Blog

  • Law as a Way of Life: A Journey towards Building Substance, Perspective, and Purpose in the Legal Profession – Vivek Jha, Partner at Fox Mandal & Associates.

    Law as a Way of Life: A Journey towards Building Substance, Perspective, and Purpose in the Legal Profession – Vivek Jha, Partner at Fox Mandal & Associates.

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

    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.

    Get in touch with Vivek Jha –

  • “A global legal career is built on persistence, perspective, and an openness to being reshaped by the world you’re trying to serve.” – Vaishali Movva, Staff Attorney at Eimer Stahl LLP, United States.

    “A global legal career is built on persistence, perspective, and an openness to being reshaped by the world you’re trying to serve.” – Vaishali Movva, Staff Attorney at Eimer Stahl LLP, United States.

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

    With a practice that spans commercial litigation and international arbitration, and a skillset that cuts across multiple domains, how do you stay motivated amidst such professional breadth? What drives your sustained commitment to engaging across disciplines, jurisdictions, and complex legal systems?

    Someone I worked with once told me that they looked for three criteria in an attorney: are you decently smart, are you sincere, and do you have a fire in your belly to learn. Keeping that ambition is important, particularly in disputes. Commercial litigation and international arbitration require a high level of grit, because in addition to being passionate about your work, you require sustained patience to be good at what you do. Learning to write storytelling briefs, legal research, and being comfortable appearing before judges all require immense dedication and passion to this profession. It’s simply a longer learning curve than most other specialized areas of law. My motivation lies in knowing that there’s no real end to this learning curve, and there’s always space to grow. 

    Engaging in different jurisdictions and legal systems allows you to move away from a myopic view of learning. While India and the US are both common law systems, they have different legal principles and more importantly – cultural dynamics. Taking the time to understand both markets (culturally and legally) and being curious has kept me committed to serving clients in both jurisdictions.  

    You recently completed an LL.M. in International Economic Law, Business, and Policy from Stanford Law School. Why did you pick Stanford over other law schools, and how did this academic experience shape your perspective on the intersection of international law, economic policy, and business? You also received the prestigious J.N. Tata Endowment Scholarship and Gift Award, what was that experience like, and what advice would you offer to students looking to apply?

    Choosing to attend Stanford Law was one of the best decisions I ever made. I was fortunate to get admission to a few other prestigious law schools, but I ended up picking Stanford because I felt like it was the best personality fit. While picking schools, we tend to make a pros-and-cons excel sheet with what we tend to think are objective criteria: reputation, financial aid, faculty, depth of courses etc. I tried using this approach and didn’t feel comfortable using it. At some level, I felt like I could overcome these objective criteria – I could get a loan, take courses outside the law school, learn online if I needed to – but I couldn’t possibly change my personality to fit into a school. Universities in the United States have a personality too, and it’s important to check if their personality brings out the best in you. I didn’t want to choose a university on a transactional front; I wanted to pick a place where I felt I was a genuine fit and could thrive without having to be anyone but myself. Stanford embodies an entrepreneurial spirit, where despite being highly competitive, there’s a sense to collaborate and create. I’ve always enjoyed building things, and to be given a platform to embrace this side of my personality was pretty life changing. 

    Stanford undoubtedly changed the way I approach international law, economic policy, and business. While the faculty were obviously great in terms of subject matter expertise, they taught me new ways to think by constantly forcing me to ask questions and teaching me to be comfortable with not finding answers. Doubt is key to learning, particularly in law where we learn to question everything. It was truly a drastic change to move from being a senior associate at law firms where “I don’t know” isn’t an acceptable answer (since it’s your literal job to know!), to once again being comfortable in uncertainty. I essentially had to unlearn many things and be open to relearning what looked like was obvious to everyone around me. I specifically recall when I was explained the Stanford Duck Syndrome. The Stanford Duck Syndrome is the idea that while a student may appear relaxed —like a calm duck gliding across a fountain — they’re actually furiously peddling underneath the surface. The idea was to help students overcome the imposter syndrome and learn to accept that there is a learning curve to getting acclimatized, particularly for international attorneys. It’s safe to say that after a few months in Stanford, I wasn’t a duck.

    The J.N. Tata Endowment Scholarship and Gift Award was truly a blessing. Shortlisted applicants need to clear a technical round, followed by an interview round, where you’re questioned not just on technical expertise but given hypothetical scenarios to understand the way you think. I would strongly encourage students to apply for this scholarship. The scholarship is not only prestigious and gives you financial freedom, but it also gave me the privilege of time; I was able to put in time and effort in other extracurriculars at Stanford (particularly when I was running the Stanford International Arbitration Association) which I would have otherwise spent working part-time on campus. 

    You’re admitted to practice in both India and the State of New York. Could you walk us through your preparation for the New York Bar exam, and how this dual qualification has expanded or enhanced your legal practice?

    The New York Bar exam was definitely an experience. I was a practicing lawyer for several years, with court appearances, cross-examinations, and negotiated settlements under my belt, so you wouldn’t think learning law was new to me. But Stanford runs on the quarter system, so everything moves at lightning speed. You’re taking classes, working on assignments, participating in extracurriculars till mid-June — all while preparing for an exam that tests multiple subjects in depth over two days in July. What saved me was accepting early on that this wasn’t a test of brilliance, but rather a test of discipline.

    I remember creating a simple rule: read everything, be patient, and practice. I didn’t aim to master each topic right off the bat but just focused on becoming comfortable with concepts. Eventually, through hours of repetition and simulation, and weeks of practice tests, I managed to do okay. I also began viewing bar prep as a tool to better understand New York law— and that made it far more engaging than rote memorization. 

    Being dual-qualified in India and New York has helped me approach client problems with a comparative lens. It signals to clients that I can bridge the gap across jurisdictions, not just on paper, but in lived experience. For instance, when advising an Indian client on a U.S. motion to dismiss, I might explain it through the framework of an Order 7 Rule 11 application (similarities and differences considered). But beyond procedural translation, what makes a real difference is understanding the cultural texture beneath the law — the instincts, expectations, and communication styles that shape how clients perceive risk. That kind of fluency doesn’t come from textbooks. It comes from having practiced and appeared in courts in both systems. Being dual-qualified, to me, isn’t just about knowing two sets of laws. It’s about being able to speak about two legal cultures, and everything in between.

    You’ve represented a diverse range of clients from state governments to technology and gaming companies, and you’ve appeared in multiple courts. Could you share an especially compelling case in or matter that stood out to you in India, and how you approached it?

    I can share a few I handled, but unfortunately most of the arbitrations are confidential. The ones that strike my mind are a public interest litigation before the High Court of Karnataka in India, a negotiation which I handled for a founder leaving a poker company, and an international ICC arbitration.

    The public interest litigation in India concerned the non-implementation of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. The object of the Trees Act is to prevent indiscriminate felling of trees and maintain ecological balance by establishing a strict procedure and mandating compensatory afforestation. To cut a tree in the State of Karnataka, an application is to be submitted to a Tree Officer, who must assess if there is a genuine requirement to cut a tree and direct the applicant to conduct suitable compensatory afforestation. By filing several right to information requests with the statutory authorities, we discovered that organizations had failed to follow due procedure, and large-scale permissions were being granted to corporates causing a heavy loss of tree cover in the city of Bengaluru. We filed applications to direct government authorities to conduct a tree census in the city of Bengaluru and engage a company to develop an application to make this data publicly available and obtained an order requiring all permissions and applications to be uploaded on an official government website for the first time since the enactment of the Trees Act in 1976. I had the chance to argue a few applications before the Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka against the Additional Advocate General and very well-known senior counsel, and these moments reminded me why I chose to be an attorney in the first place.

    I also led a mandate of advising two founders on a heated exit from a leading online poker company. The negotiation took almost two years to complete, and I was working directly with the founding partner of my firm and the client on this mandate. We ultimately negotiated favorable terms for the founders’ exit with some assets of the company. This was a lesson of patience, and the client continues to be a good friend.

    My most memorable arbitration was when I was a lead associate on a London seated ICC arbitration involving a construction dispute where we were able to secure a comprehensive victory for our clients, with costs. We had to draft urgent pleadings, reports and submissions, prepare for a trial by working with fact and expert witnesses, and I assisted the partner with conducting cross-examination and hearings. The expert was so impressed with our work that we got more referrals for arbitration mandates.  

    Your writing and conference portfolio spans topics such as international law, international arbitration and contract termination, all in prestigious journals or sources. How do you select the themes you write about, and what role do you believe legal scholarship plays in informing or influencing real-world legal practice?

    I wish I could say I had a grand plan when it comes to selecting writing or panel topics. But most of my writing is sparked by curiosity or a moment of friction in practice. Something doesn’t sit right. A client asks a deceptively simple question. Or I notice a growing silence in the literature around an issue that’s rapidly evolving. That’s usually my cue to pause, dig deeper, and ask: “Why is no one talking about this?”

    For example, I recently wrote two articles for Bar and Bench and Law360 on the growing legal business need in India, and how foreign firms tend to view these markets. It’s not a typical “law article,” but it does answer a lot of questions that I get from international students who want to make a career in the US regarding how foreign firms make decisions. It also helps foreign firms understand a market that is otherwise considered “tough to crack.” Similarly, when I wrote on contract termination during insolvency, it was because I had dealt with the real-life consequences of clients being caught in the grey zones between regulatory change and contractual rigidity. These were not abstract ideas, but live wires in the matters I was working on.

    As for the role of legal scholarship, it can be a place where practice meets pause. The courtroom is fast, reactive, and adversarial, but writing allows you to reflect, to breathe, and even occasionally critique your own assumptions. More importantly, it helps shape the scaffolding of what tomorrow’s disputes might look like and acts as an informative guide to clients, judges, policymakers, students and even practitioners. For me, writing is a form of contribution. It’s how I participate in the growth of the field — not just as a practitioner, but as a member of a global legal community asking itself how to do better.

    You’ve continued to judge international moot court competitions such as Oxford-Price Media, ICC and Jessup and often participate in and organize international arbitration panels. Why do you continue to do this, and how important do you feel it is to participate in panel discussions? What are other ways that young professionals can get involved in the arbitration community?

    Mooting was a big part of law school for me. International moots taught me the application of law, advocacy skills, brief writing and teamwork; all of which continue to serve me today. I continue to judge some of these international moot competitions to try give back to students what was given to me.

    Panels are a great way to naturally network and meet people in international arbitration. It’s a field where there are multiple conferences every year, and you have the privilege to select panels which interest you. When I was elected as one of the Presidents of the Stanford International Arbitration Association, I used that opportunity to organize panels on interdisciplinary topics that were not commonly discussed in international arbitration, e.g., international arbitration and corporate governance disputes. I also managed to organize a one-of-a-kind panel on US-India disputes during the California International Arbitration Week, where some panelists flew in from India. I was also invited to a wonderful AAA-ICDR panel on how silence can be interpreted in arbitration, with each person on that panel having a broad international perspective. Those panels allowed me to meet many fantastic international practitioners, who were then mentors and are now great friends. The arbitration community is small, and it helps to have a trusted group of friends.

    I would strongly urge students and young practitioners to join organizations that resonate with them. For instance, I’ve been an active member of CalArb since I moved to the US and have continued to attend the California International Arbitration Week as a moderator for the last two years. I’m also a steering committee member of IWIA and a Peer Reviewer for the GNLU SRDC-ADR Magazine. Being at the helm of organizations really helps you naturally connect with your peers in the arbitration community. 

    From GNLU to Stanford and your extensive work across litigation, arbitration, and academia, what advice would you offer to young Indian lawyers aspiring to build a global legal career? What mindset or skills do you believe are essential to thrive in international legal settings?

    Many young lawyers reach out to me with the same question: “What’s the path?” And my honest answer is that there isn’t one path. But if there’s one mindset I think is essential, it is that it’s okay not being the most knowledgeable person in a room. When I moved from India to the U.S., I had already argued in courtrooms, cross-examined witnesses, and led client negotiations. But in the US, I was always surrounded by excellent — and far better— peers, both at my law school and my current law firm. I was always told not to be afraid of being the least experienced person in the room, because that just means you’re in the right room. Second, detach your identity from titles. I’ve been an associate, a senior associate, a student, a tribunal secretary — and each role taught me something profoundly different. The point isn’t to climb a ladder, but rather to try to expand your vision. Finally, be willing to fail. And more importantly, be willing to fail better. One of the most liberating shifts in my mindset was realizing that failure is not static but rather directional. If you’re failing at things that matter and learn from that ‘failure’, you’re probably moving closer to being excellent at the work you’re meant to do.

    A global legal career is built on persistence, perspective, and an openness to being reshaped by the world you’re trying to serve. 

    Reflecting on the early years of your professional journey, what were some of the most formative experiences that shaped your understanding of the law and motivated you to pursue an international trajectory?

    Looking back, I think it was a very natural but not direct progression. I was always inclined towards political science and economics in school, gravitated toward spaces where people debated and defended their ideas, and heavily participated in Model UNs (from Harvard to Doon); all of which gave me a glimpse into how power, diplomacy, and language interact. At law school, I started applying law to defending ideas and participated in international moot court competitions. Jessup and ICC were particularly transformative because they are immensely immersive simulations of international law. I remember spending nights untangling treaties, piecing together arguments on state responsibility, and realizing how layered global law could be. It was also easy to draft briefs because I was simultaneously learning to review drafts while being on editorial boards at journals. Mooting taught me precision and encouraged me to apply for international opportunities.

