Super Lawyer

Blog

  • Navigating Complexity From Corporate Law to White Collar Investigations with Trust and Insight – Varij Sharma, Founder and Partner at Gravitas Legal.

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

    You have worked with a Fortune 50 company and have over 17 years of experience across sectors like corporate and commercial law, white-collar crime, and investment fund-related issues. What has been your motivation behind pursuing these sought-after niche fields, and how do you make them simpler for people who are often uncomfortable discussing them? How did you build your name in this niche of the niche, and what continues to drive you?

    Initially, when I started off as a lawyer, my concentration in fact was that whatever I do, I must do it in the best manner possible. As a young lawyer, that was my motivation. And while growing up, every day, it was almost as if going to a warfront, if I can put it that way, facing new challenges.

    And as a corporate lawyer facing new queries, dealing with different and new expectations every day. But one thing that remained constant was that I used to set my own milestones and my only motivation was that I wanted to be the best at what I could be and first test myself.

    I used to set those expectations for myself. As far as trying to be a general corporate lawyer or a decent enough general corporate lawyer, since the very beginning, I never thought of compartmentalizing myself or restricting myself to a particular field. I think that was also because of my upbringing at Dua Associates and I must take the name of my first mentor, Mr. Salil Gulati, who himself was a general corporate lawyer and I used to report to him. The way he nurtured and mentored me, and made me understand the concepts of law in terms of how they are supposed to be applied, was invaluable, because typically what we do in colleges is much different from what you actually end up applying, or rather how you end up applying.

    Of course, academic education or being good at academics is very important, but at the same time, one should know how to apply it. So since day one, I feel that I had a great mentor and he was the one who inculcated this fact, or rather this idea in my mind, that we don’t need to be specifically focused on a particular practice area.

    As a general corporate lawyer, we are capable enough of advising on all aspects of a company, of a business generally. Progressing from that, when I started Gravitas, beyond simply following the general corporate trajectory, we started two new spaces for ourselves, litigation and corporate strategy. Over a period of time, what had also happened and what I also started realizing was that when you advise companies, when you advise businesses, as a lawyer, you hold a position of great trust and confidence. And when anyone actually approaches you, they don’t approach you with a specific task, at least an Indian client doesn’t. They don’t approach you for a specific task.

    It always tends to evolve into something more. So my concentration always was that I should hold that position of trust and confidence so that people would be able to talk to me about all of their issues, not just a specific project or a particular transaction, but whatever other troubles or problems they are facing.

    So over a period of time I also tried to develop a conversationalist in myself. And today, when I speak to my interns or juniors, I try to make them understand the value of conversations and how, by having those conversations, you can develop trust, and how other people may also see what sort of knowledge you carry and the different aspects you can actually advise people on. Slowly, taking from there, when I deal with our foreign clients or institutions, it so happens that ultimately all of these clients also tend to look for something more than just legal advice from their lawyers. They would want that if there is a project, then there should be something more that a lawyer actually brings to the table, be it project knowledge, financial knowledge, and so on and so forth.

    So I kept on, and I still am, looking at avenues to learn more and develop my knowledge—more holistic knowledge, touching upon not just legal aspects of a deal or a business, but also all other aspects which would otherwise impact a particular scenario.

    Be it a transaction, a project, or generally just a legal query. That perspective also actually helps you in providing the right answer to a problem from the perspective of your client. Because sometimes what happens is we lawyers tend to go into too much detail of legal aspects and ultimately we just sort of go around in circles and probably don’t answer a query that requires a practical solution. So yes, that also enabled me to understand, answer, and respond to queries in a much more effective manner, I would say.

    In India, lawyers often focus only on legal aspects, but clients frequently trust us with personal or even psychological concerns. How have you managed this balance while maintaining professionalism and ethics, especially with international clients who often rely heavily on their lawyers? Additionally, how do you guide your juniors in handling such situations, and what strategies have you found effective?

    Sure. Thank you. So, see, like I said, it was also a drive. I mean, when I started realizing the true meaning of becoming a lawyer, that it is not just hidden in a particular opinion that we give or in a document.

    Regardless of whether you are talking to institutions, there is always a human behind that institution also. I always try and spend time on that human aspect. I give people time. I try to understand where the people are coming from. Sometimes, I would say not just sometimes, most of the time, things are not how they appear to be. I always had the zeal to constantly look behind the curtains. Let me just put it that way. I always wanted to understand where this aspect was coming from, rather than just treating a query or a requirement that our clients would send to us, treating it just on the face of whatever was being sought.

    I would always spend time on that query, and I would just think, you know, okay, fine, if someone is asking me a particular question, where is this coming from? Why is this question being asked? I would spend time on that aspect, and when I would try and answer that query—and of course, this happened much later in my life because initially, the concentration, or rather the focus, always used to be just to be a lawyer.

    You know, one would just be overwhelmed with the fact that this is a job and ultimately I have to do well at it and all of that. But over a period of time and later in my career, and especially this transition actually happened when we started Gravitas Legal.

    We wanted the firm to have a structure. We had thought about what we want, how we want our clients and other people to see us, people who approach us for any sort of assistance. How do we want them to see us? So, it was the drive, I would say it was the drive. And I constantly kept on looking for those behind-the-curtains or behind-the-scenes reasons of why and what was emanating. At the same time, I realized that position of trust and confidence that I was just talking about—everybody seeks that. I don’t think it matters whether it is an Indian client or a foreign client, an individual client, or a small, medium, or large business. They would always want their counsel, their lawyer, to gain that position of trust and confidence.

    And that position of trust and confidence, no matter how sound we are as a firm ethically, or what sort of name we have, generally how people know us, that position of trust and confidence is always reserved for the individual you are interacting with. For our clients, that position of trust and confidence will always be with the individuals they are actually interacting with. So when I interact with my juniors, my ex-juniors also, whenever I have interacted with them on these aspects, on these lighter or rather subtler aspects of relationships, I have always tried to tell them that when your client is actually approaching you, there is always something more. Try and strike friendships.

    Try and strike deeper relationships with them so that they can open up to you—deeper professional relationships, of course—where they are able to speak and open up to you to give you a more holistic picture of where the problem actually lies. It has happened so many times that people who have been representatives of my corporate clients have also ended up approaching me for their personal issues, and I have been more than happy to assist them, of course subject to there being no conflict. But at the same time, I think my ultimate win has always been that people are able to give me that position where they think they can actually rely on me and come and discuss those aspects with me.

    The last thing I would like to add is that I have been a very open communicator with my clients. If I have not felt—and look, a general corporate practice is actually quite different from other corporate practices because we are exposed to many more dimensions of a corporate than other, I would say, focused practices—so with general corporate practice, what tends to happen is that when you get that sort of exposure, you also inevitably get into those wider aspects.

    You get that exposure and you try to make the best out of it. And also when you are getting that exposure, I feel we should not hold ourselves back. We should be able to communicate very clearly what we as trusted counsels believe that a client is exposed to. Sometimes I have seen that people shy away from it—that if someone has asked me a question on the Companies Act, I will just answer that query. But I have never been that. Frankly, I can say one thing that I am very happy about myself as a professional, as a lawyer, is that I have never stopped myself from advising my client and being that voice in their ears saying this is right and this is wrong. And when something is wrong, I would never shy away from saying this is wrong.

    So, yes, that is again something that I have worked on and tried to focus more on.

    When handling internal investigations or whistleblower matters, how do you strike a balance between transparency, compliance, and protecting the reputation of the organization, while also managing sensitive internal information? Additionally, how do you maintain your own mental well-being during this process?

    I will give you some sort of an insight on how investigations, rather whistleblower investigations and white collar crime actually proceed and what tends to go into the process. I mean, everybody knows exactly what it means, but what tends to happen in the process, right?

    See, what happens is that when complaints such as this come through, we are supposed to act independently of the complainant as well as the organization and also probably the group of people who may be the potential accused.

    What tends to happen is that when you enter that arena, no matter who may have appointed you, everybody is just looking at you with a lot of anxiety, let me put it that way: what exactly are they going to find and what are they going to do with that knowledge?

