Stakeholders will also be happy with you.
Then I worked at different other law firms also. Now you see law firms, two law firms. What my experience was in corporate law, for example, M&A, private equity venture capital. The work stream may be common, but different lawyers and different law firms have different approaches towards their work.
A lot of people say in law firms, it is very, very difficult to have work-life balance because you tend to work long hours, because the transactions are so, they require your last-minute involvement, et cetera. You are the one who gives comfort to other counterparties to your clients as well. So, you have to be involved. But I tell you one thing, there’s nothing like work-life balance in law. Because legal practice is a very difficult and different practice. In legal practice, you don’t have to deliver what you are expected to deliver. You have to deliver what your client thinks you can deliver, and you have to top it up with a premium or with your USB.
This is how it works. So, it is not like drafting a clause a client wants, but while drafting the clause and deciding the contours of that clause and agreement. Also discussing with the clients, the advantages and disadvantages and how different scenarios can actually play out because the document you are drafting is the document which is not useful for good times because in good times nobody opens the documents. The documents get locked up in the cupboard. A lot of our clients also used to tell me that the best document we want to use so that we don’t open it. Absolutely. You should not open a document because once the deal is done, the relationship should be good. Practically also speaking. But what about those rainy days? When there are differences of opinions, disputes and interpretation, then you have to open the document and then you open the document and see whether you had actually thought about it or not.
So, for example, as a lawyer, if you only follow the instructions of your client, it is to get the work done as early as possible because any client would want that. If I’m a client, I will also want it, but at the same time, it is important for you to discuss the nuances of that with your client. And tell him how these frameworks can play out in different scenarios. And that is what you have to document in your agreement. So that your document is fungible and is to an extent futuristic. I’m not saying that all lawyers come together and draft a document for two years.
You cannot think of, there can be innumerable scenarios, et cetera. You cannot actually document it, but you can document what you have learned. This is your experience. So like, I have done 200 plus M&A deals, private equity and venture capital deals. I have had a lot of learning, for example. So, I’m carrying that learning when I’m doing my 251st deal.
I’m carrying out the learning of 250 deals that I have done in the 251st transaction. And I’m also telling my client to also include this scenario. What if this happens, what will you do? Let’s include that. Because you never know. Because commercial transactions in India are increasing.
We are almost a $4 trillion economy and we are moving to a $8 to $10 trillion economy in 25 years. In the last 75 years, we have added 4 trillion in the next 22, 23 years, which is 2047, we’ll add more than 4 trillion, which we could only add in 75 years. The pace of growth will be faster. There’ll be a lot of opportunities, but at the same time, there’ll be a lot of complications also. So, five, seven years back when the startup community in India started in 2015, 2016, now it is at a different level. If I had to discuss the founders’ agreement with my founder client, they would say, no, we are best of friends.
We are family friends; we are thick friends. We are school friends. We’ll not need it. Let us build the company. We’ll see it later on. But today you see there are a lot of founder disputes also. Now the same founders today, their first checklist is having a founder’s agreement.
You don’t have to educate them; they already know it. So, what happens there is more commercial traction. There are more disputes also, and that is where as a legal professional in this time, and in times to come in next 20 years, we have to work at a different level. At a very advanced level. It cannot always be a precedent based learning or a precedent based practice.
In litigation, it can be a precedent based practice. You know what the Supreme Court has viewed in such a scenario, et cetera. But in corporate law, M&A transactions, private equity, venture capital transactions, there are no court judgments that are applicable, it is up to the parties.
What is the nature of the parties? What is the nature of investment, amount of investment, nature of business, of the company? All these things play a very important role when you’re dealing with both the parties, your client as well as the counterparty. And how do you stitch the deal? To me, is the real premium you give to your client and that is something they pay you for. They’re not paying you for regular work. They can get it done from anybody else also, and then there is artificial intelligence also in the picture, which will draft a shareholder and share subscription agreement.
But what you give based on your previous learning is something no automated platform can give because there are a lot of practical nuances you handle while doing so. So that is why, it’s very important that today’s lawyers, today’s law students also think in those terms. Wear both hats, wear a legal hat and also wear an entrepreneurial hat because you don’t have to be a deal breaker, you have to be a deal maker.