    An international opportunity that stuck out to me was working at the International Law Commission in Geneva for the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. My law school was also very helpful and awarded me a scholarship once I was selected. Sitting in on discussions where international rules were being drafted, I saw first-hand how legal systems tried (and often struggled) to build consensus. That experience gave me the quiet conviction that I wanted to be in rooms like that, where the stakes were high, but there was a strong intent to collaborate. 

    Those early years weren’t always linear. But they were rich — and they planted the seeds for everything that followed.

    You’re a certified Classical Spanish Guitarist, an extraordinary pursuit alongside your legal career. How do you manage work-life balance, and has your engagement with music influenced your approach to stress management, creativity, or sustained focus in high-pressure legal environments?

    I don’t think I’ve ever liked the phrase “work-life balance.” It feels like a scale you’re constantly failing to calibrate. I follow Indra Nooyi’s thoughts on this: it’s not about doing it all—it’s about prioritizing what matters most today. 

    Having hobbies is important not just to reduce stress but also to help you forcibly take a pause. The classical guitar has always been my little escape. It requires discipline, concentration, and most importantly, to enjoy the music you’re playing. You can’t rush through a Bach prelude — your fingers won’t let you and the music makes no sense. Playing music trains your mind to be fully present, to respect silence, and to pay attention to your notes.

    In law, especially in high-stakes litigation or arbitration, we’re constantly managing pressure, deadlines, and expectations. It’s easy to lose yourself, and needless to say that your family and friends play a huge role in feeling like you have a solid support system. My mom (who was a fantastic business leader in her own right, much like most women I know), had a huge influence in my life growing up and continues to do so. Luckily, neither my mom nor many close friends are attorneys, and their perspective helps me view work from a less “all-encompassing” lens.

    Get in touch with Vaishali Movva –

  • “Machine learning technology is rapidly evolving, and I believe the current consent-based approach to data privacy will be tested.” – Vishwajith Sadananda, Founder & Lead Counsel at Sadananda & Prasad, Advocates.

    “Machine learning technology is rapidly evolving, and I believe the current consent-based approach to data privacy will be tested.” – Vishwajith Sadananda, Founder & Lead Counsel at Sadananda & Prasad, Advocates.

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

    With nearly 12 years of impressive experience in the legal field, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law? Which aspects of the profession resonated with you the most, and how did your time at NALSAR University of Law shape your legal journey?

    I wish I had a more elevated answer to give you on what inspired me to become a lawyer. I think I was 10 years old when I got into a playful argument with my uncle. His son in law watched the entire episode and causally remarked that I should become a lawyer. I said “sure” and from that day I didn’t even conceive of an alternative career. In short, I have my brother in law to credit (or blame, depending on how the day is going). 

    The way I’ve looked at the profession has changed quite a bit from the time I chose to become a lawyer. Like many other first generation lawyers, my understanding of what a lawyer does was informed by TV shows, movies and books. Of course, NALSAR and my internships during my time in law school made me realise the difference between fiction and reality. During my five years in law school, I was fairly certain that I would litigate – though for the longest time I don’t think I really knew why. Quite naively, I conceived of a career as a lawyer from only two perspectives – litigating lawyer and transactional lawyer.  I had tried my hand at corporate law during my internships, and by the process of elimination I knew I did not want to become a transactional lawyer. I also had a keen interest in debating and public speaking, so  a career that enabled me to speak to an audience daily for living seemed the right fit. 

    Your LL.M. studies at the prestigious University of Michigan Law School must have been a transformative experience. How did those studies influence your practice, particularly in the fields of competition law, constitutional law, and criminal justice? Were there any specific courses or professors whose impact on your legal career has been particularly significant?

    My LLM program at the University of Michigan Law School was both enriching and perhaps one of the toughest things I’ve done in my life. While I can’t say for sure if the content of the law that I learnt has impacted my career (yet), Michigan Law’s emphasis on teaching you to think like a lawyer definitely has. The professors who taught me the courses were experts at the Socratic method, and each day and each class felt like a very public final exam. Particularly, courses by Prof Don Herzog (Political Corruption), Prof Eve Primus (Criminal Procedure) and Prof Richard Primus (Constitutional Law) were life changing. The professors focused more on making us think of a legal argument from both sides seamlessly and sharpen our legal reasoning abilities.  I also got the opportunity to take up courses outside the law school, and had the privilege to be selected for a leadership program by the Stephen M Ross School of Business. So I also got to learn a lot outside the law in Michigan. 

    Having had the privilege to work with eminent legal figures such as Mr. P.S. Narasimha, the Additional Solicitor General of India, and Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar at the Delhi High Court, what were the key lessons you learned from them? How did these experiences shape your approach to the practice of law, and which habits or skills from these mentors have you integrated into your own professional style?

    After NALSAR, I joined Dr. S. Muralidhar, then Judge of the Delhi High Court, as his law clerk for a year. I believe I started to think seriously about the context of the law – and its nuts and bolts – only after joining his office. More importantly, the biggest lesson I learnt during my time as his clerk was that the profession isn’t about me – it isn’t about how I am perceived in court while arguing, how much fame and fortune I get through being a lawyer, or how many important cases I’ve done, but about who I represent and their lived reality.

    Carrying this understanding of the profession, I next joined the chambers of Mr. PS Narasimha, then the Additional Solicitor General of India, for two years before I left for my LL.M. In those two years, I had the chance to be part of some landmark cases like the challenge to the NJAC and the challenge to criminal defamation laws. Working with Mr. PS Narasimha — now Justice Narasimha — was a fantastic experience, as I learnt how to at once look at the big picture while handling a case and analyse precedent granularly. 

    Perhaps most importantly, working under both of them taught me about the value of giving space to a junior lawyer – space to think, to express himself, and to have the freedom to be wrong.

    You have represented a Member of Parliament before the High Court of Karnataka in a public interest litigation challenging the orders issued under Section 144 CrPC by the Government of Karnataka in Bengaluru. What were the key legal arguments you put forth in the case, and how did you navigate the complexities and high stakes involved in such a significant matter?

    When the client approached us, given the time sensitivities involved, we only had about three or four hours to draft, file, get the matter listed and brief our senior counsel.  But despite the short timelines and the pressure of getting the matter heard on time, a bunch of  counsel who were representing similar petitioners got together and helped us in the process of filing and listing the matter – exemplifying the collaborative nature of litigation in general, and our bar in particular.   

    In terms of the merits of the matter, our petition started off focusing on constructing arguments on the values that the Constitution espouses and the meaning of the right to free speech and the right to protest. However, at the time of briefing and during arguments, our senior counsel decided to take a more practical approach to the matter by arguing on administrative law grounds – specifically, whether the orders were issued in a procedurally proper manner, and with reasons. This taught us the value of knowing when to call on a bench to make value-laden calls on the content of rights like free speech and the right to protest, and when to just focus on more objective standards of what the letter of the law permits and prohibits. This approach eventually helped the petitioners win the case, and made me realise the merit of developing tightly reasoned and irrefutable arguments — far from the type that make headlines.

    After working with a range of esteemed lawyers and law firms, what motivated you to establish your own practice? What were some of the initial challenges you faced in this transition, and how did you overcome them to establish a successful practice?

    Whether I’ve established a successful practice is for time to tell. I suppose I, like most litigating lawyers, always wanted to set up my own practice after working for a few years under someone. And as many litigators will tell you, a big part of being a litigating lawyer is being at the right place and at the right time. Before setting up my own practice, I had the chance to handle some of my own clients while being part of Arista Chambers, run by Promod Nair – now a senior counsel — in 2019. During my time at Arista, I slowly built up a base of clients largely through word of mouth. Then Covid hit and a lot changed. By January 2021, it felt like the time was right to start my own practice.

    The real challenge that I faced – and perhaps continue to face – is more internal than anything that involves the actual practice of the law. I don’t know if this is an experience every other litigator has but, for me, I kept (or keep) changing the goalposts. Initially, when I started off, my concerns were about the number of clients and matters I had; this soon changed, and I started to worry about whether I was earning enough to stay on top of things. Very quickly, I moved on to worrying about the kind of matters I was doing and how much of a role I had in various matters. Rinse, repeat. So, essentially, I found myself stressing about different things relating to a career in litigation. Today, I guess I’ve become a bit better at getting some distance from all this, but I would be lying if I said I’ve completely moved beyond these challenges.

    You’ve represented an AI startup in the past. How do you see the future of AI and technology law evolving, particularly in relation to intellectual property rights, data privacy, and regulatory frameworks? What challenges do you anticipate in balancing innovation with legal protections in this rapidly advancing field?

    This may sound like a cliché, but the biggest challenge, I suppose, will be to see whether the law can keep up with technology that appears to be evolving every few months. We’re already seeing this play out live in the Delhi High Court with ANI taking OpenAI to court for copyright infringement. It’ll be interesting to see how the court applies the current copyright regime to deal with technology that was not even conceived at the time the legislation was enacted. The same goes for data privacy. Machine learning technology is rapidly evolving, and I believe the current consent-based approach to data privacy will be tested. I’m not sure how consent can be practically obtained for every instance of use of data when you consider how Gen-AI repurposes data continuously for new outcomes. We may therefore need to imagine a different, more comprehensive data privacy framework for machine learning – or perhaps a separate regulation policy – which not only accounts for the growth and development of the sector, but also keeps at its centre the individual whom the sector is supposed to ultimately serve.

    With your extensive experience spanning constitutional law, commercial disputes, and more, what aspects of the litigation field continue to inspire and drive you? Looking ahead, what vision do you have for both your own career and the future of your firm and how do you balance your personal life with such a demanding career? 

    Three aspects mainly – firstly, I absolutely love the theatre of it all. I like thinking about the delivery of the argument, what style works before which judge, what the judge is thinking at any given point, how to craft the argument before the delivery, and finally the actual delivery of the argument. Secondly, no two days in litigation are the same. One day we are fighting a contentious shareholder dispute; the next day we are going up against the state to protect a farmer’s rights. I’m not sure there are very many professions that enable such diversity in work. Thirdly, every once in a while, you get to represent someone who has been left out by the system. 

    My interest in litigation naturally extends to wanting to nurture those who will shape its future (something I’ve gained immensely from thanks to my previous bosses). At Sadananda & Prasad, we’ve been trying to make it a sort of incubation chamber for future lawyers and a safe space to develop as a lawyer. I believe every good litigator eventually has the dream of starting off on their own, and we hope to create a space where lawyers can come, learn, and start to grow their own practice while not being afraid to fail. That is our vision, and we hope in time this vision is realised.

    Of course, dedication to this vision, and to the profession as a whole, is demanding. That naturally leads to the question of personal balance. I used to try to unwind by either playing a sport or noodling on the guitar or piano. Now I have a 16-month-old, and I spend a significant chunk of my time pretending to be a monkey for her sake. Truth be told, personally, nothing is more stress-relieving.

    What advice would you give to law students aspiring to build a career like yours? What key skills or qualities do you believe are essential for success in these fields? Your journey serves as an inspiration for many, and any advice from you would be invaluable to aspiring legal professionals.

    The role of luck is frankly quite underrated. You may be the best legal mind in the room but still not get the opportunities to showcase it merely because it just isn’t your time. I’ve seen far better lawyers than me give up on litigation simply because of this. So my advice to aspiring litigators would be to just wait for it and don’t give up. Be patient and equanimous. Everyone’s time comes in litigation. In the meantime, be prepared for that moment. Observe and learn from your seniors and peers; know the law – the letter of the law, its logic, and finally its actual practice, so that when your chance comes – which it will – you’re ready to take it. And as my ex-boss often insisted, remember, it’s not about you.

    Get in touch with Vishwajith Sadananda –

  • “The SQE not only enhances one’s grasp of Indian law but also equips practitioners with nuanced legal principles that, although rarely argued in Indian courts, are often favourably applied when effectively presented.” – Abhirath Thakur, Solicitor (England and Wales) and Principal Associate at Economic Laws Practice.

    “The SQE not only enhances one’s grasp of Indian law but also equips practitioners with nuanced legal principles that, although rarely argued in Indian courts, are often favourably applied when effectively presented.” – Abhirath Thakur, Solicitor (England and Wales) and Principal Associate at Economic Laws Practice.

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

    What inspired your decision to pursue law, especially coming from an Army background? Was there a particular experience or influence that sparked your interest in the legal profession and if not how did it develop?

    Being from a Defence family, I grew up observing my father’s unwavering commitment to discipline, integrity, and justice—not just for himself, but for those around him. When I was in Class 12, he was posted in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, where he was entrusted with handling discipline and vigilance matters, including the oversight of legal cases. I often saw him engage with lawyers and Central Government Standing Counsels, and listening to those discussions sparked my initial interest in the legal field.

    Another significant source of inspiration came from our family legacy. My great-grandfather was a barrister trained in England and was considered one of the most affluent and sought-after lawyers of his time. Stories of his work, often narrated by my father, filled me with pride and deepened my fascination with the legal profession. My father’s own experience in the Defence Forces had shown him the transformative power of law in shaping society. His belief in its impact and his encouragement played a crucial role in motivating me to consider a career in law.

    Once in law school, I made it a point to seek practical exposure early on. I interned at various law firms across both corporate and litigation domains to gain a hands-on understanding of the profession. These experiences were eye-opening and shifted my perception of law from a purely academic subject to a dynamic and impactful vocation. I found particular excitement in applying legal principles to real-life situations and was deeply inspired by watching seasoned advocates present arguments in court.

    This exposure transformed my attitude toward the field. I began to genuinely enjoy my studies and took part in moot court competitions, debates, and academic research with renewed enthusiasm. What started as a reluctant compromise gradually evolved into a meaningful and fulfilling calling.