    So you have to develop a very, very focused approach with very clear objectives in mind: what are you exactly here for? It’s very easy in such a situation, and let me tell you, when people actually start in such sensitive situations, when people start talking to you, there will be people ranging from the lower managerial positions right up to the top of the organization whom you have to interview and speak to. You may be required to go through thousands of documents to decipher and understand what exactly has happened, and whether ultimately what is being complained of has actually occurred or not.

    So in such situations, when you sit down and start talking to these people, and again they could be 25, 50, or 100 people that you’re talking to over a very short span of time, once again people open up, and your best case scenario, I mean, if you want to decipher something, it is all about whether these people are going to actually trust you and open up to you.

    Because that’s what you’re relying on. These are people who are actually working for an organization and they know that organization much better than you. It’s very easy to conduct an investigation which is absolutely objective, based on documents and policies, et cetera.

    But at the same time, whenever there is a human angle, you need to understand what is happening behind the scenes. So whenever we are in such a situation where we have to conduct an internal investigation, apart from going through the policies and documents, et cetera, we also need to go into the depths of what people perceive is wrong when a complainant is making a complaint. You have to understand from their perspective what exactly they are saying has happened in a wrong fashion, or the policies that have not been adhered to.

    There’s non-compliance, right?

    And they will not be able to write down that as per this particular policy this is wrong and therefore I’m complaining. It’s never that simple; it’s always gray. The practice of law itself, at least in India, most of the time deals with the gray.

    So as far as this process is concerned, one has to have a deeper understanding and should be able to create a very, very thorough process for themselves which can be followed in order to conduct an impartial investigation as an independent investigator, because most of the time these reports are actually submitted to either the board or the shareholders, and they should be able to communicate very, very clearly what the risk aspects are and what exactly has happened, what steps to take next as per the policy, and what steps are required to be taken as well. So, I would say a very clear and thorough process has to be devised. Most organizations have a very clear internal investigations or whistleblower policy, but of course they don’t prescribe a process, because processes are developed and created by the independent investigator, which comes through.

    And of course, you should be able to communicate very thoroughly and very clearly who the individuals are that you want to interview and what documents you need to look at. There is always resistance. I would say there is always resistance, but at the same time you should be able to get past that and thereafter conduct a meaningful and result oriented investigation.

    When investigating or working with a company, it’s difficult to build immediate trust, and the same applies to team members. You started Gravitas Legal about a decade ago, how did you find the right team members who share mutual trust and understanding with you? With the global presence you are now building, how has that been possible, and what strategies did you follow to develop and sustain that trust within your team?

    See, legal practice has changed a lot in the past decade or so. When we established Gravitas Legal back in 2015, I think that was around the same time there was this spurt of new generation law firms. I think that was the time around 2014, 2015 when there were a lot of breakaway firms that started coming through.

    The idea at that point in time, our main motivation rather, to start Gravitas Legal, was that we wanted to create something new and something better than what we had seen and what we had experienced. There were things that we wanted to do differently and probably advise differently, probably conduct the business differently, probably administratively we wanted to set up something new and different, probably partnership structure-wise, we wanted to create something new and different. So primary motivations were these. I am extremely thankful for all the people who have, in the past 10 years, worked with us, because each one of them has not only been instrumental in our growth but also has always ended up teaching us something new.

    I think the number of people or the newer people that we have worked with, they have kept us grounded in our upbringing also as a firm. Because like I said, in the past 10 years, the practice of law, the practice of law firms, has changed drastically.

    The market has changed drastically. There are opportunities like there have never been before. If you are a hardworking, focused person, there are opportunities galore for youngsters. At the same time, there is freedom. And I would also say that the perspective of clients has also changed.

    Clients have become very result-oriented, and they also allow the freedom that is required by lawyers and law firms to operate. The advent of so many newer firms actually shows that there is enough institutional work.

    There is enough corporate work in the market, and that actually shows the maturity that the Indian clientele is also achieving slowly. Of course, there are foreign clients also, but the Indian client has also matured in that they don’t want to go to the same old lawyers or the same old law firms. So the entire ecosystem has matured quite a bit. As far as my younger colleagues are concerned, younger colleagues or colleagues, my contemporaries are concerned, like I was saying, we are extremely thankful to them that they have spent the time they have spent with us and helped us grow immensely. There are a lot of our ex-colleagues who have now probably moved on and taken new roles in either different law firms or in-house. And actually, when I look back and remember where we all had started from and when I see that time has run so fast and people have grown so much and the growth has been mutual, frankly, that actually shows that perhaps we were doing something right and probably, somehow, slightly, we also contributed to their growth. I would say in that case, more than that position of trust and confidence, I think it was mutual confidence. Like I said, in the past 10 years, there are opportunities galore in the market, and still people trusted us, worked with us, and have been participating in our journey. I’m very thankful for that.

    Growing together not only feels good but also helps a law firm grow exponentially. Over the past 10 years, you and your firm have mutually grown, and along the way, you’ve worked on cross-border transactions, joint ventures, corporate law, and M&A, areas very different from what a general counsel usually handles. In today’s environment, where businesses are moving toward sustainable models, how do you see Gravitas Legal progressing in the next 5–10 years, and what plans have you made? While working in such niche fields, how do you identify which strategies work, which don’t, and how do you explain complex issues in simple language for clients who, though corporate, are still human? How do you train your team to do the same, keep everyone grounded despite pressures like money or mental strain, and ensure work is done beautifully, as you have been doing?

    Sure. Just concentrating on the first part of your question, considering the various areas of my practice or the firm’s practice, the firm actually practices general corporate, M&A, private equity, venture capital. We have a great and flourishing insolvency and restructuring practice, project finance, and we also do corporate litigation, indirect tax, criminal law. And they have developed, and let me just tell you this, we had started off with in the first instance.

    We started off as a boutique project finance law firm at that point in time. And then thereafter, we picked up. I was only 6 or 7 years into the profession when we had started, and I was responsible for building the general corporate and ancillary practices, as I call them. So, general corporate and M&A and PE VC funds, insolvency, restructuring, corporate and litigation strategy, everything came later. We were first a boutique project finance law firm.

    When starting off as a project finance law firm and when we saw that this is the only practice area that we are starting off with, our first concentration was on doing what we do best, which was project finance. Soon, when people also realized that now we are independent of any other tag and this is the ship that we are running, people would approach us, clients would approach us with different requirements.

    As from a young lawyer’s perspective, yes, you have to learn, you have to study while practicing also, you have to study. I have, despite having started Gravitas, while today it seems that time has flown like anything, it has been a journey which has required a lot of hard work. When you look at building new practice areas constantly, there are also things that you are dealing with for the first time. And practice areas which you have probably earlier not touched upon. There has to be an approach that you have to develop.

    It’s like how it goes for any lawyer who is just passing out from a law school and entering this business when they are a complete clean slate. When you start a practice area as a partner also, or rather as a leader at a law firm, the idea is that you should develop first a deeper understanding at your end of what you are dealing with or what you are approaching.

    What is that practice area that you want to master? Or rather, you should be able to go out there and say that we can do a major value add to whoever we are supporting in a new practice area. And then building credibility. Yes, organizations and institutions just don’t line up outside your door to give you work.

    You have to show them that you can actually perform, and there are a lot of smaller things that you would start with, things that make them gain confidence in you, and they should also be able to give you those opportunities.

    So from a young lawyer’s perspective, I would say that yes, these are not the times when you can be completely oblivious to whatever is happening around you. And you can just, you know, like this, you can just go enter your office, do your work, get up and go and live your lives.

    But one should be actually looking constantly at developing themselves as a professional. Keep on adding value into your own personality also. And that is what we try to do as a law firm as well. Probably, I would say the trajectories may be different, but the paths are the same ultimately.

    So, as far as our clients are concerned, yes, you are right. People are trying to create sustainable business models, and there is a huge concentration now on whether people are able to see you as an ethical business with sound governance models, sustainability models. So institutions, organizations, even smaller startups are also very conscious about this nowadays. And that is the way to go. I think the awareness that is now there, generally in the market regarding certain issues, especially environmental issues, there is a huge push towards creating sustainable models.