You have to ensure, come out with structures, come out with opinions and arguments and practices, which enhances the chances of getting the deal through and not stalling it. Because you see clients have already made up their mind of doing a deal, and that’s why they have got you here. Very important because you see the top client, the principles have already been discussed between themselves, okay, we are going to do this.
They’re getting their advisors in the picture as a next step is to see, just in case there are no deal breakers as such. But they have not got you here to create an issue when the issue can be resolved. So, it’s like something which is of your best interest to your client. Can we oppose it to the other side?
And how you navigate that scenario is your role actually. And it’s continuous learning. You are never a complete lawyer. You are always learning, you are always understanding, you are always meeting new people with new perspectives.
If you have a positive bent of mind, a growth mindset, then you are progressing, then you are always progressing. And that is what I want to suggest to all new entrants in law. Any lawyer as well as, definitely law students have a growth mindset, a positive mindset where you see the counter arguments against you, not as counter arguments, but as an opportunity to develop further.
Give an even more nuanced solution because in a non-contentious practice, typically it is not that one party loses, the other party wins. Both of you win together. It has to be a win-win scenario for every stakeholder. And that is important. And over a period of time, how do you as a law student think how law works? You think of documentation, you think of law first, but when you become a legal profession, you understand how the client is placed? What are the expectations of the client? How can you deal with it? What can you suggest? This takes precedence over this agreement drafting. That comes actually later on. So that’s the mental perspective one needs to work, one needs to understand a lot of commerce, a lot of commercials. That also really helps because then you can read into the mind of your clients and the counterparties what they want to achieve?
Why are they doing so? How can I aid this, how can I facilitate this? Can I come up with a structure? Because in law there are a lot of gray areas, there are not many black and white areas in corporate law, for example, in M&A transactions, there are a lot of gray areas also, and that is where you have to take a call, you have to help your client to take a call.
You have to know market practices. How are other people doing it? Learn from others. So this is how the journey has been. I have always believed in learning as much as possible, learning as many perspectives as possible, trying to become a different version of myself each year, each couple of years, and trying to understand my clients more and more.
So this whole journey has been very fascinating, now I would like to ask you, as in when you start or when you enter these kind of deals, when you are trying to negotiate these big M&A transactions and you are drafting those deals, how do you make sure that you are a problem solver for your party, as well as you are not a problem creator for the other party as well? Second, while you were in your law school, I’m pretty sure that you may not have decided at that point of time that after five years I’ll become this, this, this, it became with learning. What kind of learnings were those?
Also, how did you navigate yourself towards this particular sector of getting so much into corporate law? Obviously, those SEBI 500 files were also very helpful. How have you made sure that that passion of yours, of reading still is there?
So, answering your last discussion point first, how did I decipher it when I was a law student and how I could continue. We just spoke that law is a very different profession, it is not only a deliverable based profession.
Actually, it is a way of life. Now, just try and understand one thing when I said, there is no work life balance as such in law, I did not mean that in a negative sense. I actually meant that in a very positive sense. In legal practice, more important, you are, people will want your more time, you’ll have more clients.
Clients will want your more time. You’ll be developing more trust with your client. This is how it actually works. You work, let’s say for 12 hours or 13 hours before it becomes a work life question. It is a question of your importance because you are important. Why is your client calling you and wants to talk to you at 12:00 AM in the night?
He wants comfort from you. Clients may have decided on something, we have a lot of clients, who are brilliant, people with management backgrounds from Harvard business schools. But still, at times they will discuss with me, they have already made their decision, but still, they will give me a call.
I’m thinking in these directions. Do you have any thoughts? You see how valuable you are to them. Because your one word, your one input can give them comfort or discomfort. In fact, discomfort can maybe give them lighter, more options to think on the decisions that they already wanted to make. Your importance here is inversely proportional to the time you have at hand. Because as a normal employee in any other profession. I go by the clock. Legal profession is a way of life, which doesn’t go by the clock. It’s a way of life. This is how you live, and you are able to manage everything together.