    Looking back, choosing law has been one of the most rewarding decisions of my life. If given the chance to choose again, I wouldn’t hesitate to take the same path.

    You pursued your LL.M. in International Commercial and Corporate Laws at Queen Mary University of London, one of the leading programs in commercial laws and arbitration. How did that academic experience sharpen your legal reasoning, and how do you integrate that international perspective when handling domestic disputes in India?

    Before pursuing an LL.M., I spent four years working in the dispute resolution team at Wadia Ghandy & Co., Delhi. During my tenure, I handled a diverse range of commercial and corporate matters, albeit from a dispute resolution perspective. Working on high-stake and complex cases made me acutely aware of a gap in my understanding of commercial and corporate law—my knowledge, while broad based, lacked the depth I aspired to achieve. This realization prompted my decision to pursue an LL.M., with the aim of gaining a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of this domain.

    My longstanding interest in commercial and corporate law stems from a deep-rooted passion for commerce and business which further motivated me to pursue an LL.M. where I could experience the intersection of law and business, taught by some of the most respected professors in the field. In addition to enhancing my legal understanding, I was also drawn by the opportunity for international exposure and the chance to engage with a truly global legal perspective.

    Undoubtedly, the LL.M. expanded my intellectual horizons and significantly deepened my understanding of international commercial laws. Exposure to an international legal framework offered a broader context and allowed for a more well-rounded grasp of the subject matter. My coursework included modules such as Mergers (a court-approved process in India), Acquisitions and Takeovers, International Commercial Law, Trial Advocacy, Regulation of Financial Markets, Conflict of Laws, and International Commercial Arbitration, among others. I had the privilege of learning from world-renowned professors like Mr. Stavros Brekoulakis and Ms. Rosa Lastra, both recognized authorities in their respective fields, as well as attending guest lectures delivered by distinguished legal luminaries.

    What particularly stood out to me was the pedagogical approach of the LL.M. program. The teaching was rooted in exploring the “why” behind laws—their purpose, evolution, and the jurisprudential rationale—rather than simply focusing on the “what,” which tends to be the predominant style in Indian legal education. This method fosters greater intellectual flexibility and clarity, which I find immensely valuable, even when working on domestic legal matters, as the foundational legal principles often remain consistent.

    To illustrate, consider the field of international arbitration, which has gained significant prominence in recent years and is now considered a cornerstone for lawyers dealing with cross-border disputes. The procedural frameworks of leading arbitral institutions as well as our own Arbitration Act are grounded in the UNCITRAL Model Law. Being taught by professors with direct experience in shaping and applying these frameworks offers invaluable insight—something that an LL.M. program uniquely provides and therefore applying this knowledge in the arbitrations which I am involved in proves to be highly beneficial.

    With 9 years of post-qualification experience in dispute resolution and arbitration, what originally drew you to this field? What have been the most defining moments or lessons that shaped your professional approach within high-stakes litigation environments?

    During law school, I explored a broad spectrum of internships across both corporate and litigation domains. These included stints under senior counsels, litigation lawyers, and prominent law firms. By the end of my academic journey, I found myself increasingly inclined towards litigation. However, I remained cautious about fully committing, having been advised by several mentors about the profession’s slow initial progression and modest early rewards.

    In pursuit of clarity, I joined ASP Advocates—a full-service law firm led by my mentor, Mr. Abhishek Seth. He graciously offered me a legal position where I engaged in a balanced mix of litigation and corporate transactional work. My time at ASP proved instrumental in shaping my professional outlook. I found myself especially drawn to courtroom proceedings, legal drafting, and the application of legal principles to complex factual scenarios. These experiences sharpened my analytical thinking and compelled me to approach problems creatively and critically. After more than a year at ASP, I was certain that litigation was the path I wanted to pursue.

    With a clearer sense of direction, I joined the Delhi office of Wadia Ghandy & Co., where I was exposed to a more demanding and dynamic litigation environment. I worked on a wide range of matters—from high-stakes disputes to those with relatively lower stakes. Interestingly, I came to appreciate that it is often the smaller matters that truly shape a lawyer’s core skills. While high-stake cases typically involve a team of lawyers—where one’s role may be limited—smaller matters offer greater responsibility, hands-on experience, and opportunities to build courtroom confidence. I strongly believe in regularly taking up such cases, along with engaging in pro bono work, both of which are essential for holistic professional growth.

    That said, the value of working in high-stakes litigation cannot be overstated. At Wadia, I was fortunate to be involved in a landmark constitutional matter referred to a nine-judge bench. The case presented intricate questions of constitutional law and involved collaboration with some of the most respected senior advocates before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It demanded intense preparation—multiple strategy conferences, long hours of research, and detailed analysis of extensive judicial precedents. The experience, while intellectually demanding, was equally enriching. I learned through observation—how senior counsels structured their arguments, interpreted precedents, and framed issues strategically to serve the client’s interests. Beyond the legal learning, such work cultivates discipline, resilience, and a deep respect for the value of time—all vital qualities for a successful litigator.

    As my tenure at Wadia progressed, I came to appreciate that every matter—regardless of its perceived importance—requires diligence, precision, and intellectual agility. Growth in litigation is rarely linear; it is the product of sustained effort, patience, and humility. The profession teaches you that it is better to take deliberate steps than to chase quick wins. Success lies in consistent performance, staying focused, and not being swayed by external comparisons. Ultimately, perseverance and commitment—not shortcuts—are the true markers of progress in this field.

    Being dual-qualified as a Solicitor in England & Wales and an Advocate in India is a rare accomplishment. What motivated you to pursue this path, and how has it enhanced your ability to handle cross-border disputes or advise international clients?
    Preparing for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) significantly deepened my understanding of the law. The SQE not only enhances one’s grasp of Indian law but also equips practitioners with nuanced legal principles that, although rarely argued in Indian courts, are often favourably applied when effectively presented.

    Following the completion of my LL.M., I was driven by a strong desire to further strengthen my legal acumen, especially in the context of local and general laws of England and Wales—such as criminal, property, and civil law—which have profoundly influenced the Indian legal system. These laws, having been extensively borrowed and embedded into our legal framework, are best understood through a comparative lens.

    After conducting thorough research and engaging with qualified Solicitors, I was convinced that studying for the SQE would provide me with the foundational understanding of English law necessary to gain a richer, more structured comprehension of Indian law. While an LL.M. offers a broad, often international, legal perspective, the SQE is grounded in the practical and substantive law of England and Wales, which a Solicitor is expected to advise on across a wide range of practice areas. This distinction made the SQE particularly appealing as a rigorous yet rewarding route to legal excellence.

    My SQE preparation has already had a tangible impact on my practice. At Economic Laws Practice, where I was involved in a variety of criminal and property cases, my enhanced understanding of legal principles has proven invaluable. Moreover, the knowledge gained has played a significant role in navigating a complex arbitration involving mortgage disputes, stamp duty issues, and interest-related legal principles.

    You’ve advised clients across a wide spectrum, from defamation and regulatory enforcement to complex partnership disputes. Can you share an example of a particularly challenging or meaningful case and how you navigated it?

    One matter I fondly recall – which was handled by me entirely independently – involves an engaging dispute in the realm of Intellectual Property Law, where I had the opportunity to defend a business conglomerate which was sued for alleged trademark infringement relating to the name of a restaurant it had established in India. The opposing party, a restaurant chain based in the United States, had engaged one of India’s leading IP law firms to represent them.

    The crux of the dispute revolved around the use of the restaurant’s name. The opposing party not only sought its immediate discontinuation but also demanded an exorbitant amount in damages and compensation. However, once I presented our defense, it became evident that their claims were unfounded. My argument drew upon a range of statutory and common law principles, including the absence of cross-border reputation, lack of trademark advertisement or market penetration in India, the generic and descriptive nature of the name, and the failure to establish continuous use. These factors collectively undermined the credibility of their claims and formed a strong foundation for our defense.

    Rather than escalating the matter further, the opposing party recognized the weakness of their position and initiated settlement discussions. What followed were protracted negotiations under the aegis of the Delhi High Court. In a rather unexpected outcome, the settlement concluded with my client receiving compensation—rather than paying it. In exchange, my client agreed to slightly modify the restaurant’s name, though the establishment eventually closed due to limited footfall.

    As someone qualified in two legal systems, what are the biggest differences you’ve observed in dispute resolution culture between India and the UK? 

    While the Indian and UK legal systems share a common foundation rooted in common law principles, the administration of justice in the two countries differs significantly. In my experience, litigation in the UK is far more streamlined and structured to promote early resolution. Protracted legal battles, which are relatively common in India, are a rarity in the UK.

    UK courts often actively encourage—and in some instances, require—parties to explore settlement options before proceeding to trial. This emphasis on alternative dispute resolution and various pre-action protocols helps to reduce the burden on the judiciary and results in more efficient case management. Even though pre-litigation mediation in India is mandatory for commercial matters, it is not strictly followed before proceeding for litigation on one ground or the other. 

    To put this into perspective, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom hears and decides approximately 80 to 120 cases per year. In contrast, the Supreme Court of India handles nearly 600 matters in a single day. Similarly, the lower courts in the UK typically list only two to three cases for hearing each day, allowing for focused and in-depth deliberation. In India, however, the dockets of lower courts are often overcrowded, with judges expected to handle a substantially higher volume of cases daily.

    What guidance would you offer to young lawyers interested in building a career in dispute resolution and arbitration, particularly those exploring international qualifications or LL.M. programs abroad? What key skills or experiences should they prioritize?

    This question has vexed many students in the past and therefore I will strive to answer this in a clear and concise manner. I firmly believe that pursuing an LL.M. can provide invaluable exposure, especially in fields with an international focus. However, it’s essential to approach this decision with clear and realistic expectations. An LL.M. should not be pursued solely as a pathway to employment abroad, as many students may face a harsh reality—the job market in foreign jurisdictions is often limited and highly competitive. The decision to pursue an LL.M. should be guided by a range of considerations—academic interests, professional goals, financial feasibility, and personal fulfilment. There’s no universal path, and what works for one may not suit another. Therefore, it’s important to evaluate all these factors carefully before taking the plunge.

    An LL.M. can be especially beneficial in fields with a strong international focus such as international arbitration, cross-border commercial litigation, international trade law, transnational mergers and acquisitions, and similar areas. In such domains, the specialized knowledge and global perspective offered by an LL.M. can significantly enhance your career prospects.

    In my experience, gaining some work experience before pursuing an LL.M. is highly advisable. There are two key reasons for this: first, with practical experience, you’re better positioned to understand and appreciate the academic content of the program. Second, if you intend to leverage your LL.M. for international job opportunities, prior work experience may place you in a stronger position. That said, I’m not suggesting waiting too long—after all, the energy, enthusiasm, and flexibility you have at 26 may not quite be the same at 36.

    An LL.M. also offers an excellent platform for building a global professional network. It brings together individuals from diverse jurisdictions, offering the chance to forge meaningful connections and broaden your international legal perspective—both of which are valuable assets in today’s interconnected legal landscape.

    While the LL.M. certainly plays a pivotal role in supplementing legal knowledge and providing a strong academic foundation, it is not a substitute for the essential traits of a successful lawyer—hard work, resilience, and sharp analytical skills. Rather, it serves as a powerful catalyst that enhances these qualities and prepares one for the evolving demands of modern legal practice.

    Get in touch with Abhirath Thakur –

  • “Legal entrepreneurship is about compound growth. Trust builds slowly; reputation takes time.” – Vedant Pujari, Founding Partner of Accures IP Care LLP.

    “Legal entrepreneurship is about compound growth. Trust builds slowly; reputation takes time.” – Vedant Pujari, Founding Partner of Accures IP Care LLP.

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

    Coming from a commerce background, what initially inspired you to pursue law? Was it a long-standing goal, or did your interest in the legal field evolve over time?

    Like most 18-year-olds, I had little clue of what I wanted to do with my life. The only streams that most people around me suggested were engineering or medicine, but I knew those weren’t for me. Not because I didn’t respect those fields, but they just didn’t click with who I was. I ended up in commerce because I enjoyed business and finance as it felt naturally coming to me. Toward the end of my degree, I started preparing for CA like most commerce students do. But halfway through, I realized I was just going through the motions. It wasn’t exciting me.

    The real turning point was completely random. I was at the canteen at ILS Law College, Pune, chatting with a friend who was studying law. He started talking about constitutional law, contracts, torts and at that point something clicked. The way he described these subjects made me realize law could be the perfect blend of intellectual challenge and real-world impact I was looking for.

    I applied to ILS that same year. Best decision I ever made. What I love about this journey is that my commerce background wasn’t wasted, in fact it actually gives me an edge. When I’m advising startups or corporations today, I understand both the legal framework and the business reality. Law isn’t just rules on paper; it’s a tool to make business happen. My advice to young people feeling lost? Don’t panic if you don’t have it all figured out. Stay curious, take calculated risks, and trust that the dots will connect eventually.

    You began your legal journey with a prestigious law firm in Delhi. What drew you specifically to intellectual property law, and what early experiences deepened your interest and shaped your expertise in this domain?

    I have to credit Prof. Neelima Bhadbade at ILS Law College, Pune for planting the IP seed. Back then, intellectual property was still relatively niche in India, not like today where many are aware of it. She made it fascinating by connecting Indian law with international cases and showing us how IP actually worked in the real world.