    When it comes to strategies, I’d like to ask about the base strategy you follow to take care of your own health, mental well-being, and also that of your team. Running a successful law firm obviously comes with pressure and challenges, so how do you overcome those? What kind of practices, trainings, or interactions do you use to ensure that everyone’s mental and physical health is taken care of, with the support and trust you’ve built within the team?

    Since the very beginning of my Gravitas Legal journey, or rather since the very beginning of my career, I’ve been very clear that I don’t carry my work home. By that I don’t for a moment mean that I don’t end up working at home sometimes, but I try to not discuss work at home, because if my family tends to get entangled in my work and if I carry my workplace stress home, then the office hours just keep on elongating. So I’ve tried to do that since the very beginning. I try to keep my Saturdays and Sundays very sacrosanct. It’s an effort, it’s an ongoing effort, but I try to ensure that I’m able to find clear me time or my family time on a very regular basis. My rules with my team are very clear that I will only ask you to work if I am working myself. So if I’m not working beyond 6 or 7 in the evening, they can also head home, enjoy life, enjoy whatever time that we can get.

    From an organization’s perspective, we try to set up a town hall every month or so, where we can just discuss things. It’s a great way to interact among different offices, and we try to discuss other things generally.

    In our town halls, we get to know so much about individuals that we are working with, rather than just the professionals. We found that one of us is a national-level athlete, for example. One of us was a great singer and an instrument player.

    So, in order to break the monotony of work, we try and make these efforts. Then we also try that, on a very regular basis, we do one or two youngster-type holidays, where we drive to the mountains and go to very difficult places where there is a lot of adventure and where everybody’s an equal. These are the kinds of things, at least stress busters, that we try to implement at the office. Generally also, we try to keep a very calm and casual environment in the office where people don’t feel over-pressurized. There is always pressure, there is always stress in the practice of law.

    There is no doubt about it, but at the same time these are the efforts that we try to make, and it’s a constant effort again, because times keep changing. There are a few months when there is no breathing space at all and there is constant struggle, there is no clock.

    Things like those happen, but then we try to manage our work well, and we try and find as much time as individuals also in our own lives.

    Get in touch with Varij Sharma –

  • “Moving from the courtroom to corporate boardrooms, I learned to switch between adversarial advocacy and collaborative problem-solving.” – Shreya Mehta, Counsel at TD SYNNEX.

    “Moving from the courtroom to corporate boardrooms, I learned to switch between adversarial advocacy and collaborative problem-solving.” – Shreya Mehta, Counsel at TD SYNNEX.

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

    From completing your B.B.A LL.B from Symbiosis to pursuing an LL.M. at NYU, how has your academic journey influenced your perspective on law and policy in a global context?

    What began as a spontaneous decision to pursue law gradually evolved into a conscious and enduring passion. Studying law taught me to view it not merely as a fixed framework, but as an ever-evolving dialogue across jurisdictions. At Symbiosis, I built a strong foundation in core legal principles within the Indian context, and later, my time at NYU shaped and broadened my entire perspective about it. 

    My motivation to pursue a post-graduation degree was a bit different from a lot of students out there. After nearly eight years of work experience, I decided to pursue my LL.M. at NYU; not as a break, but as a deliberate step to step back, reflect, and re-engage with law in a global classroom. That year was transformative. That experience allowed me to appreciate how legal systems can be both deeply interconnected and strikingly different, particularly in the areas I focused on; technology governance, environmental and energy policy. I believe that it also instilled in me the belief that a lawyer today must not remain confined within national borders or existing judgments, but should be ready to question, reinterpret, and challenge what they encounter at every step. I am also convinced that cultural context significantly shapes the way law is interpreted and enforced. Hence, my academic path enabled me to learn law in a way that extends far beyond textbooks.

    What inspired you to specialize in environmental and energy policy, with a focus on emerging technologies, during your Master’s at NYU? How did that experience enhance your understanding and practice of these areas?

    The real catalyst for my interest came during my time with the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance at the University of Cambridge. While researching the sustainability challenges of crypto-assets, I realized that what seemed like a niche question- whether blockchain-based assets could ever be environmentally sustainable- was in fact a window into a much larger set of issues around climate change, sustainable development, and the governance of emerging technologies. Over those nine months, I found myself asking bigger questions: how do we balance innovation with responsibility, and what role should law and policy play in steering that balance?

    When I decided to pursue further study, I chose the U.S. very intentionally. It has been a leader in both clean technology and regulatory innovation, and I knew that immersing myself in such an environment would challenge me and give me the global perspective I needed. NYU was the natural choice because of its emphasis on international and interdisciplinary learning. At NYU, seminars and courses such as Environmental & Energy Law Colloquium, and Law and Global Governance, allowed me to engage with both theoretical and practical dimensions of these challenges. I learned from professors who are at the forefront of global policy debates and worked alongside peers who brought perspectives from every continent. These interactions helped me see the intricate linkages between technology governance and environmental goals in a way that was both global and deeply contextual.

    That experience did more than just enrich my knowledge; it sharpened my conviction. I came away believing that solving climate and energy challenges will require not only technological innovation, but also robust legal governance frameworks that can adapt to the pace of change. It was at Cambridge where the spark was lit, but it was at NYU where that spark turned into a sustained commitment to work at this intersection.

    Early in your career, what were some of the most formative experiences, and how have you integrated those lessons into your professional practice?

    My most formative years were the initial three years, which were spent as a litigating lawyer under the mentorship of Mr. Anupam Srivastava (now Senior Advocate). For those three years, I had the privilege of working on a wide spectrum of matters across the High Court of Delhi, ranging from high-stakes political cases to civil disputes and recovery suits. Those experiences shaped me into the lawyer I am today. The environment was demanding yet enriching; drafting petitions, appearing before different courts, and learning to think on my feet. I entered litigation with stage fright, but my seniors’ trust and belief in me from the very first day when he handed me a file and asked me to argue before a registrar, is something that helped me as a young lawyer. Today, when I look back, that moment and many similar ones in those three years helped me shed my fear and find my voice as an advocate.

    I believe that the lessons I gained from my mentors and seniors during those years have stayed with me throughout my career. The discipline of drafting in litigation helps me today when I negotiate and draft million-dollar contracts or company-wide policies at a Fortune 500 IT distribution company. The advocacy skills I mastered in court helped me adapt seamlessly at NYU, where the Socratic method requires you to engage, challenge, and defend ideas in real time. I owe much of my professional growth to those early years and to the mentorship I received in that chamber, and they continue to anchor me, along with my work, and give me confidence as I navigate newer, global domains of law and policy even today.

    You’ve navigated diverse legal domains, from litigation and corporate law to compliance and emerging technology regulations. How do you adapt your approach when moving across such varied fields?

    Litigation gave me the strongest toolkit a lawyer can ask for; clarity of thought, precision in drafting, and the ability to argue under pressure. These skills are transferable across every legal domain I have since navigated. Whether drafting a court petition, negotiating a transaction, or shaping Data Privacy or AI governance frameworks, the process is similar- understand the facts, identify the risks, and build persuasive solutions.

    What changes is the context, and that is where adaptability comes in. Moving from the courtroom to corporate boardrooms, I learned to switch between adversarial advocacy and collaborative problem-solving. Litigation instilled resilience and meticulousness in me, and corporate practice taught me pragmatism and strategy. The combination of both makes me comfortable navigating even uncharted and new territories like digital assets or AI regulation, even after years of practice.

    While managing legal and policy functions at a cryptocurrency trading platform and later at Yellow.ai, what were some of the most challenging regulatory or compliance issues you faced in the digital assets and AI space?

    In the digital assets space, I faced regulatory ambiguity, which was new from what I was practicing before. When I started working for a cryptocurrency startup, digital asset regulations were not even at the nascent stage; everything was fragmented across jurisdictions, and mostly contradictory. The challenge was to build robust compliance structures in a grey zone, ensuring innovation without regulatory backlash- worldwide. Whereas at Yellow.ai, the challenge shifted to AI-driven business models, where data privacy, AI ethics, and regulatory uncertainty required foresight. Here, I guess, approaching every issue systematically, anticipating risks, and preparing strong documentation and frameworks to withstand scrutiny helped a lot. 