A lot of pieces in our lives move together. It is not that when we are at work, we are at work. Other pieces are not moving; other pieces are also moving. When we are traveling, we are also taking calls. When I’m on a holiday, for example, if a client wants to have a quick call, I’m taking that quick call. That does not take away my holiday leisure plans. In fact, it makes me more important. If you want to command a premium, both in terms of monetary privileges as well as non-monetary privileges, like you want to become famous for that, you have to become an important person. To become an important person, you have to be a trusted advisor to your client.
And why would any client chase you? He thinks you are relevant in the system and you have to give him time. That is why you see a lot of lawyers, top lawyers, they’re working for 18 and 19 hours a day. They still have a great life, great travel around the world, within India, outside India, great family life, great professional life.
How are they doing so? And why are some 9-to-5 people not able to do so? Because we don’t go by the clock. I’m talking to you right now. I’m also learning. It is also giving me an opportunity to express myself. Now I have two ways to think about it. Either think this as an opportunity of viewership.
A lot of people will listen to me, see my videos, and also give me a chance of an audience. Having good communication, developing my communication skills as I’m talking to you with examples or thinking, oh, we have already crossed one hour. Okay, let me see. Another 15 minutes.
I’ll complete it. There are two ways to look at it. A growth mindset looks at things very, very differently and that is where I have seen a lot of difference in my own life also. In my initial years, when I was a junior, I wanted to complete my work as early as possible, which even today, I want to complete as early as possible.
But, once the work is completed, move on to the other work and that is a pattern with lawyers which do not believe that law is a way of life, but once you believe and have a positive mindset, that law is actually your practice. Your profession is your way of life.
You operate very differently. You’re doing 5, 7, 8 transactions together. Doing 5, 7, 8 transactions together mean you are interacting with 50 plus people together at one point in time. 50 people know you directly, in meetings, in calls, and see your emails every day.
Those 50 people are talking to another 50 people about you. Some way, directly or indirectly. Look at your reach, look at your aura is wider. Because you believe in law, your profession and what you’re doing, your actions are the way of your life. That is how it is happening. Otherwise, there could be someone who can say, I cannot handle more than one transaction or two transactions. He is limiting himself. So this is something which when I was a law student, I took a lot of interest in corporate laws. Corporate governance was the flavor of the year at that point in time. As I said, the Naresh Chandra Committee report, Narayana Murthy Committee report, were very helpful to me.
I happened to read both the committee reports inside out and, if you read any of these committee reports inside out 200 pages, you know everything about corporate law practical, because they are the people with great experience in life. And if they’re doing some tasks, they are drawing on the experience of 20,000 people they have met in life, in one committee report.
And I also understood the importance of how the legal market is shaping up. As I said, knowing your ground is very, very important. And if you know your ground well, then you also know what are the movements happening in your ground, in your practice area or your to be practice area. So, I knew when I did my internship in SEBI, I did a lot of work there. When I came back I knew there were a lot of movements in securities related law. A lot of other judgments are coming. Many new laws are coming. Not only in India, but also outside of India with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
I also started reading about the Securities and Exchange Commission and see how SEBI is different from SEC. How did I create my interest? I created my interest by further developing the work. I did an internship when I came back to my college. Otherwise, what happens when you go to internships, you do work there. Once you are back to college, you forget everything. Your internship is as good as nothing. It’s only a statement on your resume. That’s it, because you have not further developed it. But I was somehow fortunate, had that growth mindset, that point in time, which helped me to actually develop on my knowledge.
When I came back from my internships, I read a lot of corporate governance stuff, I started writing articles, getting articles published, which gave me lots of motivation. Gave me a lot of fame within the university also. I was always thinking of cracking something, doing something well. So, my whole focus as a student in my fourth year and fifth year, every utilization of every second I’ve done was about creating something good for me, so that people know me. So that people talk about me. Nothing comes for free. It comes with a lot of hard work, but I never felt my hard work because I was in that momentum. Once you are in this kind of a growth momentum, positive mindset momentum, you are not doing any hard work, you aren’t required to do any hard work at all.