    Getting campus recruited by an IP firm in Delhi was lucky timing. This Firm then was a small team of 7-8 people, which meant I couldn’t hide in a corner doing research all day. I was thrown into the deep end patent filings, trademark disputes, copyright issues and other wide spectrum of IP practice. My mentor back then, one of the founding partners thankfully gave me real responsibility early on. Scary at the time, but invaluable in hindsight. My personal rule was simple: “never say no to any assignment”. I’d stay late figuring things out, reading cases, calling up senior colleagues with questions. Resources weren’t as easily available as they are now, we had to dig for everything. But that struggle taught me to really understand the fundamentals.

    The breakthrough for me was learning to translate complex legal concepts into practical business advice. That’s what clients actually appreciate, not a lecture on case law, but clear guidance on what they should do next. That skill of making law accessible and actionable has been crucial throughout my career.

    What keeps me passionate about IP after two decades? The field never stops evolving. From AI-generated content to digital piracy to blockchain, there’s always a new challenge that requires you to think differently.

    After beginning in a law firm environment, you transitioned into a corporate role. What motivated this change, and what key differences did you observe in terms of the challenges, culture, and expectations in both settings?

    This transition wasn’t something I planned. It happened organically. After several years at the firm, the leadership decided to launch an IP outsourcing company to offer specialized services like patent searches, docketing, and portfolio management. They asked me to lead the IP products division, and I thought, “Why not? This could be interesting.”

    The culture shock was immediate and eye-opening. At the law firm, everything revolved around legal excellence. We asked questions like could your argument hold up in court? Would the IP office accept your position? Quality was paramount, even if it took longer. In the corporate environment, it was all about scalable processes, efficiency metrics, and standardized deliverables. Instead of crafting legal strategy, I was building repeatable workflows.

    The work rhythm was completely different too. Law firms operate on client urgency and if something’s critical, you work until it’s done. The corporate side was much more structured: 9 to 6 schedules, shift patterns for international clients, strict turnaround times. Frankly, I found it limiting. As a lawyer, I thrive on diving deep into complex problems, which doesn’t always fit neat time slots. What I missed most was the direct client relationship. In a law firm, we were solving strategic problems with general counsels and business leaders.

    Having said that, this stint was brief but valuable. It clarified what I really wanted from my career. I realized I am energized by intellectual complexity, client relationships, and strategic problem solving, client facing and all of which led me back to traditional legal practice. 

    Sometimes you need to step outside your comfort zone to appreciate what you have.

    What inspired you to establish your own legal practice, and how did you navigate the challenges of entrepreneurship in the legal field? Were there any pivotal moments that helped solidify your decision?

    The decision wasn’t a lightning bolt moment, in fact it evolved over time. After years in firms and that corporate stint, I kept asking myself: “What if I built a practice the way I think it should be done?” The pivotal moment came when I realized if I didn’t try now, I might never get another chance. 

    Let me be blunt about what entrepreneurship in law really looks like:

    Entrepreneurship is lonely. You can have great mentors and supportive family, but at 2 AM when you’re stressing about payroll or a difficult client, it’s just you. Nobody shares your failures, and the tough decisions are yours alone. Accept this reality upfront.

    Think long-term or don’t bother. If you expect quick wins, you’ll be disappointed. Building a respected practice takes years. I tell lawyers considering this path: if you can’t commit to a 10 to 15 year horizon, stay in your firm job. Legal entrepreneurship is about compound growth. Trust builds slowly; reputation takes time.

    Client relationships are everything. In a big firm, you inherit institutional relationships. As a founder, every client relationship starts from zero. I treated every matter, no matter how small, as if it were my biggest client. That approach led to repeat business and referrals.

    Vision with flexibility. I was clear about wanting to create an IP practice that truly served business needs, not just legal technicalities. But I had to adapt constantly because of the client’s changing requirements, the evolution of the legal landscape and market dynamics shift.

    Resilience isn’t optional. There will be lean months, difficult clients, and moments when you question everything. What got me through was believing deeply in what I was building and never compromising on quality.

    My advice to aspiring legal entrepreneurs is “don’t rush it”. Master your craft first, understand the business of law, and build relationships. Then, when you’re ready, jump with both clarity and courage.

    You’ve advised a wide range of clients, from startups and creative agencies to pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions. How do you adapt your IP strategies to meet the unique needs and growth stages of such varied industries?

    After 20 years of practice, I’ve learned that one-size-fits-all IP strategies don’t work. My approach is what I call “protection with purpose” – every IP decision must align with the client’s specific business goals.

    Startups and creative agencies need agility and smart prioritization. They’re usually cash constrained but need to show IP value to investors. I help them identify their crown jewels i.e. what IP assets will matter most for funding, partnerships, or market differentiation. We might focus on key trademarks, core provisional patents, or critical copyrights first, building the foundation they can expand later.

    On the other hand, pharmaceutical companies require sophisticated, multi layered strategies. We’re managing global patent portfolios, complex licensing deals, regulatory considerations. Here, it’s about creating patent thickets around key products such that it covers the compound, formulation, manufacturing process, methods of use. The goal is sustainable competitive advantage across multiple markets.

    Academic institutions have unique challenges – they want to commercialize research but maintain an open academic culture. The strategy focuses on identifying commercializable innovations early, filing strategic patents that don’t hinder further research, and creating licensing frameworks that benefit both the institution and industry partners.

    The key is spending time upfront understanding each client’s business model, competitive landscape, and growth trajectory. I’m not just filing patents or trademarks – I’m helping build strategic moats around their most valuable assets. What remains constant across all clients is the principle that IP should enable business, not complicate it. Whether I’m talking to a first-time entrepreneur or a Fortune 500 general counsel, the conversation starts with understanding what they’re trying to achieve.

    In your experience, what are the most common misconceptions businesses have about intellectual property protection? How do you guide them toward a more accurate understanding?

    After two decades of client conversations, I see the same misconceptions repeatedly. Here are the big ones:

    IP is only for big companies – Wrong. Some of the most valuable IP I’ve worked on came from small startups. Your trademark or patent could be your most important business asset, regardless of company size.

    One filing protects me everywhere – IP rights are territorial. A US patent doesn’t protect you in India. A trademark registered in India doesn’t automatically work in Singapore. Global protection requires global strategy.

    Once filed, I’m protected forever – IP requires active management. Patents expire, trademarks need renewal, portfolios need monitoring. I’ve seen valuable rights lost simply because nobody was paying attention to deadlines.

    My company name gives me trademark rights – Company registration and trademark rights are separate. You can register “XYZ Private Limited” but that doesn’t give you exclusive rights to use “XYZ” as a brand.

    How do I fix these misconceptions? Education and real examples. I show them competitors who got it right and ones who didn’t. I explain IP not as abstract legal concepts but as business tools. How a well-crafted patent portfolio helped one client raise Series A funding, or how trademark vigilance saved another from expensive rebranding.

    The conversation always comes back to business strategy. IP isn’t just legal housekeeping, it’s competitive advantage, asset value, and risk management rolled into one.

    How do you foresee IP law evolving over the next five years, especially considering emerging technologies, shifting regulatory landscapes, and global geopolitical dynamics?

    IP law is entering one of the most dynamic periods in its history. As we look ahead to the next five years, I believe several major forces will reshape how businesses think about and manage their IP and how lawyers will need to adapt their counsel to serve clients effectively.

    The rise of emerging technologies particularly AI and blockchain is challenging traditional IP frameworks. Questions such as who owns AI-generated content, or how blockchain can be used for IP rights management and enforcement are already pressing issues. I foresee regulatory bodies around the world moving to update and harmonise IP laws to address these new realities, though this evolution will be gradual and will require active dialogue between industry, policymakers, and the legal community. 

    We are also witnessing a shift toward a more strategic and data-driven approach to IP management. Businesses increasingly see IP not just as a legal shield but as a core business asset i.e. the one that supports valuation, drives licensing revenue, and enhances market position. In this context, IP lawyers must evolve from being pure legal technicians to becoming strategic advisors who can help clients align IP strategy with business goals. This is where my mantra of “protection with purpose” will be even more relevant going forward.

    Geopolitical dynamics and regulatory fragmentation will continue to pose challenges for global IP strategy. With shifting alliances, evolving trade agreements, and varying national approaches to data protection and IP enforcement, businesses will need tailored, jurisdiction-specific advice. I also expect greater emphasis on IP enforcement and brand protection in digital environments, as e-commerce continues to grow, and cross-border infringement becomes more sophisticated.

    In short, the future of IP law will be more complex, fast paced, and integrated with business strategy than ever before. As lawyers, we must be prepared to continuously learn, collaborate across disciplines, and help clients navigate this evolving landscape with foresight and purpose.

    My advice to clients: don’t wait for perfect regulatory clarity. The companies that adapt quickly to these changes will have sustainable advantages. Those that wait will be playing catch-up.

    Managing a demanding legal practice can be intense. How do you maintain a healthy work-life balance, and is there a personal philosophy or motto that has consistently guided you throughout your professional journey?

    Let me be honest, work life balance in legal practice isn’t about perfect equilibrium every day. It’s about sustainable intensity over decades.

    There are times when the practice demands everything like a major litigation heating up, international deals with tight deadlines or crisis management for key clients. During these periods, I’m all in. But I’ve learned to be equally intentional about recovery periods. When things are quieter, I actively recharge, usually with cycling, hitting the gym, watching mindless TV, or just sitting quietly doing nothing.

    Building a strong team was crucial for long-term sustainability. Early in my practice, I tried to handle everything myself. That’s a recipe for burnout. Learning to delegate and trust others was one of my biggest growth areas. A well-functioning team isn’t just good for business, it’s what allows you to have a life outside the office.

    My personal motto has evolved over the years, but what guides me now is “Do your best, let go of the rest, and expect less.” In a profession where perfectionism is expected, this mindset keeps me sane. I focus on delivering excellence where it truly matters, accept that I’m human and will make mistakes, and maintain perspective about what really counts in life. Law is what I do, not who I am.

    Physical and mental health aren’t luxuries, they’re business necessities. You can’t serve clients well if you’re constantly stressed or burned out. I’ve made peace with the fact that some periods will be all-consuming, but I actively protect time for renewal.

    What advice would you offer to young lawyers who aspire to work on IP law? Were there any specific habits, values, or resources that played a significant role in shaping your professional growth in this field?

    For young lawyers aspiring to build a career in intellectual property law, my foremost advice is this – develop both depth and breadth. IP is a wonderfully multidisciplinary field, it sits at the intersection of law, technology, business and creativity. IP law is constantly evolving whether through landmark judgments, international treaties or emerging technologies like AI. Develop a habit of reading widely not just case law, but also industry reports, scientific advancements and business news. Always act with professionalism and respect for confidentiality. Develop a mindset of “protection with purpose”, understand why each IP asset matters to the client’s business, and align your advice accordingly.

    Lastly, invest time in building mentorship relationships and learning from peers and seniors. In my own journey, I gained immensely from working under exceptional mentors who challenged me and gave me opportunities to grow. 

    After 20 years in IP practice, here’s what I wish someone had told me when I started:

    1. Develop both depth and breadth: Master core IP law principles but also understand the business and innovation contexts you’ll be advising.

    2. Adopt a mindset of continuous learning: Stay ahead of evolving IP law, emerging technologies (AI, blockchain), and global IP trends.

    3. Build strong values early: Always practice with integrity and diligence

    4. Embrace every opportunity to learn: Take on diverse assignments, large and small, and see every task as a learning opportunity.

    5. Learn from inspiring seniors and build trust-based networks. These relationships will shape your growth.

    Get in touch with Vedant Pujari –

  • “I have always had an inquisitive nature and a strong desire to view situations from multiple perspectives. These qualities naturally drew me toward a career in law.” – Shashi Priyadarshini, Lead Attorney (Commercial Counsel) at WNS.

    “I have always had an inquisitive nature and a strong desire to view situations from multiple perspectives. These qualities naturally drew me toward a career in law.” – Shashi Priyadarshini, Lead Attorney (Commercial Counsel) at WNS.

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

    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:

    1. All legal rights and obligations are clearly defined and back-to-back between the customer contract and the vendor agreement.
    2. The third-party vendor is fully compliant with the local laws and regulations applicable to the services they are performing.
    3. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    Get in touch with Shashi Priyadarshini –

  • “Every case has its challenges, but the ones that stay with you are those that reveal both the human side of crime and the imperfections of our system.” – Piyush Singhal, Managing Partner at JS Law Chambers.

    “Every case has its challenges, but the ones that stay with you are those that reveal both the human side of crime and the imperfections of our system.” – Piyush Singhal, Managing Partner at JS Law Chambers.

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

    What was your experience like pursuing the B.S.L., LL.B. program at Symbiosis Law School, Pune University? What inspired you to choose law as a career path?

    I was part of the 2000-2005 batch at Symbiosis Law School, Pune. At the time, that was the only campus of Symbiosis and it was affiliated to Pune University. Coming from the heartlands of Uttar Pradesh, where I studied across various districts, transitioning to a cosmopolitan campus was a cultural shift. School life in U.P. was more traditional and structured, but at Symbiosis, I experienced diversity, freedom of thought, and a broader outlook on the law and society.

    I was never inclined toward science or mathematics, which were often the only options given to students back then. I wasn’t great at either. Fortunately, coming from a legal background, law was always present in my environment. It lingered in my mind and triggered a serious interest soon after school. I appeared for the entrance exam and secured admission into Symbiosis, and from that moment onward, I knew I had found my calling. The depth of civil and criminal law captivated me from the very beginning — corporate culture was never my cup of tea. I always wanted to be a courtroom lawyer, and that conviction only grew stronger during my law school years.