    From litigation to working in fast-growing tech spaces, the change was quite different, but as I mentioned, the approach remained similar, and these experiences taught me that in emerging fields, lawyers must not only interpret law but also actively shape it through dialogue with regulators and industry stakeholders.

    In your current focus on data privacy, AI governance, and sustainability laws, what shifts have you observed in these areas, and how do you navigate these evolving dynamics?

    Currently, I look after Data Privacy & Protection, AI Legal Governance, and Sustainability Laws for an IT distribution giant across the Asia-Pacific Japan region. The scale itself is humbling; advising a multinational with thousands of employees and partners requires not just legal expertise, but also cultural sensitivity, strategic alignment, and the ability to anticipate risks in markets that are at very different stages of regulatory maturity.

    This role is a stark departure from my earlier years in litigation and tech startups, but the contrast has been invaluable. While litigation sharpened my advocacy and analytical skills, working with startups trained me to be agile in ambiguous regulatory spaces. Now, in a corporate environment of this size, the challenge is about building governance structures that are both robust and scalable.

    The biggest shift I’ve observed is the fine balance between principles and accountability. In Data Protection & Privacy, this means embedding privacy by design into products, processes, and systems, instead of treating it as an afterthought. In AI Governance, the conversation is rapidly moving from broad ethical principles to concrete, enforceable frameworks like the EU AI Act, where businesses must demonstrate active risk management and transparency. And, in Sustainability, voluntary ESG disclosures are giving way to mandatory reporting requirements, with investors, regulators, and even consumers demanding credible, data-backed commitments.

    To navigate this evolving landscape, I rely on two approaches. First, I lean on the structured thinking that my litigation and academic experiences instilled in me; fact-finding, risk assessment, and precise documentation are my constant go-to. Second, I draw on my corporate and policy exposure to design governance frameworks that don’t just tick regulatory boxes but align meaningfully with business goals, enabling companies to remain compliant while still innovating and growing.

    Looking ahead, I believe the role of lawyers in these domains will become increasingly proactive. We are no longer just interpreters of the law; rather, we are architects of governance, guiding organizations through uncharted territories where law, policy, and technology converge.

    Having worked at the intersection of environmental law, corporate governance, and emerging technologies, what trends do you see shaping the future of legal practice in these areas?

    I believe the practice of law in my area is moving toward a far more anticipatory and integrated role than it has been in the past. Instead of being called upon to interpret rules once they are in force, lawyers are already and will increasingly be involved in shaping how those rules are designed, tested, and embedded into business strategy from the outset. In my view, this is especially true for fields like data protection, AI governance, and sustainability, where the pace of innovation is far faster than the pace of regulation.

    Another change I see is the growing expectation that lawyers act as translators, not only of law into practice, but of complex issues across various disciplines. For example, when discussing sustainability with the management of a company, the lawyer will not only have to explain reporting requirements, but also connect them to investor risk, technology adoption, and long-term corporate resilience. That level of cross-disciplinary fluency is going to define successful practitioners in the coming decade.

    Also, the global-local tension will only deepen as we are witnessing. We may see convergence in certain areas, like sustainability disclosures, but fragmentation will persist in fields like data protection and A.I regulations. Lawyers of the future will therefore need to be not just regulators’ watchdogs, but strategic advisors, who can help organizations craft governance frameworks that are both globally coherent and locally responsive.

    In short, I see the role of the lawyer evolving from interpreter of law to designer of governance, someone who not only ensures compliance but also helps businesses earn trust, stay resilient, and lead responsibly in uncertain times.

    What advice would you give to young lawyers seeking to build multidisciplinary expertise across litigation, corporate practice, and global regulatory policy?

    If I were to give one piece of advice, it would be to start with litigation if you get the chance. Those years in the courtroom gave me the strongest foundation: clarity of thought, discipline in drafting, and confidence in advocacy. As mentioned above, I still draw on those skills every single day, whether I am negotiating deals, drafting contracts, or shaping governance frameworks for global companies. Beyond that, I would encourage young lawyers to stay curious and not box themselves into one practice area too early. The legal profession today rewards breadth as much as depth, and a non-linear career path is not a weakness- it is rather a strength. Every shift, whether from litigation to corporate advisory or from startups to global policy, adds another dimension to your skillset and makes you a more resilient lawyer. And I cannot overstate the importance of mentors. I was fortunate to have seniors early in my career who trusted me and gave me real opportunities, and that faith shaped my confidence and growth. Seek out mentors who challenge and guide you, and be willing to learn from every opportunity, no matter how small it seems at the time.

    With such a diverse portfolio and responsibilities, how do you maintain personal well-being and work-life balance? Are there any particular strategies or resources you rely on?

    For me, balance has never been about drawing a hard line between work and personal life; it’s about weaving them together in a way that feels organic in my day-to-day life. I have found that movement is my best anchor. Whether it’s an early morning workout or a long evening walk to clear my head, those moments give me the energy and mental space to reset. They are often when I do my best thinking, away from screens and meetings.

    I also try to pick up new hobbies from time to time, something completely outside the legal world. Recently, it has been experimenting with different dance forms and cooking. Having something creative to turn to reminds me that my identity is bigger than my work, and it helps me keep perspective when deadlines pile up. It was early in my career, I learned how easily work can take over every waking hour if you let it. Now I’m intentional about boundaries. I’ll close my laptop at a certain time, put my phone away during dinner with family and friends, and make sure weekends have at least one pocket of time just for me. These small choices add up eventually- I have come to see well-being not as a luxury, but as a professional necessity.

    Get in touch with Shreya Mehta –

  • “For students and young professionals moving from engineering to patent law, the first step is to maintain your strong technical knowledge.” – Iti Negi, Patent Practitioner.

    “For students and young professionals moving from engineering to patent law, the first step is to maintain your strong technical knowledge.” – Iti Negi, Patent Practitioner.

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

    In the early stages of your journey, particularly while transitioning into the world of intellectual property, what were some defining experiences that helped shape your practice in patents? Could you share any formative instances that honed your core skills?

    Overall, my journey in the field of Intellectual Property (IP) has been both enriching and transformative. Each organization I have worked with has added a unique dimension to my understanding of IP, helping me grow both technically and strategically. While I have had the opportunity to learn immensely at every stage, there are two experiences that stand out. Not only because of the nature of the work involved, but also because they came at pivotal moments in my career and had a lasting impact on how I approach patent practice today.

    The first was my transition into an in-house role at LG Electronics, which marked a significant turning point. Although this was not at the very beginning of my career, it was one of my earliest exposures to working in a large, innovation-driven product company. It was an exciting time as the first iPhone had just launched, reshaping the mobile industry. I was one of the few patent professionals hired outside LG’s IP team in South Korea, which gave me a unique vantage point.

    This role gave me critical exposure to the intersection of product design and IP. I worked extensively on handheld devices, touchscreens, and human machine interfaces. I learned to break down products into their technical components and identify key innovation areas. It was here that I began to understand the importance of aligning patent strategy with product roadmaps, ensuring that each patent family supported not just a single product but an entire innovation trajectory.

    In addition, I had the opportunity to contribute to emerging areas such as smart TVs and smart home initiatives. This showed me how cohesive, ecosystem-level IP strategy can create stronger value than isolated patents. Collaborating with different business units and cross-functional teams deepened my appreciation for how patents can be leveraged as long-term strategic assets. That early experience of helping shape an IP function within a rapidly evolving tech landscape laid a strong foundation for my future roles.

    The second defining chapter came during my time at Nokia USA. As part of Nokia’s patent team, I worked across high impact areas like User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX), Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR), and digital health. Being immersed in Nokia’s global innovation ecosystem, from Nokia Research Labs and Nokia Bell Labs to academic collaborations across Europe and Asia, broadened my horizons both technically and culturally.

    My role encompassed a wide range of responsibilities including invention harvesting, portfolio development, prosecution, and strategic patent portfolio management across key jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, China, Japan, and Korea. I also got exposure to work with Technical Support teams for different patent licensing projects at Nokia. This includes preparing claim charts and evidence of use analyses, contributing directly to licensing and divestment strategies.