It automatically flows in that way because you are in that momentum. Somehow, I was lucky to be in that situation and having created that momentum for myself that I was only moving forward. That really helped me. And this is what I want law students of today or young lawyers of today to do. Get into that momentum. Give yourself a chance. Because the legal field, if you don’t have passion for law, can get very difficult actually. You have to have a lot of passion for law, a lot of passion for the work that you are doing, and it’ll show in the solutions you are giving to your client, in the discussions you’re doing with your client. And that is where the client will appreciate you. He will not think of you as a kind of another nut or bolt in the system. He will think of your entire setup. And that is where over a period of time the clients have become our friends.
If they’re buying any car or any vehicle or their sons or daughters are getting admitted in any law schools, they’re also talking to us. Because they have become friends. Trust has increased. How has trust increased? Because of the inputs that we are able to give and why we are able to give, because we are in that momentum, in that positive framework, mental setup.
Otherwise, it is not possible. Because law can actually drain you. Drafting a complicated agreement can drain you for days. You can get buried under work. If you have passion, then the scenario is totally different. I felt both I’ve been on both sides, where I’ve been buried under work, I’ve been on the other side also where I’ve done way more work than I was doing and did not feel any heat of what I was doing, I was really, really enjoying it. I was enjoying my time with the clients. I was enjoying talking on the conference call when a lot of people were listening to me.
That’s important. I was able to somehow give a better argument. The client is texting me on WhatsApp, oh, very good, very well done. That gives you a lot of impetus and that is something which keeps you going. It’s like fuel to the machinery. So, my advice for all law students and early lawyers is to somehow create that ecosystem for yourself.
Think out of the box. Today there are innumerable opportunities that are available to everyone. In my time, there were a couple of journals. Then the moot court, that’s it. Now, the number of moot courts and the client counseling events, mediation events, et cetera, has multiplied because we have 20 times more law colleges today, maybe more hundred times, I think. We have students making blogs, we have students making video podcasts, students having their own channels. There are so many avenues available wherein you can do your brand building. While doing brand building, you can augment your experiences and your work on a particular subject over a period of time.
So, SEBI, for example, from time to time or gift city regulators are coming out with consultation papers. As a law student, a sincere law student has done securities law, and has a lot of interest in securities law. Even if I don’t have any, I think I can do something, I can read up more. I can send in my comments to the regulator, who is stopping me?
The regulator is inviting public comments; you can send it. What is stopping me? So, there are lots and lots of opportunities in today’s time that are available with the students and young lawyers. There are a lot of good certificate courses going around. I happened to speak at a lot of good certificate courses. When I was a young lawyer or forget about being a student when I was a young lawyer.
These things were not there as much as they are today. There must have been a couple of certificate courses. Way too expensive. But today there are certificate courses, two hour sessions for 700 rupees, 800 rupees. And that too a partner from a tier one law firm actually doing so and sharing this experience.
So, my advice to all students and young entrants in law, get into that ecosystem, create a momentum for yourself, then you are absolutely unstoppable because you will see more and more meaning in what you are doing, which you may not be seeing now because you are not thinking in that direction. And, your first question is how do we actually strike a balance when on the negotiation table or trying to be part of a transaction? It is very important especially for corporate lawyers to understand what is good to have in a transaction and what is must to have.
If you’re clear on this, I’m telling you, 80% of the job is done. Now, if somebody doesn’t understand this, now, good to have a bucket list is a thirty-item bucket list and must to have a bucket list is the three to four items. If somebody really does not understand difference between good to have and must to have, he has bucket list of thirty five items, he is discussing item by item, by item by item, and the transaction, which should have been done in let’s say six weeks or eight weeks, is not getting done in four months, because he is trying to discuss each point and not trying to solve the points, not trying to understand the other side perspective also. So the best approach is while you put your best foot forward for your client, try to negotiate each point with him, but also see when it is not workable.
It is not working around. If it is not working easily with other stakeholders also, straight away have a couple of middle grounds to solve those problems. What will it do? It’ll make your deal more efficient. Save the deal time. Deal time at times is very important because you may be in a scenario wherein your client is investing in a very fast-growing startup at a X valuation.