    In the early stages of your career, you served as State Counsel for Uttar Pradesh at the Supreme Court of India. How did that experience shape your legal perspective, and what impact did it have on your professional growth?

    I’ll be honest — nepotism does exist in our profession. But having said that, the opportunity to serve as State Counsel for Uttar Pradesh at the Supreme Court early in my career was a transformative phase. I was entrusted with drafting Criminal SLPs, Article 32 petitions, Reviews, and more. But it wasn’t just about the legal work, it was mainly the environment that shaped me.

    Being in court every day, watching legendary lawyers argue, listening to courtroom banter… it was mesmerizing. That exposure taught me courtroom craft like nothing else. It is often said that a lawyer must be crystal clear on the facts, because the judges already know the law. That wisdom stayed with me. The court isn’t impressed by ornamental arguments; it respects clarity and preparation.

    What inspired you to establish your own independent practice? Could you share some of the initial challenges you faced and how you navigated through them?

    I started my independent practice quite early, opening a one-room office on the second floor of a building in Lajpat Nagar. It wasn’t easy. I had to knock on different doors, asking for work. Gradually, I got empaneled with banks and insurance companies. Alongside, I took on private civil and criminal matters and even matters related to IPR.

    I never said no to any work — whether it was registering a marriage or conducting due diligence for agricultural, residential, or commercial properties. That consistency and “go-getter” attitude paid off. Word of mouth remains the best marketing strategy, and that helped me earn the trust of top professionals in MNCs.

    Having the bank and insurance panels helped extend my practice pan-India. I proactively offered pan-India services and built a network of trusted lawyers across the country. It wasn’t easy. Far from it! It was, in fact, full of unexpected challenges, but persistence paid off. Today, I can proudly say that I run a reliable pan-India litigation practice serving multiple clients nationwide.

    You’ve represented the Delhi Police in numerous cases involving fundamental rights and constitutional matters. Is there a particular case that stands out as especially challenging or impactful?

    Every case has its challenges. But the ones that stay with you are those that show you both the human side of crime and the imperfections of our system. I remember one particular case: a brutal murder on a public road using large knives and swords. There were eyewitnesses, there were recoveries, and I was representing the victim.

    There was strong evidence, but the accused were powerful. Witnesses were threatened, some were even bought off. I remember walking into the courtroom flanked by over a hundred men glaring at me. We had to move multiple applications to secure protection for the witnesses. Some still turned hostile. Working closely with the police, I saw firsthand how their hard work can be undone by manipulation and intimidation. That case deeply affected me — it showed me both the resilience and the vulnerability of our justice system.

    When handling high-stakes criminal matters, how do you balance the legal complexities with the emotional and human elements that often accompany such cases?

    In high-stakes criminal matters, it’s never just about law books and precedents. There are real people, real emotions, and very often, deep trauma involved. I’ve seen crimes born out of vengeance, impulse, and even false allegations. Whether I’m representing the victim or the accused, I try to understand the ‘why’ — in legal parlance, the “motive” — the story behind the act. It helps me build my case, because crimes are rarely black and white.

    One must be both empathetic and analytical while handling criminal cases. That balance helps in framing a stronger legal strategy and also in dealing with clients and especially their families, who are often emotionally shattered.

    In your experience handling matters under Labour & Employment Laws, what are the most common issues establishments face, and how can these be addressed proactively in the early stages?

    Being associated with MNCs and institutional clients, I frequently deal with labour and employment contract issues. The most common problems arise due to ambiguous employment agreements, non-compliance with termination procedures, misclassification of employees, and disputes over wages or bonuses.

    To avoid these issues, companies must ensure their employment contracts are drafted with legal precision, HR policies are clear and compliant, and they follow due process during hiring, termination, or disciplinary actions. Early legal intervention and internal audits can prevent most of these problems. A stitch in time truly saves nine in labour law.

    What are the key considerations and recent developments in bail jurisprudence that legal practitioners should be mindful of when representing clients before the Supreme Court, various High Courts, and district courts in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana?

    “Bail is the rule, jail is the exception”: this principle from State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977 AIR 2447) is often quoted but rarely followed in spirit. Bail today is a discretionary and often inconsistent domain. Two identical fact situations can yield two very different bail outcomes.

    Judgments like Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar have helped reduce unnecessary arrests, especially in offences punishable with less than 7 years. But we still lack uniformity. Courts are supposed to consider whether the accused will tamper with evidence, flee, or pressurize witnesses. But over time, “gravity of offence” has taken disproportionate weight, which was never meant to be a primary criterion.

    I’ve seen false cases filed to settle personal scores, even invoking POCSO where minors are tutored to speak against relatives in matrimonial disputes. Allegations under 376 IPC or Section 354 are sometimes misused in civil or employment-related vendettas. Of course, not every case is false; but the potential for misuse is real. Legal practitioners must push for more consistency and emphasize the fundamental principles of liberty and fairness.

    What advice would you offer to young professionals aspiring to build a career in litigation? Are there any particular habits, resources, or practices that have helped you stay current and sharp in this fast-evolving field?

    • Use AI and digital tools wisely. They’re helpful, but they’re no substitute for deep legal understanding. Read every word in your draft. Don’t blindly trust technology or florid language from thesauruses or ChatGPT. Courts appreciate clarity and precision, not jargon or verbosity. Big, long drafts may work in corporate circles, but they don’t impress judges.
    • Precision wins cases. Read regularly — judgments, legal updates, articles — and never stop refining your drafting and argumentation. Litigation is a responsibility. Be present. Be prepared.

    Looking ahead, what is your vision for the future of your legal practice and your personal journey within the profession? How do you maintain focus and mindfulness in pursuit of that vision?

    Advocacy has become more than just a profession for me. It is my lifestyle, my identity. I cannot imagine a day without the rhythm of courtrooms, case files, and client interactions. It’s what keeps me grounded, challenged, and constantly evolving. My vision is to continue offering honest, effective legal solutions, build on the pan-India practice I’ve established, and serve every client with the same commitment, till my last breath. There is no looking back.

    Law runs in my blood; we are a family of lawyers. My father, a retired High Court Judge, has been my lifelong mentor. His insights, clarity of thought, and sense of balance in legal reasoning continue to guide me. Whenever I’m stuck, I know exactly where to turn. My wife is an in-house counsel, my mother (though not practicing) has a deep understanding of law, and not a day goes by in our house without spirited legal debates. Sometimes it’s lively, sometimes it’s noisy, but it’s always engaging. Along with the love and care that bind us, law is also the force that connects and energizes us.

    Focus and mindfulness for me come from consistency and determination. The determination to read every document carefully, to understand every client personally, and to never compromise on precision. I believe in showing up — fully present and fully prepared — every single day. That’s what shapes long-term success.

    I’ve also been fortunate to have worked under some of the finest seniors, whose mentorship helped me in understanding not just the letter of law, but also the unwritten code of ethics and decorum in the courtroom. Their teachings stay with me even today.

    As the profession evolves with technology and new challenges, I remain rooted in traditional advocacy values: clarity, credibility, and compassion. That’s the compass I follow on this lifelong journey.

    Get in touch with Piyush Singhal –

  • Choosing Law, Living Justice: A Woman’s Stand for Change in Indian Courts – Niyati Sharma, Founder of NS Solicitors.

    Choosing Law, Living Justice: A Woman’s Stand for Change in Indian Courts – Niyati Sharma, Founder of NS Solicitors.

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

    Let’s understand why and how you chose to pursue a career in law while you had already completed your Bachelor’s in English from Delhi University?

    It’s a very interesting question though. I never thought of becoming a lawyer, but I had this idea in my mind that I wanted to do something which has a larger public interest.
    It was my father who wanted me to become a lawyer. I was a UPSC aspirant and I used to say, this time I’m sure that I’ll clear UPSC. And he used to say that you will become a very good lawyer.
    So it was his inspiration and the journey when I entered into law. And when I did my first internship, it was at the Delhi Commission for Women.
    I had goosebumps when I went there for the first time. And for the first week, I could not sleep. I used to say to my mom that I never thought that women are in such a bad condition. What I was seeing was a nine-month pregnant lady saying that her husband pushed her back, threw her out of the house, and beat her so much that she ran away. Another female was raped by ten men. She had married one, and he just captured her in her home, and she was being raped daily by ten people.
    She said that she had just run out of that place. So that sort of complaint was coming from very basic people who never knew what law was, who never knew what resort they had or where they could go and complain. And when I saw that this power a lawyer has, this knowledge a lawyer has, any female lawyer or a male lawyer can deliver this justice or help in taking that path, this internship changed my outlook. And this was the reason that I decided I will not go for judiciary, I will not go for UPSC, but I will go for litigation.

    During the very early stages of your legal career, what kind of experiences do you see have shaped your thoughts in relation to the kind of practice that you want to take forward because you are doing something very unusual? Why? Because your points towards bringing in that social justice in society are very different. And I really would request you to bring in those aspects which were so inspiring for me. And I really don’t want to push anything, but I just want to understand how you came to that thought process because it’s not easy for anyone to just give up something so big and plan something to do for society that easily.

    So basically, I had a plain paper when I entered into litigation. No one from my family, no one from my in-laws, no background from lawyers or litigants to the nearest or the far more relatives I could see. I had never experienced or listened to any lawyer or their experience. I just did law and I came as a practitioner.
    But as soon as I came, I realized that this is the only field which is gender neutral. Gender neutral in the sense that the hard work a male has to do, the same a female has to do.
    You have to earn your client on your own. You have to work on your own. Suppose I say today that I want to practice in the field of IPR or I want to practice in the corporate field, but I want to be in litigation. That means I should have my own clients. But then I’m getting divorce cases, I’m getting property disputes, depending on the social exposure that I have or the client base or the people who know me as now becoming a lawyer. So the first and foremost thing I realized after becoming a lawyer is that you cannot choose your profession, the profession chooses you.
    That means the field you can’t choose, the field will choose you. Otherwise, in a job in various law firms, you can apply for a job in which you are interested. But becoming a proper advocate, practicing independently as a litigant, you have to wait for your clients. Then, when I say it is a gender neutral process, a client comes to you, a client doesn’t bother if you are not feeling well, you are married, you have shifted to a new place, you have kids, you don’t have kids, you’re pregnant, you’re not pregnant. Doesn’t matter.
    For them, they need the delivery of their work. Doesn’t matter whether you’ve eaten or not. And the same things apply to a male. They don’t bother if there’s some mishap in the family, if they’re struggling with something, or if they don’t have people to come. Whatever the problem a male faces, the same problem and even more a female has to face. So I understood that I can’t cry like a crybaby. I have to make sure that I have my own setup.
    I have my own work culture. I have to set my own standards, and I have to start working the way every second person in this profession is working. Every colleague is working with the same passion that I am working with. What difference do I have to offer to my clients? I should trust them.
    I should be loyal to their work. I should be readily available to them. These are very important points. It’s very unfortunate that I’m saying this, but clients come to me with this problem that their lawyer is not picking up the call. It is very shocking because taking a case means taking the whole life of an individual. So this moral social obligation that we as lawyers have, ethics also, we know what our ethics say. But fortunately or unfortunately, whatever the circumstances are, I can’t comment on that.
    But these are three to four very essential things as a lawyer irrespective of whether you are a male or a female, you have to face.
    But when I went to the court, I saw that actually the condition, the infrastructure is very poor.
    I strived in the chamber for almost four or five years. I worked from the chamber, and what I realized was that there were no basic amenities, no washroom facilities. If a female is pregnant, then she might have some medical condition if she’s using those washrooms on a daily basis. And when it comes to hygiene, it was very bad. And with respect to females, there’s another factor of hygiene. It was very bad. And with respect to females there’s another factor of regular day-to-day monthly hygiene and basic facilities and amenities, but all of them were lacking.
    I realized that one of my colleagues, she started practicing with me. She got married, she was blessed with a baby girl, and then she was nowhere to be seen in the court. I asked her, why aren’t you coming?
    So she said that my baby is too small, and coming to court means you have to start by 9 in the morning, and you don’t know whether you will be reaching back by 8 or 9 or 10. The time is not limited. And I can’t leave work. There is no facility in the court where I could come with the baby and use a creche facility, leave her, do my work, and go back. And this is not about the Honorable Supreme Court or Honorable Delhi High Court. The basic infrastructure at the district court level, where most of the females are working and being independent lawyers, they get cases, independent cases, that means they have their own client base. So they have to first start with district court only. Nobody will give you a direct SLP of the Supreme Court.
    So they have to struggle for that. And with the gap of the maternity time period, their family also says that you can’t take the child, what are you earning? It doesn’t make sense because those first five years are pretty hard for every lawyer, either male or female. And when we see that there are females of 20 to 25 years, 30 years of age groups from 20 to 30 years, and then you see females from roughly around 40 and above because in those 10 years, most of the females are engaged in their household activities.
    So for that, I observed that in order to sustain in this field, every female has to find a way out. First, it’s better to establish yourself, and it’s very important that as a female you have a better family who understands you, after marriage and before marriage, who understands your work, respects it, and helps cater to those four to five years of growing up and understands your development and growth.
    So the challenges of being a female lawyer are very interesting, and it’s very deep. And I enjoy those challenges. And then I see myself that I have actually come out of it, so I feel that it’s worth living.

    My next question would be, how do you see all these kind of challenging impacts help you either get better perspective towards law or help you get clients or help you do the networking, because all of these things at the end of the day end up either having a better network which will bring in a long term of change or have better clients who may or may not bring in that particular change.