    This is where I gained a nuanced understanding of how the clarity and scope of a patent can directly influence its commercial value and enforceability. I began to think more holistically, not just about obtaining patents, but about building enforceable, high-quality assets that could withstand scrutiny in licensing and litigation contexts.

    Together, these two experiences helped me develop a well-rounded perspective, one that balances deep technical insight, legal precision, and strategic foresight. They taught me to view IP not just as a legal function, but as a business enabler, and that mindset has stayed with me throughout my career.

    With over 17 years of in-house patent experience, looking back, what initially inspired you to pursue a degree in law after completing your engineering? Was patent law always an area of interest, or did your passion for it evolve organically over time?

    Looking back, my path into patent law was not something I had mapped out early on. It was a journey that evolved gradually, shaped by experiences, exposure, and curiosity. What started as an interest in understanding how technology impacts real-world outcomes slowly matured into a deep, lasting passion for IP and patents.

    During my engineering years, I was always intrigued by how innovation could be protected, monetized, and scaled. Through internships and early professional experiences, I began to realize that I was drawn not just to the technical side of things, but to the intersection of technology, business, and strategy. I found myself wanting to explore the broader picture, what happens beyond the invention itself.

    That curiosity eventually led me to the field of intellectual property. I was particularly fascinated by how IP brings together technical analysis, strategic thinking, and legal structure. My initial experiences with patent work, mostly through hands-on projects and on-the-job learning, made a strong impression on me. The more I was exposed to the field, the clearer it became that I wanted to move beyond executing individual patent tasks. I was eager to contribute to broader innovation strategies and understand how legal frameworks support long-term business goals.

    As I worked across different projects and domains within the IP space, I gained a better appreciation for the breadth of the field. Patent law is vast, and exposure to varied technologies and business contexts helped me understand which aspects resonated with me the most. Over time, it became clear that deepening my legal understanding would allow me to be more effective and more strategic in my role.

    This was the turning point that led me to pursue a law degree. It was not about switching careers but about enhancing the one I was already building. Law helped me connect the dots between technology, innovation, and strategic value creation. It gave structure to the insights I had been developing through experience. 

    You’ve managed patent portfolios across major jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, Japan, China, Korea, and India. What are some of the most nuanced challenges you’ve encountered in aligning with these diverse legal frameworks?

    Yes, that’s right, managing patent portfolios across multiple jurisdictions involves navigating various topics and requirements, which can present nuanced challenges when trying to align a global strategy.

    One of the few topics to keep in mind is patent eligibility, particularly for software and business methods. Compared to other jurisdictions, the US tends to be more permissive but requires to show specific improvements in computer functionality or technological solutions to overcome eligibility rejections, following the Alice decision. Europe places strong emphasis on the technical contribution of an invention, where a business advantage alone may not be enough to establish patentability.

    Technical disclosure requirements also vary significantly, and this can impact claim amendments during prosecution. For example, the European Patent Office (EPO) is very strict about amendments not containing subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. When making amendments, it is important to specify where the support lies in the original application. Although exact wording is not legally required, examiners generally prefer amendments that closely match the original text. 

    Handling of prior art and grace periods differs across jurisdictions as well. The US offers a one-year grace period after disclosure, whereas Europe generally requires absolute novelty before filing. China and India allow limited grace periods under specific conditions. These differences make the timing of public disclosures and use of nondisclosure agreements important considerations.

    Inventive step criteria is another aspect to be mindful of. For example, the EPO primarily assesses inventive step using the problem-solution approach. This involves identifying the closest prior art, establishing the objective technical problem based on the differences, and determining whether the invention would have been obvious to a skilled person.

    When it comes to claims, jurisdictions also vary in their preferences and fee structures. For instance, there is often a dislike of excessive independent claims, and claim fees can increase significantly with multiple dependencies or a large number of claims. Careful planning of claim scope and format is therefore necessary to balance broad protection with cost-effectiveness.

    Overall, these jurisdictional nuances call for a careful and flexible approach. Understanding local laws, working closely with local patent agents and attorneys, tailoring claim language and prosecution strategies, and managing disclosures thoughtfully are important steps to building a patent portfolio that is both effective and enforceable across different regions.

    What inspired your transition from practicing in the Indian IP ecosystem to pursuing an international role, particularly within the U.S. patent system? After nearly a decade of working in India, how did you navigate the shift, both technically and culturally and what were some of the key experiences as you adapted to the U.S. IP landscape?

    My move to the US was not a planned career step but was driven by personal reasons. However, during my practice in India, I consistently worked with multinational companies, expatriates, senior leadership, and patent attorneys and agents from the US, Europe, and Korea. I also managed international patent portfolios and was regularly exposed to global patent laws and treaties, which provided a strong foundation for the transition.

    Technically, adapting to the US patent system involved gaining a thorough understanding of its examination procedures, claim drafting nuances, and administrative and legal standards. On the cultural side, I embraced the collaborative and fast-paced work environment, learning to navigate diverse communication styles and team dynamics effectively.

    Overall, my prior international exposure made the shift smoother and helped me quickly align with the US IP landscape while appreciating the cultural differences that enriched my professional growth.

    In your in-house roles, you’ve worked closely with engineers and product development teams to build high-value patent portfolios aligned with business strategy. From this experience, what are some common pitfalls you often see at the early stages of innovation or idea disclosure that, if left unaddressed, can lead to challenges or setbacks during later stages of patent prosecution? How can these be proactively avoided?

    A common pitfall at the early stages of innovation or idea disclosure could be insufficient technical details in the Invention Disclosures. Inventors may focus on what a new feature or a use-case is but sometimes fail to fully articulate the know-how and why behind its technical effect. This lack of depth may challenge later patent prosecution. To avoid this, we could implement a structured invention disclosure process where the patent practitioners work with the Engineers at an early phase of patent workflow and provide examples on the level of technical details needed.

    Industrial Application or Utility of Inventions. It’s good to work with Inventors to demonstrate a practical application for their inventions. Jurisdictions scrutinize “abstract ideas” or “computer programs per se.” To counter this, disclosures must highlight technical effects and improvements to, for example, existing computing or vehicles, not just a new user experience.

    Initial invention disclosures may focus solely on current product features, potentially overlooking future developments or competitive design-arounds. This can result in unduly narrow patent claims. It is therefore advisable to collaborate closely with inventors to explore potential workarounds, alternative technologies, and foreseeable product evolutions to ensure broader and more robust claim coverage.

    By proactively addressing these areas, early ideas translate into a robust, high-value patent portfolio that aligns with business strategy.

    Looking ahead, how do you foresee the role of an in-house IP professional evolving, especially in the context of generative AI, rapidly emerging technologies, and shifting regulatory environments? What skills, perspectives, or mindsets will be critical for IP professionals to stay ahead?

    The role of an in-house IP professional is fundamentally transforming, demanding consistent vigilance across both technical and legal domains due to their rapid evolution. The rise of generative AI exemplifies this shift, raising complex questions from Inventorship, AI governance and evolving standards of subject matter eligibility for AI-related inventions across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, the increasing use of AI tools in patent drafting and analysis requires us to master new proficiencies while mitigating risks like data security and “hallucinations.” Staying current in these areas is crucial, allowing IP professionals to move beyond traditional counsel to provide proactive, forward-looking strategic guidance that anticipates both technological breakthroughs and their unique legal ramifications.

    For patent professionals, this shift demands a deep understanding of these technologies, the ability to ask the right questions to the inventors so as to use the details to draft patent applications and create a patent portfolio that is robust, strategically aligned, and resilient to future developments (future-proof patent applications). Simultaneously, the use of AI in media and content generation is raising complex questions in copyright law, including issues around authorship, fair use, and derivative works. Navigating these emerging challenges requires both legal adaptability and technical insight.

    For students and young professionals exploring a transition from engineering to law and ultimately into the IP and patent domain, what advice would you offer? Could you suggest a potential roadmap or strategies to help them stay relevant and future-ready in this interdisciplinary space?

    For students and young professionals moving from engineering to patent law, the first step is to maintain your strong technical knowledge. As an engineer or STEM graduate, you have a solid foundation. Try to stay current with the latest technological trends within your specific field. Understanding the core technology is crucial, as patent law focuses on protecting innovations you thoroughly comprehend.