You have done the term sheet and now deal with negotiation going for four months. That startup can tell you; the founders can tell you, look, boss, we are getting other suitors also at a higher valuation. Either you close the deal or we are moving ahead with somebody else. Because you cannot be endlessly trying to negotiate points on transaction documents for another four months or three months.
Very important, it doesn’t matter which side you are, the company side or the founder side or the investor side is to work on the middle grounds. If things are not shaping up positively, then work immediately on the middle grounds. See what is the expectation of all the parties and how all the stakeholders could be protected at the same time how your client can be protected, because what happens a lot of things are practical in nature also. You may want to document it in a certain way, but practically it happens with coordination between the shareholders.
This is how it happens and that is something we will need to understand. So, clarity on must have and it’s good to have and is very much required. And that is why I tell you very, very few lawyers have this clarity. They have acquired it over a period of time, and they are called deal lawyers because they make deals happen.
They act as a fulcrum or a catalyst to the deal as opposed to only doing knowledge sharing with their clients. This is how we are able to strike a balance between our client interest and the interest of the stakeholders on the deal table. While there are multiple other points.
It may not be possible to discuss that in video because that can go into some multiple hours of discussions. There are multiple points at play, but once you’re clear on good to have and must to have, 80% of the job is done.
What a journey, sir. It starts from this, that you entered NLU, Jodhpur and you decided to do your five-year law and then chose corporate law, did internships with a variety of legal patterns. Not only corporate, but I’m amazed that you did it with public interest litigation with going to the villages to understand how nitty-gritties work when it comes to fighting the system with the government and against the government, everything, it’s a fascinating story that you have shared. It is a long journey and it should be with the learners because you really have done almost all. From ground to up. And with so much passion. And it’s absolutely a beautiful interview.
We don’t learn at the cost of somebody else. All of us learn together. This is a kind of a win-win scenario. When I share my thoughts and you share your questions, I also learn along with your questions. Because your questions, your nuanced questions and different questions.
Put me in a scenario where I have to come up with something good, deliver. And this is common learning. And that’s why I am associated with a lot of the student community. I go to a lot of legal institutions, judge even in fact, there are even moot courts, et cetera, and take certificate courses also. Again, quoting professor Mitra here, he used to say that teaching is the best way of learning. So that’s my motto. As much as I can share my experience and learn at the same time, and all of us keep moving forward, keep moving together. So that’s my motto.
What initially drew you to a career in law, and how did your time at Chanakya National Law University, Patna, equip you to meet the practical challenges of contract management and corporate legal practice?
My interest in law was sparked during my early school days. I have always had an inquisitive nature and a strong desire to view situations from multiple perspectives and ensure fairness in every interaction. These qualities naturally drew me toward a career in law. My legal education at Chanakya National Law University has provided me with a strong foundation in various laws and regulations, including a solid understanding of contracts. It has also equipped me with practical knowledge essential for working as a lawyer.
In your early years, you worked extensively on contract review and litigation. What were the most significant lessons from that experience, and how did it shape your approach to legal analysis and risk assessment?
Working on contract review and litigation has taught me several significant lessons. One of the most important is the need to approach legal negotiations not only from a legal perspective but also with a commercial mindset—thinking like a business lawyer. Contracts often contain complex legal clauses that can lead to prolonged negotiations. However, it is essential to remember that the ultimate goal is to close a commercial deal. Therefore, as lawyers, it is crucial to collaborate closely with business and commercial teams, assess legal and commercial risks effectively, and help facilitate a balanced, workable agreement.
Transitioning into in-house legal roles at the Taj Group and Brinks India marked a shift in your career path. How did these roles differ from your earlier legal service positions, and what changes did you notice in terms of responsibilities and expectations?
My earlier roles were more focused on outsourcing, where I worked alongside legal counsels, but without being directly invested in the company. This experience allowed me to collaborate with in-house lawyers and interact with Fortune 500 companies, but it involved relatively lower levels of risk assessment. In contrast, in-house roles are far more complex and come with higher risks. As an in-house lawyer, it is essential to approach cases from the company’s perspective, thoroughly understanding its business operations, and then making informed, commercial decisions that align with the company’s goals and risk appetite.