    So how do you see your practice moving towards a specific area of such sorts which actually points out such important things that are not there. That is basic infrastructure, just to practice. So how do you see yourself in times to come?

    See, what future to predict I don’t know, but what I can say is it has made me a better human being in that perspective because being a lawyer, being from a well off family, or a family who promotes females to get educated and also in my next family where I am married. They also promote females to be educated, to go out and to have work.

    She’s struggling that there are no washrooms in the capital of Delhi in the main courts where almost five to ten lakh people are coming on a daily basis. And again, I’m not talking about Honorable Delhi Court and Honorable Supreme Court. They have very good facilities.

    But when we come to district court, I can’t say what Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana district courts are to offer to the lawyers. But when I see that there’s no creche facility, no washroom facility.

    I can feel that a female who’s not empowered, who’s not having that support from the family, who is not educated, now they have to face daily life problems.

    Their husband might die and they might end up in domestic violence disputes with their in-laws.

    Or they have husbands who are not supportive. Or the family, they got married and she has to run off and she might be facing some other issues from the family or a girl who has taken a step out and she got married but it doesn’t work the way she had thought. And now she wants to explore legal remedies.

    So, since India has so much population, and the population has so much thought process and every individual is different, I feel that this experience which I had in my past five, six years, it not only evolved me as a person but also gave me a thought process that how much a female or a male or a person on daily basis is struggling every day going out and earning for the family and then facing legal issues, what all they have to experience. So when I look down on myself for the next five to ten years, I see that I have to make sure that those people who are actually loyal to their work, who are actually loyal to the system, who actually look at justice as God. They get what law has provided in its books, and it should not be just a book, it should be a delivery system. And we being the representative, we should deliver it to those people.

    So, my journey as a whole has started from district court and then High Court and then Supreme Court. If I had gotten a golden plate, I would have started from Supreme and I could have not seen what cross examination is. I could have never seen what evidence is, what are the documents that need to be added in the file, what all evidence I need, and what is the written statement that I have to file.

    Or what are the basic ingredients that plaint should have. This is what I have learned from my clients. They have told me that, you know, this document needs to be added because it has this relevance. But when I look into SLPs what I see is down paper trail. Oh, in district court, this paper was not there. Now our case is weak.

    So a well learned, educated lawyer should come to district court, they should practice there, and then they should proceed to Honorable High Court, to Honorable Supreme Court, and this should be the step. But nowadays, the generation is that as soon as they do law, they feel that we are lawyers of suits and we just have to jump into some lavish kind of practice. We will get some fame. I don’t know what they think of it.

    Actually, they should come to district court and they should understand what a life of a lawyer and clients are.

    How does the court function? Very interestingly, I would say, I was in the Rouse Avenue Court. We had one argument in the CBI matter and one of the senior advocates from Maharashtra was there, and I was addressing readers of some work and I said I’ll ask Alhmad. So the senior advocate said, who’s Alhmad? So I said that there is this person who looks into the court’s day to day activity. So he said, but in Maharashtra we don’t call him Alhmad. So how does the court practices vary from state to state?

    Even I would not know. I go to a new place, what a reader is called, and when we go to Ghaziabad court, a reader is called Babu.

    But being an independent practitioner, I should be aware of all these practices. Even if my clerk would come to me and say that, you know, this much is the cost, I should know that I have gone through all these things. I know how much it may cost. So a lawyer should be the clerk first, then should be an intern, and then should be a litigant.

    And this is what I have learned through my journey till now.

    Let’s move on and understand certain challenges that you may have encountered while you were dealing with sexual harassment complaints or administrative inquiries during your representation of plans or universities per se, especially University of Delhi.

    How have you strategized that and how have you overcome those kinds of challenges?

    So I’m not specifically talking about any university per se, but we have to understand the importance of the POSH act. Unfortunately, most of the people are not understanding what POSH act is about and why the POSH act was born.

    So in that case, what happens is females are using it, first of all, and also misusing it. So in every sort of institution, administration, these are first and foremost important things that we make sure to understand the genuineness of the case. Secondly, the males are offensive in that case, what they say is, we’re also harassed, this is what I face in most of the training sessions. What the male’s outlook is with respect to the POSH act. We are also being harassed. There are fake female complaints. There are administrative issues with respect to promotions and with respect to work culture, with respect to the hours that they have to work and they do not feel like working.

    They file a complaint under ICC, so even males are not understanding where that line is being crossed and it becomes a case of POSH act.

    Third and the foremost thing is the ICC committee itself, they’re not even aware what is procedure first of all, they feel they are not even comfortable with the environment that, if a complaint has come how it should be dealt with. Either they panic. What I have observed in most of the corporate companies, what they do is without getting into investigation, they suspend the accused or the respondent. And this is a very dangerous situation. Just in order to prevent your name, your company’s name, you suspended a person without getting to know what has actually happened, without even investigating.

    So what’s important is the awareness. Training of POSH is a very fundamental and important aspect that is ignored by most of the institutions until and unless there are complaints which have come. Then they will recommend their final finding that POSH sessions are recommended.

    But it is not similar to any gender committee. It’s not similar to any disciplinary committee. It has its legal liability. It has its legal obligation that has to be complied and the birth of the POSH is because of Bhavari Devi case and Nirbhaya rape case.

    That is to be understood. It cannot be compared with a male harassment or disciplinary committee harassment. It’s very different perspective and it evolves around that definition of sexual harassment only and those points only determine the complaint. So these are the challenges which I have faced while dealing specifically with the POSH act and the complaints before ICC most of the time.

    I would now like to ask you about establishing your law firm at such an early stage. You have made NS Solicitors and after working for such a short span of time, you have built a name for yourself. What do you see or what plans do you have as a mission and vision for your firm, along with the kind of causes that you are fighting for, or you are bringing in those topics, which are absolutely required.

    So how do you plan to take forward your law firm, along with the passion that you have for social causes?

    One thing which I feel as a lawyer is that a law firm is mandatory for me.

    All the juniors, all the associates associated with me, I feel that they should be independent and their independence is not in association with me. Whenever associates or an intern come to me, first and foremost I say you are not here as a permanent member.

    You have created your own practice. How can I help you? You have to take my help. You have to go out in public. You have to create your own face. This is how I started. This is how my seniors helped me, and this is how I should help you. This is my obligation that you are being associated with me.

    And I should make sure that you have your own life ahead. So the concept of a law firm for me is that all the associates with me, I am associate and they are also associates. I never call myself a founder. I never call myself head of the team. If I am working on a case, I make sure one associate with me is working so both are equal at the stage. I never named my law firm as Niyati Sharma and Associates because not all of us are associated with my name. If they as a lawyer are dealing with their client, they have my office, they have their law firm name, and they can have their card made, they can use their file which has NS Solicitors, and they have their own name on their card.

    They’ve got their name on their file. They feel independent, they don’t need infrastructure, they don’t need money for that. So, the idea of a law firm is only for that. Another reason for the law firm is that I have different sects of corporate, civil, criminal, and we all have the head of all the sects and specifically with the IPR. So, I had one of my associates who started his practice from a very early stage. But he was not sure where he had to go and how he could explore cases, how he could get more cases.

    So for him specifically, we highlighted a few aspects that were he’s coming from, where his family belongs to, what sort of work he’s into. So what we used to do is, I used to give them Saturday off and they have Sunday off. So on Saturday, they had to go to their gatherings.

    They had to meet people and then distribute their cards and tell them that I have my office at this place and if you have any issues with respect to your work, you can let me know. It took him six months. And those regular practices like going on weekends, going to some meetings, some family gatherings, social gatherings.

    What I have seen usually is nine to eight associates working, no Saturday or only Sunday off, and it’s a packed job. But whenever my associates touch wood as of now, if they ask for a leave, I make sure they have to inform me beforehand. So, we designed their work in such a manner that it took him six months and one year or so, and gradually his first case came.

    And, whenever a first case comes, we make sure we have a cake cutting ceremony or we distribute sweets for our associates. And then randomly another case came, and then another case came. Now that the associate has his own office in Delhi, but he is again associated with us till now.

    So, this is how I feel. I do not want to restrict any newcomer. They have their own life. They have their own family. They have their own perspective of looking into society and why should that perspective be limited to my office only.

    So I’ll have 10 offices, then it would not be only my single office. So, this is the way I function my law firm, and today I’m proud to say that I have associates and juniors from all over India. From Kolkata, from Nagaland, from Haryana, from Delhi. Those who can obviously travel to Delhi and want to work.

    I am open to every sort of work culture just because of the reason that everyone should get equal opportunity and they should get that scope of practicing in Delhi. And they should not be held back that I don’t have anyone, I do not have anyone in Delhi, where should I go. So this is how I want my law firm to be. Today also, when I see interns, I make sure that not specifically Delhi, I have students from different, different parts of states. If they’re applying to me through email, I very proudly welcome that. Just because of the reason that they’re doing so much hard work that they’re finding out the advocates online, and then they’re applying. They’re not coming through their father’s call or through their uncle’s call or through someone. So this is how an experienced advocate who has seen all the journeys should treat youngsters.

    Such a positive and noble gesture that you are imparting on so many people. It is already bringing in a lot of change and I feel like it’ll be bringing in a lot more change if everyone whosoever is associated with you, expands their services and their purpose. It’ll be very influential for social causes as well as the practice itself.

    So, do you think in doing all of this, has social media contributed in any way, bringing in these kinds of changes, bringing in your awareness aspect in front of the society? And how has that helped you establish even more authority and authenticity in your practice?

    Let me say that social media and online practices have evolved a lot. When I started there was no social media. Post Covid, there was actually the beginning of online virtual hearing. And I do remember that when I was in the early phase of my pregnancy, I had an abortion though. During that time, I was running to court and I was sweating and I was out of breath.

    And I felt that I might have to end my practice here because I can’t come for another few months in such a conducive environment where I have to run and reach the court. I have to park my car and have to run, move fast and my items are about to reach, this is how lawyers are working, you know, very fast, super fast, but then gradually after 2021, by the end of 2021. There was a transformation to virtual hearing.

    And this empowered mostly females who are having maternity issues, who are having health issues, who are having their young ones, and they cannot travel that often that a male advocate can. Obviously, they can go to their office for a few hours and then come back home but they have virtual hearing. If the child is not feeling well, if their husband is not feeling well, if someone in the family is not feeling well, they can take that time, which is involved in traveling and through virtual hearing, they can do that. So the litigation has empowered females a lot via virtual hearing.

    Specifically, those females who are around the age of 25 to 40, they can establish their litigation. They can have their family. They can have their clients. Even a female in one room setup at their home can establish her litigation with a virtual hearing setup. She need not go to the chamber, she need not go to office, she need not join another person’s office just because she does not have her own setup.

    So, the virtual hearing has increased the participation of women. So. I have this data which says that only 15% of the females used to practice when there was no virtual hearing, but after virtual hearing, the participation of females has increased a lot. Now, a female doesn’t take a break of even six months. So virtual hearing has evolved so much that it has empowered the females.

    When it comes to social media, we see that there are so many reels that advocates are making these days, so when I say that while I was starting my practice, I had one case in a month. And another 29 days, I had nothing to do. I used to call people or talk with my friends, or I used to think of it. Now I don’t have time. But when I see those youngsters who have just done their law or are into practice, they started developing their social media to that level. Now they have thousands, lakhs of followers.

    And gradually they’ll get work from that space. So, now the client base is not just limited to your near and dear ones. The client base has now changed to social media also.

    You get a lot of work from social media and this has empowered those who might not have a circle where they might get a case, but they have that idea where they can deal with artificial intelligence, they can deal with space law, they can deal with environmental law, they can deal with sports law, which is not a common practice when it comes to civil or the criminal sort of work.

    So, social media, I guess this is the way it has impacted.

    So while you were talking about all these burning issues, I would say, they bring in a lot of food for thought, especially for young lawyers who are starting not only their career, but their lives as well. What is your take on maternity leaves or rather parental leave or paternity leave? How do you see that will bring in more workforce back if one gets ample amount of leave after having a baby?

    So this issue was raised by one of the advocates, before the Honorable High Court of Delhi. And it was observed thereby that advocate is a professional-based service and therefore there is no need for maternity leaves. But I would like to add to that, that it’s not just the professional-based services, rather for a female who’s an independent advocate, who is appearing before the court and having a good amount of attendance. The bar should take that criteria in that if you are having supposedly 20 appearances in a year and you have to take maternity leave. So the bar should give a stipend of let’s say 5 thousand, 10 thousand, so that she can take care of herself and her baby during those six months when she’s off from her work. Even the family won’t say that you are not getting anything, being a lawyer.

    If you would’ve got a government job, it would’ve been a better position, what are you getting from being a lawyer? So in that case, a small support from the bar will help the females to get out of the six months phase, and then gradually she can start the practice. But when as a female we see that we do not have any support, even if taking leaves, then the gap from going out of career and the line of going out of career starts.

    So I think maternity for females is an important aspect, which I think the bar should take that decision just like they had helped in COVID providing stipend to those young advocates who were not doing that good and required some basic stipend. Similarly, those females who are not from that well-off family or they need support to establish their career, they can have this six months stipend. A specific amount should be decided and they should have an attendance prior to practicing or they should have an attendance continuously so that they are eligible for the maternity leaves or the parental leave, let’s say.

    You mentioned the bar’s role during COVID, how do you see bar associations, both state and national, contributing to the lives of lawyers in India, especially in promoting gender equality? Given the lack of basic amenities like toilets and maternity support, what role should the bar play, and how does this compare to international bar practices?