    Next, develop your legal knowledge. Immerse yourself in legal manuals, textbooks, and case studies. You must become comfortable with legal language, statutes, and court rulings. This new legal expertise will combine with your technical background, creating a unique and powerful skill set vital for the interdisciplinary world of intellectual property. This allows you to understand the interplay between technology and legal strategy.

    Finally, sharpen your writing skills. Much of your work will involve writing patent applications and legal arguments. Master both technical writing, for accurate invention descriptions, and legal writing, for clear application of the law. Also, cultivate essential soft skills like analytical thinking, perseverance, and attention to detail. These qualities are vital for success and will give you a distinct edge in this rewarding field.

    Balancing a demanding career with personal well-being is no small feat. How do you maintain that equilibrium? Are there personal practices, habits, or philosophies that help you stay grounded and balanced in both your personal and professional life?

    Balancing a demanding global IP role with personal well-being is vital. My approach starts with prioritizing well-being as a non-negotiable. This means regular self-care activities that recharge me. Exercise, mindfulness, hobbies, and time in nature are essential. I schedule short breaks daily to rest. Taking proper vacations allows me to truly disconnect from work. Maintaining 

    Effective time management helps me find that crucial balance. I plan my schedule carefully to allocate time for both professional responsibilities and personal commitments. This structured approach allows me to manage the high demands of my role without constant “on-call” pressure, creating a clear distinction between work and personal life.

    A strong support network is also critical. I cultivate relationships with colleagues, mentors, friends, and family. Their guidance, emotional support, and practical help are invaluable in navigating challenges. This network provides a crucial sense of community and perspective. My personal philosophy centers on finding purpose and meaning in my work, which boosts job satisfaction. I embrace continuous learning and growth to stay adaptable.

    Get in touch with Iti Negi –

  • “The ability to understand new industries, learn continuously, and adapt legal thinking to new realities will make a significant difference.” – Riddima Sharma, Partner at ADP Law Offices.

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

    Today, with almost a decade of experience behind you, looking back, what first drew you to law, and how did your undergraduate years shape your interest in intellectual property and allied fields?

    My journey into law was less of a direct calling and more a process of discovery. Back then, I was more defined by the career paths I was closing the door on, and law felt like a world of opportunity. I treated my classes as an exploration, searching for that one area that would genuinely resonate with me. That moment finally came late in law school when I was introduced to Intellectual Property. As a still-developing field, it felt exciting, but what really captivated me was the unique space where creativity and legal protection meet.

    That curiosity turned into a passion during my first internship with Mr. Ameet Datta, (formerly a Partner at Saikrishna & Associates) now the Managing Counsel at ADP Law Offices. As I watched technology evolve and brands become more valuable, I realized just how vital IP is as a shield for innovation, ideas, and expression. It was that realization that truly set my career path.

    You went on to pursue an LL.M. at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre, one of the most respected programs in the world. What motivated you to choose this course, and how did studying in such an international academic environment broaden your understanding of IP law? Could you also share how aspiring candidates can enrol in such a prestigious program?

    You know, it’s funny, I was getting really into IP law, but I kept feeling like I was seeing everything through a keyhole. All the thinking, all the cases, were from my own country’s perspective, and I just had this nagging feeling that I was missing the bigger picture.

    MIPL stood out because it is uniquely focused on IP and brings together expertise from leading institutions such as Max Planck and the University of Augsburg. The program offered not only academic rigor but also the opportunity to learn alongside peers from across the world, each bringing their own perspective and experience. This international exposure was invaluable, as it gave me a broader view of how IP is understood and applied across jurisdictions.

    For aspiring candidates, I would say the most important step is to build a strong foundation in IP during undergraduate years and to engage actively with research and writing in the field. The selection process is competitive, but genuine interest, clarity of purpose, and prior work or academic contributions in IP can make a strong application.

    Alongside your studies, you published articles on significant IP issues such as copyright royalties, broadcasting rights, and the recognition of “well-known” marks. What inspired you to explore these themes, and how do you see academic writing contributing both to your professional practice and to the wider discourse on IP law?

    During my course (thanks to MIPLC), I realised that writing is one of the best ways to discipline one’s thoughts and meaningfully contribute to discussions in this field. As students, we are often trained to see issues from a purely academic perspective, where outcomes are framed as either right or wrong. What MIPLC taught me instead was that in law, nothing is absolutely right or wrong . Rather, it is the reasoning and interpretation that lends weight to a position. That shift in perspective stayed with me. At the time, I chose to write on subjects like copyright royalties, broadcasting rights, and well-known marks, not only because I was working on them closely, but also because they had direct implications for creators and businesses. Over the years, I have come to value writing even more as it contributes to the collective understanding of the profession and, at times, can influence how laws are read and applied. For me personally, it became a bridge between academic study and real-world practice.

    You began your professional career with Saikrishna & Associates, where you grew into the role of Senior Associate. Could you share some defining experiences from this phase whether in trademark prosecution, IP litigation, or consumer protection that played a key role in shaping your growth as a lawyer?

    My early years at Saikrishna & Associates were deeply rooted in IP litigation, where I had the chance to work on matters that were both complex and high-stakes. Most of my focus was on IP disputes, and I was fortunate to work alongside some of the sharpest minds in the field. Those years gave me invaluable exposure from the intensity of courtroom practice and the rush of filings, to client interactions and my own growth as a lawyer. 

    Another significant phase of my career was in consumer protection, where I was entrusted with leading a team for a leading mobile manufacturer. The role required me to think beyond just the legal arguments, it was about strategy, execution, and making sure the client’s interests were protected at every stage. What stayed with me from that experience was not just tackling the legal issues, but also learning how to manage a team, set direction, and maintain consistency across multiple jurisdictions. That combination of leading people while steering complex matters was a real turning point in my professional journey and continues to shape the way I approach cases even today.

    Over the years, you have gained exposure to diverse domains such as trade regulatory compliance, consumer law, employment disputes, and arbitration. How has this multidisciplinary experience been beneficial to handle complex, multi-jurisdictional matters for global clients? What sector-specific challenges have you faced while dealing with arbitrations for international clients?

    My experience across these different domains has taught me that client issues rarely fit into neat legal boxes. What I have found, especially with complex, multi-jurisdictional matters, is that an issue that begins as a regulatory query can quickly intersect with consumer law or have employment implications. Having that broad background helped me to connect those dots early on. Instead of looking at a problem from a single perspective, I can anticipate how it might evolve and build a more resilient strategy for the client, which is essential when you’re navigating different legal cultures.

    In arbitration, I have seen how sector-specific challenges can shape the course of proceedings. For example, in matters involving international clients, aligning the expectations of different legal systems with the procedural framework of arbitration requires careful navigation. There are also cultural and commercial nuances that need to be factored in, since what is persuasive in one jurisdiction may not resonate the same way in another. Learning to manage these differences while keeping the client’s broader objectives in mind has been an important part of my journey.

    In your current role, what inspired your transition, and how are you approaching the leadership responsibilities of managing large-scale IP litigation campaigns and advising clients across multiple industries? What essential qualities do you look for when building your team?

    The transition into my current role has been quite recent, so in many ways it is still a process of learning, adapting, and growing into the responsibilities that come with it. What inspired the move was the opportunity to work more closely with clients on a larger scale, not just on individual disputes but in shaping their overall IP strategy and helping them navigate complex litigation campaigns.

    When it comes to leadership, especially on these large campaigns, my philosophy is pretty simple: give people a clear map and a good compass, then trust them to navigate their part of the journey. My main job is to make sure everyone understands the ‘why’ behind what we’re doing, the client’s ultimate goal. Once that vision is shared, I find the best results come from giving talented people the autonomy and support they need to truly own their work. It’s about guiding the strategy without micromanaging the execution.

    As for building a team, a strong resume is just the start. I look for a certain mindset. I want people who are naturally curious, the ones who are always asking “what if?” because that’s how you stay ahead in a field like IP. I also look for a deep sense of accountability, where people treat a client’s problem as if it were their own. But above all, I look for a genuine collaborative spirit. A high-stakes litigation campaign is a team sport, and you need people who instinctively pick each other up and push each other to be better, especially when the pressure is on. That’s the kind of team that truly succeeds.