You’ve handled complex contracts involving Intellectual Property, especially in technology and AI domains. What are the key contractual safeguards you prioritize during negotiations to protect IP assets?
Protecting intellectual property (IP) involves safeguarding both the customer’s and the company’s rights. This includes ensuring the protection of the customer’s IP, any pre-existing IP, and the company’s rights against potential third-party IP breaches. It is also crucial to protect the customer from liabilities arising from modifications under the indemnity clause. IP breach liabilities should never be left open-ended—it’s important to negotiate and include a super cap on such breaches. Additionally, contracts must include precise language to clearly define IP rights and obligations, ensuring the legal interests of the company are thoroughly protected.
In your experience managing the contract lifecycle and engaging in vendor negotiations, particularly in global settings, how have you handled situations where contractual obligations conflicted with local legal regulations?
It is essential to ensure compliance with all applicable local laws and regulations when entering into commercial agreements. As a commercial legal counsel, one must not only address the legal obligations arising from customer contracts but also ensure that similar obligations and compliance requirements are appropriately flowed down to any third-party vendors involved in the service delivery.
For example, when your company provides services to a customer and relies on a third-party vendor to deliver part of those services, it is critical to ensure that:
All legal rights and obligations are clearly defined and back-to-back between the customer contract and the vendor agreement.
The third-party vendor is fully compliant with the local laws and regulations applicable to the services they are performing.
All necessary legal, regulatory, and contractual compliance requirements are properly captured in the vendor agreement to avoid any downstream risks or liabilities.
This approach mitigates legal and operational risks and ensures a seamless and legally sound service delivery framework.
In your current role as Lead Attorney for the America region, where compliance requirements can vary widely across U.S. states and other jurisdictions, how do you ensure your legal guidance remains locally compliant while upholding global consistency in standards and practices?
As a lead attorney operating in U.S. jurisdictions, it is critical to have a thorough understanding of the applicable federal, state, and local laws and industry-specific regulations. This legal insight ensures that contracts are drafted in a way that aligns with regulatory requirements, mitigates risk, and protects the interests of the company. Tailoring contracts to reflect relevant legal obligations also supports enforceability and compliance throughout the lifecycle of the agreement.
Reflecting on your diverse legal journey, what advice would you give to young legal professionals aspiring to move into in-house roles? Which subjects or skills should they prioritize, and how can they position themselves effectively early in their careers?
Advice for Young Legal Professionals:
Understand the Law and Contractual Framework: Develop a strong foundation in legal principles and contractual positions. Know the legal implications of various clauses and how they align with applicable laws.
Understand the Business and Commercial Context: Go beyond legal text—grasp the company’s business model, commercial goals, and industry dynamics. Legal advice is only effective when grounded in business reality.
Apply the “5Ws and How” Approach: Ask: What is being contracted? Why is it necessary? Where is it applicable? Who are the parties involved? When is it effective? How will it be executed? This approach helps in thorough contract analysis and effective negotiation, especially from an in-house counsel’s perspective.
Collaborate with Business Teams: Engage with internal stakeholders to understand their objectives. Review the contract from a commercial standpoint, not just a legal one, to ensure it serves the broader business strategy.
Be Agile and Prepared for Last-Minute Changes: Flexibility is key. Legal work often involves addressing urgent issues or last-minute gaps—adaptability ensures timely and practical solutions.
Conduct Risk Analysis Based on Business Appetite: Assess legal and commercial risks pragmatically. Identify “must-haves” versus “nice-to-haves,” and evaluate which contractual risks are acceptable based on your company’s risk appetite.
Outside of your professional legal work, what personal interests or activities do you pursue? How have these helped you maintain mental balance, resilience, and long-term effectiveness in such a demanding field?
Outside of work, I’m a proud dog mom to two wonderful dogs whose unconditional love brings me immense joy and comfort. In my free time, I enjoy painting, traveling, and cooking—activities that allow me to express creativity, explore new cultures, and unwind.