    So I think now the bar has also become a very strong, opinionated platform where the lawyers and the youngsters are getting into.

    Let me tell you, with respect to the Delhi High Court elections, this time there were more recorded voters than ever before. So the participation of advocates is increasing. Similarly, the youngsters are coming into the bar elections. So now the perspective of the bar has changed a lot and the bar has a very important role to play with respect to the basic amenities, the facilities, the outlook, the perspective of lawyers, and what are the challenges the lawyers are facing. It is the bar that takes it up. So, when it comes to the international community how they make sure that the facilities are there,

    The perspectives are there. I must tell you, it is the first time that female reservation in the bar came up this time. So the role of the bar has evolved because there were no females, so there were no requirements, there was no urge. So we are at a revolutionary stage with respect to the bar also.

    The representation of females has increased. The candidates you may see there are so many females now coming up. In campaigning, there are so many females involved. So now the bar has an important role to play with respect to the basic amenities, the facilities. And now the bar is coming online through social media and telling that these are all the things we have done in the court.

    So very interestingly, I’ve seen the president of Delhi High Court or the elected bars of Saket Court, let’s say Dwarka Court. Now they are coming up with what they have done.

    Just on the first day of their bar being elected, they come and say that these are the things that we have done. They’re now accountable to lawyers through the social platform also. So that is the reason I’m saying that only the bar can take this issue ahead with respect to maternity and paternity leaves.

    Since we have already discussed all these things, all the advice that you have given, we would request you to impart some more wisdom and give some golden nuggets for the aspiring law students who want to build such a kind of social impactful legal career as you are making.

    Particularly in the kind of fields that you are interested in that is gender justice, legal policy, public interest litigation, and other social causes which will bring in long-term change.

    I would like to say to my young fellows who are now entering into the field or will enter into the field very soon.

    I have always seen a few female advocates and a few female judges who had all the things in their life, all the comforts, all the facilities, but they dedicated their life to social work. I might point out a few judges whom I really admire Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma, she has published so many books.

    She actually works for the justice of the females. She has worked from Delhi courts to Delhi High Court, and she’s now continuously working for the females. Justice Bela Trivedi, she has worked so much for the cause of females. So I would like to say that first, you have to empower yourself. If you feel that you want to contribute to society,

    The first and foremost thing is to make sure that you have your hold on your profession, and through your profession, you have to deliver into society. And this is how all the successful males and females in this field are working. And secondly, you have to target your career and divide it in three-year spans. First three years, you should have a target, next three years, you should have a target. First three years, you should have a target that people should know you. After people should know you, after three years, those people should get back to you. You have to make sure that if there is an advocate, your name should come to their mind.

    And then comes the golden phase next three years and you will not know how, after 10 years, you are into those top 10 lawyers. But you have to make sure as a litigant, it’s not a piece of cake that you are entering with lavish gowns, flowing and photographs. This is a very beautiful way to display your profession, but your objective should be clear, your target should be clear that first three days all my people should know that I’m an advocate. You should not expect anything else more than that. And once you’re an advocate and people are coming back to you, then you’re a lawyer. You have established yourself in your field. So this is my message to all the young generation. See what all successful people have done, learn from their mistakes, and then decide how you will be taking your five years ahead.

    And one thing more as an advocate, when I started, people used to say it’ll take you five years to establish. I used to say they’re very slow people. They don’t know how to establish themselves. But when I came into this field, I understood why they used to say five years. It is not that you won’t get work till five years. You will get work.

    The pace of the work will be very slow. You’ll have to go through a lot of patience and then things will fall into place.

    Get in touch with Niyati Sharma –

  • “To transition into media and technology law, one should start by building a strong foundation in contract and intellectual property law, especially copyright and licensing.” – Diwakar Abhishek, Legal Counsel at Swastik Productions Private Limited, Mumbai.

    “To transition into media and technology law, one should start by building a strong foundation in contract and intellectual property law, especially copyright and licensing.” – Diwakar Abhishek, Legal Counsel at Swastik Productions Private Limited, Mumbai.

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

    What initially drew you to the legal profession, and how did your academic journey shape your early interest in media, entertainment, and technology laws?

    To be honest, I initially became a lawyer almost by elimination! Like many in my region, engineering was presented as the ‘obvious’ path. While I knew it wasn’t for me, law wasn’t a generational profession in my family, which led to some initial resistance. However, I was eventually drawn to the legal field’s potential to shape society and advocate for others.

    My early interest in criminal law was more out of curiosity for the drama, but it was the MCU and similar movies that unexpectedly sparked my fascination with IPR. I was intrigued by how these films showcased the immense value of creative works, the complex web of ownership and licensing, and how legal frameworks protect and enable the entire entertainment industry. It was a whole new world! 

    Did I pursue it right in the beginning – the answer is NO! My first job was purely out of need and financial constraints, I grabbed the job that demonstrated security, and paid fine. Then the second and the third; none gave me ample satisfaction.

    Even though this interest in IPR grew within me sub-consciously but persistently, for almost a decade, it took me some time to really gather courage to pursue it. The world of media and entertainment law seemed very specialized and competitive, and I wasn’t sure how to break in. Interviewing with studios and specialized law firms in media practices resulted in disappointment. 

    The pandemic of 2020, in a way, provided the space to seriously reflect and take that leap, when I jumped from the ship, in unchartered waters (for myself). I took the time to build a solid foundation in media law while continuing to explore opportunities. 

    Looking back, I’m grateful for that journey. The initial resistance from my family has turned into immense support, and I’ve found a truly rewarding path in a dynamic field. Learning from all previous jobs has equipped me to face challenges. For any young lawyer unsure of their path, I’d say embrace the unexpected, explore your passions, and don’t be afraid to carve out your own niche. Your unique background and interests can become your greatest strengths.

    Looking back at your first role, how did your experience in legal project management and forensic investigations lay the foundation for your future work in corporate and media law?

    My initial role in digital forensics, or e-Discovery, might seem far removed from media law, but it provided an invaluable foundation. This role involved analyzing the communications of top-level executives (like CEOs and CFOs) at major global companies. Reading their emails, strategic plans, risk assessments, and discussions gave me a unique understanding of how business decisions are made at the highest level. I saw firsthand how legal considerations intertwined with financial projections, market analysis, and strategic goals. You get to see how the executives of fortune 500 companies across the world think. Their communications with their lawyers, their external lawyers, business considerations, thought process; they were open before me. When you are reading through the emails, financial projections, opinions, risk assessment, business proposals, and the discussions of these CXOs day-in and day-out, at around 1000 documents per day, the information, although enormous, starts building up, stacking in a meaningful manner.

    Simultaneously, I had the opportunity to work with some of the world’s leading legal minds, who possessed inspiring business acumen. I learned how to manage client expectations, innovate in real-time to expedite processes, and build efficiency to handle large volumes while maintaining high quality.

    These experiences taught me how to assess risks and rewards, a skill that’s crucial in any legal field, including media law. For instance, when evaluating a content licensing agreement or advising on a new production, I draw on my understanding of the business realities to provide informed and balanced counsel. I am able to give the risk assessment which is a balance between risks and rewards for each deal or opportunity. This background has shaped how I approach legal challenges, combining legal expertise with a practical understanding of business objectives. That experience helps me even today in interpreting contracts not just for what they say, but what they might mean commercially.

    Your work at Sodexo involved legal operations across the APAC region, what challenges did you face managing cross-border legal compliance, and how did this prepare you for later in-house counsel roles?

    Sodexo was my first in-house role, a significant shift from working with external clients and a deep dive into Indian law. Initially, I found it quite challenging. For example, understanding the specific needs and expectations of “internal clients”; colleagues in departments like sales, operations, and HR who needed legal support, was new. Also, I had to quickly learn the ropes of a completely new industry and adapt to the company’s work culture. There was a lot to learn in a short time!

    Fortunately, I had patient mentors and a very supportive boss, without whom I may have struggled. I was given increasing responsibilities, starting with contracts management for Indian operations, then litigation, and eventually overseeing legal matters for Southeast Asia and the Middle East.

    While the role didn’t involve managing cross-border compliance in the way that some multinational companies do, it did require me to handle legal issues with an international dimension. For instance, when supporting a project in Hong Kong, I had to immerse myself in Hong Kong law, compare it to Indian law, and ensure our contracts were sound in that jurisdiction. This involved careful analysis and collaboration with local counsel. For example, navigating labour laws while drafting service-level agreements with large FMCG clients taught me about balancing scalability and compliance.

    Looking back, my time at Sodexo was pivotal. It taught me how to be a business partner, not just a legal advisor. I learned to communicate legal advice effectively to non-legal colleagues, manage diverse stakeholders, and develop practical solutions in a fast-paced environment. These are essential skills for any in-house counsel, and the experience I gained at Sodexo truly prepared me for the challenges and opportunities I’ve encountered in my subsequent roles.

    Having transitioned into media law with ALTT and later Screenwriters Association, what were the most significant legal or contractual differences you encountered between tech-sector law and entertainment law?

    When I left Sodexo to pursue media and entertainment law, I started small – drafting contracts for screenwriters and gradually working with artists, producers, and even international clients on content compliance and music rights. The early work didn’t pay much, but it helped me build trust and credibility; some of those clients still reach out today. Breaking into the industry wasn’t easy, and I’m grateful to Balaji Telefilms for giving me my first in-house opportunity, which soon led to heading legal operations at ALTT.

    The shift from service industries to a content-driven company was massive. Earlier, I was reviewing contracts post-signing; now I was involved from ideation to release: across film, TV, and digital platforms. The core legal principles stayed the same (like contracts and labour laws), but the subject matter completely changed, from food regulations to copyright, talent agreements, and licensing.

    My tech background, especially in digital forensics, gave me an edge in content rights, data governance, and cross-border compliance. At the Screenwriters Association, I focused on protecting creators, negotiating fair contracts, and educating them on their rights. While each role was different, the constant has been using law as a tool to empower, protect, and enable creative work. The shift taught me that while legal fundamentals remain the same, the ‘language’ of law differs dramatically across industries, and learning to speak both fluently is what makes a good media lawyer.

    In your current role leading the legal department at Swastik Productions, how do you approach providing strategic legal counsel on content production, syndication, and partnerships, and what are the key intellectual property considerations that typically arise when structuring such deals in the entertainment industry?

    In my current role at Swastik Productions, legal strategy is never one-size-fits-all; each production, syndication, or partnership comes with its own set of challenges.

    Content Production: I tailor my approach based on the medium:

    • TV deals often mean limited IP ownership for us, so I focus on securing strong commercial terms and airtight contracts.
    • Films require deeper negotiations around IP, creative control, and distribution rights; I handle these with a mix of legal detail and business sense.
    • Digital content needs special attention to rights, copyright risks, and compliance with evolving digital laws.

    Syndication: Whether we’re licensing content in or out, rights clarity is key. I ensure we secure or retain the right scope, minimize exposure, and structure deals for long-term value, thanks to my prior experience managing complex licensing agreements.

    Partnerships: Strategic alliances need a 360° legal view, requiring balancing IP rights, revenue models, creative inputs, and risk-sharing. Each deal is structured with both business goals and legal safeguards in mind.

    IP at the Core: Across the board, IP is central:

    • Ownership and assignment must be clear.
    • Licensing scopes (use, geography, duration) must be precise.
    • Third-party rights must be cleared, my digital forensics background helps here.
    • Moral rights and creative decision rights, often overlooked, matter deeply in creative collaborations.

    At the heart of it, my job is to enable great storytelling while protecting Swastik’s interests. The diversity of work keeps it exciting, no two deals are the same.

    Having led IP litigation and compliance operations across UK and US jurisdictions, how did you navigate the complexities of cross-border intellectual property enforcement, and what were some of the key challenges or learnings from handling high-stakes cases internationally?

    While I haven’t directly led litigation in foreign jurisdictions, I’ve played a crucial managerial and support role in several high-stakes IP matters, particularly during my time with legal process outsourcing and consulting firms where I collaborated on UK and US cases. My involvement ranged from overseeing document review teams to coordinating closely with external counsels and in-house legal departments of multinational clients.

    In cross-border IP enforcement, especially in the context of mergers and acquisitions or global patent disputes, the challenge is often less about the black-letter law and more about synchronizing legal strategy across jurisdictions, each with its own procedural idiosyncrasies. For example, reconciling discovery expectations in the US with data protection constraints under the UK or EU regimes required a deep understanding of not just the laws, but also cultural and operational nuances.

    A major learning for me was the importance of structured communication, translating legal and technical complexity into actionable advice for internal business teams while keeping litigation timelines and compliance risk under control. I also became adept at coordinating across time zones and legal systems, often acting as a bridge between the litigation counsel and the business decision-makers.

    The most impactful aspect of this work was realizing that successful enforcement is as much about procedural discipline and strategic foresight as it is about substantive rights. Managing document trails, understanding patent families, aligning with antitrust concerns in cross-border deals, all required a careful orchestration of legal, commercial, and compliance objectives.

    In sum, while I wasn’t the lead litigator, I contributed meaningfully by ensuring the right intelligence, compliance safeguards, and documentation flowed to the right hands at the right time. These experiences have given me both a global perspective and a strong operational grasp of how IP enforcement plays out in practice across borders. This foundation makes me confident in navigating global rights and data governance frameworks as the media landscape continues to globalize.

    What advice would you offer to law students or early-career professionals who aspire to transition into media and technology law, and what skills or experiences should they actively pursue?