    Looking back on your journey from law school to partnership, what key values have remained constant? What advice would you give to young lawyers aspiring to build a career in intellectual property especially when it comes to balancing deep subject expertise with the ability to adapt to rapidly changing technological and regulatory landscapes?

    Looking back, the values that have remained constant for me are sincerity, consistency, and respect for the profession. No matter the stage of my career, I have found that showing up prepared, being thorough, and treating people with fairness has gone a long way in building trust with clients, colleagues, and even opponents in litigation. These values have shaped not only the way I work but also the way I lead. For young lawyers interested in IP, my advice would be to build a strong foundation in the subject while also remaining open to change. IP is deeply linked with creativity and technology, both of which are evolving faster than ever. The ability to understand new industries, learn continuously, and adapt legal thinking to new realities will make a significant difference. At the same time, it is important to stay grounded in the basics, because strong fundamentals are what allow you to adapt with confidence. If you combine deep subject knowledge with curiosity and flexibility, you can find a very rewarding path in IP law.

    Get in touch with Riddima Sharma –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Get in touch with Kunal Sinha –

  • “AI is certainly going to play an important role in compliance and investigations, but I don’t see it as something that will completely take over.” – Guneet Gudh, Principal Associate at Panag & Babu.

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

    You have built a distinguished career as a Financial Crimes & Corporate Governance Lawyer. What initially drew you to this specialisation, and how did your academic background shape the perspective you bring to your practice today?

    I grew up around conversations on business and decision-making, so questions of accountability and systems were never abstract for me; they were part of daily life. That naturally drew me toward financial crimes and governance, because I could see how one weak link could impact an entire organization. My academic journey from JGLS to experiences at LSE and Augsburg University gave me the global perspective I needed. It taught me to look at compliance and governance not just as rules to follow, but as tools to build trust and resilience. That mix of early exposure and academic grounding still defines the way I practice today.

    In your experience across developed and emerging markets, what are the most striking differences in investigative and compliance strategies? Which international best practices could be effectively localised for India’s evolving landscape?

    I would challenge the notion that the differences in compliance approaches lie solely between developed and emerging markets. In my experience, the real distinction is not geographical; it stems from the ethics, priorities, and compliance mindset of an organisation’s leadership. When leadership is genuinely committed to integrity and transparency, even jurisdictions with evolving regulations can foster proactive and effective compliance. Conversely, where leadership is indifferent or evasive, even the most advanced regulatory systems can be rendered ineffective.

    That said, India can certainly benefit from selectively adopting global best practices, such as strengthening internal controls, conducting sharper and more independent compliance audits, and leveraging technology-driven tools for real-time monitoring. However, these mechanisms only achieve their purpose when reinforced by strong leadership and a well-equipped legal and compliance ecosystem that recognizes compliance not merely as a shield against penalties, but as a foundation for building sustainable trust.

    Looking toward the next decade, how do you envision the fusion of technology, governance, and cross-border regulation reshaping compliance practice, especially with the rise of AI and digital investigation tools?

    AI is certainly going to play an important role in compliance and investigations, but I don’t see it as something that will completely take over. The human element, the judgment, experience, and ethical grounding that specialists in this field bring, remains irreplaceable. Complex financial crime matters often involve nuance, intent, and context that no algorithm can yet fully grasp. It will take AI time to reach that stage.

    That said, I view AI as an additional strength in the lawyer’s toolkit. It can help sift through vast volumes of data, spot unusual patterns, and accelerate processes that once took weeks. But at the end of the day, AI is a supporting hand, not the lead investigator. The control, the strategy, and the interpretation still rest with the human professional.

    Right now, there is a tendency to overstate AI’s capabilities, almost treating it as magic. But in reality, it is just another tool, powerful, yes, but still a tool. I compare it to how Microsoft Office transformed law practice in the 1990s. Back then, it didn’t replace lawyers, but it fundamentally changed how we worked and made us more efficient. I believe AI will do the same; it will make us sharper and faster, but it won’t replace the human expertise at the core of the legal practice.

    The surge in online fraud, cyber-enabled financial crimes, and digital payment scams has created new challenges for regulators, corporates, and law enforcement alike. From your perspective, what gaps still exist in India’s current framework to address these threats, and how can legal practitioners play a proactive role in combating them?

    Online fraud is one of the fastest-growing risks, not just for individuals but for corporates and financial institutions. The sheer speed and cross-border nature of these crimes often outpaces traditional investigative and regulatory tools. While India has made strides with measures like the RBI’s fraud monitoring systems and the CERT-In framework, the ecosystem still faces gaps in coordination, reporting, and accountability.

    One of the biggest gaps is siloed response—banks, fintechs, law enforcement, and regulators often act reactively and in isolation. A more integrated framework, with real-time intelligence sharing, is urgently needed. Another issue is underreporting; many organisations hesitate to disclose fraud incidents out of fear of reputational damage, which only perpetuates vulnerabilities.

    Lawyers in white-collar practice can contribute significantly here: by advising corporates on robust fraud-prevention policies, ensuring compliance with reporting obligations, and guiding internal investigations that meet both legal and regulatory standards. Beyond that, we can help bridge the gap between technology and law—working with forensic experts, fintech players, and regulators to shape practical frameworks that keep pace with evolving digital threats. 

    As an established lawyer in governance, investigations, and white-collar matters, how do you mentor the next generation? What skills or tools do you recommend for them to thrive in today’s rapidly shifting regulatory and technological terrain?

    Mentorship, to me, is first and foremost about giving young lawyers the confidence to keep going and ensuring they don’t give up when the work feels overwhelming. This is a demanding field, and in the early years, it’s easy to doubt yourself. Sometimes the best role a mentor can play is simply to reassure them that discipline, consistency, and patience will carry them through.

    Beyond that, I see mentorship as preparing young lawyers not just for today’s challenges but for tomorrow’s uncertainties. I encourage them to cultivate adaptability, strategic thinking, and clear communication, because in white-collar practice, clients look to you as a trusted advisor, not just a lawyer. I also urge them to embrace technology – mastering data analytics, digital forensics, and regulatory tech platforms is no longer optional.

    Most importantly, I remind them that tools and trends will keep changing, but ethics, resilience, and statutory grounding never go out of fashion. Regulatory landscapes will shift, but if you stay curious, disciplined, and grounded in the law, you’ll be equipped to thrive at the intersection of law, business, and technology.

    Finally, what is your long-term vision for your practice as a Financial Crimes & Corporate Governance Lawyer? And how do you manage the demands and pressures of such an intense field while maintaining personal well-being?

    For me, discipline always tops the list. Without discipline, nothing else really sustains. Over time, discipline creates habits, and those habits make it easier to do the workday in and day out. In the early stages of your career, when you’re putting in long hours and truly immersing yourself, that consistency shapes you into a stronger professional. It’s like practice in any field—the more you repeat, the sharper you get.

    I also believe the right mindset matters just as much. Keeping the outlook of a leader, taking ownership, thinking ahead, and combining it with the endurance of an athlete helps you enjoy the journey rather than just endure it. This is not an easy profession, but when you bring discipline, habits, leadership, and endurance together, the work becomes something you grow with, not something you burn out from. That’s what keeps me motivated and makes the practice rewarding.

    Get in touch with Guneet Gudh –

  • “As I tell young lawyers, both prosecution and litigation have something to offer and embracing both helps you become better at each one.” – Nithya Somasundaram, Advocate Patent Agent at R K Dewan & Co.

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

    You have been practicing IP law for over 17 years, covering trademarks, patents, copyrights, and design protection. Looking back, what initially drew you to intellectual property, and how has your passion evolved over time?