    I would like to reiterate, there is no “one glove to fit all hands!” The media and entertainment industry is nuanced, and comes with its own struggles. To transition into media and technology law, law students and early-career professionals should start by building a strong foundation in contract and intellectual property law, especially copyright and licensing. Staying updated on evolving tech regulations like data privacy and cybersecurity is equally important. Developing a basic fluency in emerging technologies such as AI or blockchain can give you a distinct advantage. 

    Key soft skills like negotiation, discretion, and commercial awareness are essential in this space. Understanding how entertainment and tech businesses generate revenue will help you navigate legal challenges better. 

    Pursuing specialized certifications such as CopyrightX or NPTEL or from organizations such as Law Sikho are helpful to offer a competitive edge. 

    Gaining hands-on experience through internships with production houses, OTT platforms, or digital rights organizations is highly valuable. Working with law firms that service media clients or freelancing for creators helps build practical knowledge and a portfolio. 

    Networking with professionals at media and tech law events and maintaining an active LinkedIn presence helps in staying visible and informed. Lastly, be open to non-traditional roles within content, IP, or compliance teams as stepping stones into the field.

    Outside of your legal career, how do you unwind and relax, and in what ways do these personal interests contribute to maintaining balance, focus, and resilience in such a demanding profession?

    Outside of my legal work, I unwind through short motorcycle rides that help clear my mind and give me a fresh perspective. Riding requires focus and adaptability, which mirrors the multitasking I often do in my professional life. I also enjoy reading fiction, it allows me to step into different worlds and sharpens my storytelling, something I find useful when drafting arguments or simplifying complex ideas. Most of my downtime is spent with my wife and our two dogs, whose companionship is a constant source of comfort and balance. I keep a very small circle of close friends, and those rare conversations keep me grounded. While the legal profession demands attention over weekends too, I make the most of any free moment to recharge. I’ve learned to juggle tasks efficiently, and I believe my passion for riding and stories plays a part in that. They teach me presence, rhythm, and timing, the qualities I bring into my legal work too. These personal interests may be simple, but they help me stay focused and resilient. Even a brief ride or a good book can do wonders in keeping the mind relaxed and sharp.

    Get in touch with Diwakar Abhishek –

  • “Young advocates must remember, like Karna, your journey may be tough, but your courage can become your legacy.” – Rashmi M Rao, Advocate at High Court of Karnataka.

    “Young advocates must remember, like Karna, your journey may be tough, but your courage can become your legacy.” – Rashmi M Rao, Advocate at High Court of Karnataka.

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

    Can you tell us about your journey into the legal profession? What inspired you to become an advocate?

    Unlike some, I didn’t grow up knowing I wanted to be an advocate. Initially, I didn’t see myself pursuing law. At the time, my interests lay elsewhere, and I hadn’t fully explored what a career in law could offer. But as I was exposed to legal studies/work/clerkship especially being with my father who is a retired District Judge and working with Hon’ble Justice Mrs. B V Nagarathna (now judge of the Apex Court), I began to appreciate the depth, challenge, and impact of the field. Over time, that curiosity grew into a genuine passion. Now, I’m not only confident that this is the right path for me, but I also find a real sense of purpose and satisfaction in it.

    Also, my father, Mr. M Ramesh Rao, who served as a District Judge (now retired), has been a significant inspiration in my journey towards becoming an advocate. Growing up, I witnessed his deep commitment to justice, integrity, and the rule of law. His principled approach to decision-making and his respect for the legal system left a lasting impression on me. It made me realize the powerful role that legal professionals can play in upholding justice, which ultimately motivated me to pursue a career in advocacy. His dedication to justice and ethical standards inspired me to contribute meaningfully to the legal field in my own capacity.

    In the initial phases of your career were there any mentorship experiences that played  a key role in your development as a legal  professional?

    I was fortunate to work with Sri. C.V. Kumar and Smt Bhushani Kumar Advocates from Bengaluru and Sri. K L Patil, Advocate from Dharwad, where I gained hands – on experience in litigation and client handling.  Also, their valuable mentorship experience helped me develop my  legal research and courtroom preparation skills.

    During my Clerkship under Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna was a transformative experience, through which I gained significant insights both ethically and professionally. I had the privilege of closely observing her judicial acumen, and commitment to justice. Her dedication and approach to the law have made a lasting impact on me. 

    Also I consider Hon’ble Justice Santosh Hegde as my role model. His exemplary career in the judiciary and his efforts in fighting corruption reflects values that I strive to uphold. 

    Law can be a very challenging field. Have you ever faced ethical dilemmas in your legal practice and if yes, how did you handle them? How do you maintain impartiality and professionalism when dealing with controversial and emotionally charged cases?

    While I haven’t encountered a major ethical dilemma personally, I understand the importance of addressing them head-on. My approach would be to first consult the relevant rules of professional conduct, seek advice from more experienced colleagues if needed, and always prioritize honesty, fairness, and the law.

    One such instance, I once worked on a matter where a client asked me to withhold certain facts from disclosure that I believed were material. This created a conflict between the duty of confidentiality and the duty of candor to the court. When they insisted, I withdrew from representation in accordance with ethical requirements.

    I understand that dealing with controversial or emotionally charged situations requires a high degree of sensitivity and professionalism. I approach these cases by actively listening to all perspectives, focusing on facts rather than personal opinions and ensuring that all parties feel heard and respected.

    Can you share what drove your decision to start your own legal practice and what were some of the biggest hurdles you encountered, and how did you manage them?

    Since the year 2021, with God’s grace, I started my independent practice with my colleague/friend Akshata Sharma. Starting my own legal practice was driven by a strong desire for independence, professional growth, and the ability to serve clients on my own terms. I wanted to create a practice that reflected my values, personalized service, transparency, and client trust.

    Honestly, I couldn’t have done it alone. I was fortunate to have a few close friends namely Vivek Kumar Pandey, Akshata Sharma, Meghana Muddurangappa and Smt.Padmaja Tadapatri  (who holds a place in my life just like my mother does), and others from different professional backgrounds, who supported me through the process. Whether it was helping me set up the office, referring clients, or simply being a sounding board for ideas and doubts, their encouragement made a big difference.

    Of course, the journey wasn’t without challenges. There were times I doubted myself, especially when things were slow. But those moments taught me persistence, adaptability, and the importance of building strong professional relationships. Overall, it was a transformative experience that strengthened me to build not just practice but also confidence, adaptability and a strong professional network. 

    What advice would you give to young aspiring advocates who wish to excel in the legal field as you and what resources would you suggest to them?

    If I could give advice to young advocates, it would be to stay passionate and persistent. Advocacy is not always easy. Change can be slow and obstacles are inevitable, but keeping your passion alive will motivate you to keep going. Listening carefully to the people or communities you advocate for is crucial, as it ensures your work truly reflects their needs. I also believe that building a strong network and continuously learning about the issues and effective strategies strengthens your impact. Ultimately, every small step you take contributes to meaningful change, so stay encouraged and committed.

    Youngsters in the legal profession should develop a ‘Never give up’ attitude, as perseverance is key to success in a challenging field that demands resilience, continuous learning and the ability to thrive under pressure. Setbacks, rejections and long hours are part of the journey, but those who stay committed, adapt and push through adversity, ultimately carve a meaningful and impactful career in law. 

    Also, at this outset, I would like to narrate an impactful example of Ekalavya and Karna from the Mahabharata in the context of young advocates struggling to enter legal practice. The story of Ekalavya from the Mahabharata deeply resonates with the journey of many young advocates today. Ekalavya was denied formal training by Guru Dronacharya, yet he didn’t give up. He created a statue of his guru and practiced with unwavering discipline in solitude. His dedication was so intense that he became an archer of extraordinary skill, purely through self-effort and inner discipline.

    Similarly, many young advocates struggle to find mentors, chambers, or opportunities when they start. But like Ekalavya, those who stay committed—who read case law, attend court regularly even when they don’t have a brief, and keep learning by observing and self-study can build themselves into formidable professionals. The path is difficult, but if the focus and discipline are strong, success follows, just like it did for Ekalavya, even if recognition was delayed.

    Likewise, the character of Karna from Mahabharata is also a powerful way to inspire them.  Karna, born with great potential, but denied recognition because of his social identity. He was a warrior without a recognized lineage, constantly judged for his birth rather than his abilities. Much like Karna, many young advocates today may face barriers like lack of family background in law, absence of elite connections or starting from smaller towns or tier-2 colleges. But the story of Karna teaches us that your origin does not define your destiny. In the face of rejection, injustice and inner conflict, one can rise through resilience, discipline and unshakable belief in one’s abilities. Young advocates must remember, like Karna, your journey may be tough, but your courage can become your legacy. 

    What common misconceptions do people often have about the legal profession? Additionally, can you share a particularly challenging case that you’ve dealt with and how was your experience navigating the same?

    One common misconception is that lawyers spend most of their time in dramatic courtroom battles, like on TV. In reality, a lot of legal work is behind the scenes, researching case law, drafting documents, negotiating settlements. I actually find that appealing because it emphasizes strategy and careful thought, which is what drew me to the profession in the first place.

    To resolve the issue of litigation one should adopt STAR (Situation, Task, Action, Result) method.  In one case, a client approached me with a boundary dispute with a neighbouring property owner. The issue was escalating quickly. Both parties were considering legal action over a small strip of land affecting fencing and access.

    My task was to find a solution that avoided costly litigation. I reviewed the land titles, easement history, and surveyed documents. I then facilitated a joint meeting with both parties and their surveyors. I explained the legal standing clearly, but more importantly, I listened to both sides to identify practical needs.

    I proposed a boundary adjustment agreement that allowed shared access through a revised easement and minor land transfer, which satisfied both sides. I also had the agreement recorded formally to prevent future disputes.

    As a result, both parties avoided litigation, saved significant legal fees, and maintained a cordial neighbour relationship. The client was extremely satisfied and referred others to me afterwards.

    Since you are serving as a High Court Government Pleader in the State of Karnataka, what is your understanding of the role of a government pleader/advocate? Kindly share your work experience as an advocate for the High Court Legal Services Committee?

    My understanding is that a Government Pleader/ Advocate represents the Government in legal matters, particularly in Courts and Tribunals. Their primary role is to ensure that the Government’s position is presented clearly, accurately, and ethically. This includes drafting legal opinions, appearing in court, providing legal advice to Government departments, and ensuring that the rule of law is upheld in all actions taken by the Government.

    A Government Advocate also has a broader duty to the public interest. Unlike private advocates, who serve individual clients, a Government advocate must balance the legal position of the State with fairness, justice, and constitutional values. Integrity, impartiality, and accountability are essential in this role.

    I believe this position requires not only strong legal knowledge and advocacy skills but also a deep commitment to public service and ethical responsibility.

    I was empanelled as an advocate with the High Court Legal Services Committee  in the year 2020, for 5 years, during which I provided free legal assistance to marginalized individuals who could not afford representation. My primary responsibilities included drafting petitions, appearing before the High Court, and conducting legal counseling sessions.

    I handled a diverse range of cases including criminal appeals, writ petitions for enforcement of fundamental rights, and bail matters. One significant experience was assisting a wrongly accused individual in securing bail after months of unlawful detention—a case that reaffirmed my belief in access to justice.

    This role also involved working closely with jail authorities, NGOs, and court staff, which helped me develop strong interpersonal and procedural coordination skills. Despite time and resource constraints, I ensured every case was handled with diligence and empathy.

    I was also appointed as an Amicus curiae by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in various Criminal Appeals. 

    Overall, the experience deepened my understanding of public interest litigation and reinforced my commitment to pro-bono service, which I believe is integral to the profession.

    Can you share your experience as an advocate for the Juvenile Justice Board appointed by CCL (Centre for Child and Law)  and matters relating to iprobono? 

    During my time as an advocate with the Juvenile Justice Board and iProbono, I had the opportunity to work closely on cases involving children in conflict with the law, as well as those in need of care and protection.

    At the Juvenile Justice Board, my role involved representing minors, ensuring that their rights under the Juvenile Justice Act were upheld, and advocating for rehabilitation over punishment. I often worked on drafting legal submissions, liaising with child welfare committees, and counselling children and their families.

    Through iProbono, I worked on pro bono cases focused on child protection, particularly representing children in need of care and protection. I collaborated with multidisciplinary teams, including psychologists and social workers, to ensure a child-sensitive approach in legal proceedings.

    These experiences not only deepened my understanding of child rights law and restorative justice principles but also strengthened my ability to communicate empathetically, work under pressure, and navigate complex legal frameworks with a focus on vulnerable populations.

    I believe these experiences have made me a more compassionate and strategic legal professional, especially equipped to work in roles that intersect law and social justice.

    What practical steps or habits  have you found effective for managing stress and maintaining well being amidst the high demands of legal and consultancy work?

    Legal and consultancy work can be fast-paced and mentally taxing. So I have found it essential to be pro- active about managing stress and well-being. One of the most effective habits for me is time-blocking and prioritizing tasks using a simple system like the Eisenhower Matrix. It helps me focus on what’s urgent VS important and rescues the feeling of being overwhelmed. 

    One principle that guides my work is rooted in the Bhagavad Gita: ‘Karmanye vadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana,’ which means, ‘You have the right to perform your duty, but not to the fruits of your actions.’  I try to follow this mindset at work — giving my full effort, staying committed, and letting the results follow. As an advocate, I believe in putting my complete effort into representing my clients with integrity and diligence, without getting attached to the outcome. The results, whether favourable or not, are often influenced by many factors beyond our control. What matters is that I uphold the law and my ethical responsibility.

    Get in touch with Rashmi M Rao –