    I am on the path I am today because of my guru, Professor P. Vanangamudi, whose initial guidance and mentorship shaped me into who I am now. I started my career with internships in criminal law and also experimented with some LPO work, but in 2005 I developed a fascination with intellectual property. I found patents particularly interesting because they connected back to my own scientific journey. On the first day of my internship, during a project with my learned mentors Adv. Surya Senthil (Ex-Technical Member – Copyrights) and Adv. Lakshmidevi Somanath (Ex-Technical Member – Trademarks), I was asked to draft an abstract for a patent application. That day proved to be a turning point, as it revealed how the law is deeply intertwined with scientific and innovative activity in very concrete ways. I was also fortunate to have Shri P. S. Surana (Co-founder, Surana & Surana International Attorneys) as my guide and mentor, whose constant encouragement to pursue IP and litigation drew me to focus on this field from that time onwards.

    In February 2009, I joined R.K. Dewan & Co., 82 years old IP boutique Firm that provided me with the right platform to grow my passion into a career. This is where my interest in IPR grew even stronger. I had the opportunity to learn, practice, and handle the next level of IP under the guidance of the luminary Dr. Mohan Dewan and the powerhouse of RKD, Dr. Niti Dewan. Their mentorship shaped much of what I am today at R.K. Dewan & Co. Prosecution had always been my comfort zone, and I was initially hesitant to step into litigation. My senior colleague, Advocate Balaji, through his guidance and strategic approach, inspired me and gave me the confidence to embrace litigation alongside prosecution.

    Over the years, what started as a fascination with patents grew into a much deeper dedication to all that is IP. I have come to see how trademarks, copyrights and designs are powerful strategic assets that promote innovation, branding and commercial growth beyond just legal rights. That evolution of seeing IP as a bridge between creativity, technology and commerce still inspires me everyday, even after 17 years of practice. 

    You pursued a B.A., B.L. (Hons) at the School of Excellence in Law, followed by a B.Sc. in Physics and an M.L. in International Law and Indian Constitution. How has this diverse academic background shaped your analytical approach and influenced your career in IP and litigation?

    I became a Registered Patent Agent due to my science background, which helped me navigate the technical side of patents. That history has been useful all along, especially when dealing with inventors or dealing with hearings with other parties and explaining their ideas.

    What really added value in my practice was my M.L. in International Law and Indian Constitution. I was given the big picture and scope of international and cross border cases that covered aspects of filings, prosecution rights and parties limitations. I worked at the Chennai firm of R. K. Dewan & Co., and worked on a few general civil litigation cases, as well. I always appreciated having a solid constitutional and international background, I could be exposed to the nature of the dispute while identifying where parties would have rights, an obligation (if there were any), and jurisdictional issues.

    Having appeared before the Trade Marks Registry, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Appellate Board, and Madras High Court, could you share the most memorable cases that significantly shaped your expertise in IP litigation and prosecution?

    Novartis vs Cipla – 3003/CHENP/2004, Chennai Patent office:

    One of the most formative experiences in my journey as an IP litigator and patent professional was the privilege of assisting and learning from Dr. Mohan Dewan during the landmark Novartis pre-grant opposition hearing before the Patent Office, Chennai. This case, which revolved around Application No. 3003/CHENP/2004 for “Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases,” stands out not just for its legal complexities but for the many lessons it imparted about the nuances of Indian patent law, especially around amendments, inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure.

    The case centered around Novartis’ application (No. 3003/CHENP/2004) for a new class of tyrosine kinase inhibitors molecules with critical relevance in cancer treatment. The pre-grant opposition, filed by Cipla under Section 25(1), challenged the patent on multiple grounds, including obviousness (Section 25(1)I), insufficiency of disclosure (Section 25(1)(g)), and questions under Sections 3(d), 10(4), 57, and 59 of the Patents Act.

    I experienced first-hand the intensity of argument and the importance of deeply understanding technical details and strategic legal arguments in a high-stakes Patent opposition. The proceedings, which saw formidable representation from both Novartis and the opponent, Cipla Ltd., brought several procedural and substantive issues into sharp relief. 

    I took part in examining prior art, dissecting the detailed claim amendments, and debating whether the reversal of an amide bond (and the resulting molecular changes) amounted to a non-obvious inventive step. The discussion on the sufficiency of disclosure was equally instructive particularly the Controller’s emphasis that, for new chemical entities (NCEs), it is the supported utility that matters most at the filing stage, not retrospective efficacy data, unless Section 3(d) is directly invoked.

    This case underscored practical lessons in legal drafting, oral advocacy, and the handling of amendments under Section 59, where every narrowing of claims must remain anchored in the original disclosure. The Controller’s decision ultimately dismissed all opposition grounds, recognizing the inventive nature and adequate disclosure in the application, and allowed the patent to proceed. The clarity and logic with which the order dealt with the inventive step set a new benchmark in my understanding of patent jurisprudence in India.

    I have personally argued over 400 patent matters before the Indian Patent Office, and have also actively conducted matters before the erstwhile IPAB, the Madras High Court, the Karnataka High Court, and various District Courts. Handling exhibits, preparing briefs, and formulating technical arguments in these cases has reinforced the critical importance of precision, clarity, and a comprehensive understanding of both law and technology. This experience has been a defining milestone in my practice, affirming that thorough preparation, strategic advocacy, and meticulous attention to detail are essential qualities for any successful IP litigator.

    As an Advocate & Patent Agent at R K Dewan & Co., you handle brand advice, design protection, and IPR consultations. What are the biggest challenges brands face when entering the Indian market, and in India’s evolving digital and tech-driven IP landscape, what common pitfalls do innovators encounter? How can companies proactively protect their IP from an early stage?

    India is an incredibly diverse and fast-moving market, with great buying opportunities but also very real issues for brand owners. Cost competition is high, squeezing brand owners’ margins, while the threats of counterfeits and infringement can damage brand owner’s reputations and market share. The complexity of regulations and enforceability adds to the pressure, and many companies, especially small to medium enterprises, fail to allocate the necessary budget or focus to protect their IP. However, many larger companies are becoming more proactive, and have dedicated IP divisions and in-house counsel to drive better IP management.

    One of our clients had encountered issues while attempting to register their brand on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM), as this Govt platform intensified scrutiny on IP registrations, requiring comprehensive documentation to ensure authenticity and protect genuine brands. This was a strong reminder that the scrutiny of IP rights is more rigorous than ever. This is particularly relevant as online marketplaces keep expanding, requiring mandatory registration of IP as procurement authorities seek to verify authenticity. Too often, we see innovators engaging with their IP reactively, addressing infringement only after it happened, which is not an effective strategy in the digital and fast moving world we live in.

    In short, companies entering the Indian market must recognize IP protection as a foundational business priority. A proactive approach to IP management, conducting searches, timely registration, and ensuring robust confidentiality protocols, will not only take away the pressure of challenges such as counterfeits or cost pressure, but will maximally enable commercial exploitation of innovation in a dynamic market.

    You are a member of the INTA Brand and Innovation Committee. How has this international exposure influenced your perspective on global brand protection, and what emerging trends do you see shaping the future of trademarks and IP innovation worldwide?

    Serving as a team leader of the Product & Counterfeit Technologies group within the INTA Brand and Innovation Committee has been an invaluable learning experience for me. In that capacity, I have been able to work with international Attorneys from different jurisdictions as we tracked global brand protection challenges, discussed emerging issues, authored articles and suggestions, and facilitated education webinars and roundtables. 

    This experience allowed me to see the highly variable way IP practice is conducted across countries, as it is shaped by the differing needs and differing levels of proactivity in IP practice. For example, while the US, Europe, and the United Kingdom have long-standing comprehensive infrastructure and practice in IP, I saw exciting and impressive development and, in many countries like South Korea, China, Japan, India, and Singapore, there is rapid growth and increasingly sophisticated practice in enforcement and justice in this area of innovation. 

    This has helped me to better appreciate that IP strategies for protection will require a more robust, adaptable, and technology-driven approach. I have also observed that emerging trends like the use of AI and other advanced technologies to combat counterfeiting are shaping the future of trademarks and IP innovation worldwide, demanding greater collaboration, vigilance, and creativity from brand owners and IP professionals alike.  

    Technology commercialization and contractual agreements have been a significant part of your practice. How do you navigate the complexities of IP licensing for both startups and established enterprises, and what are the key challenges involved?

    In my opinion, guiding startups or medium sized businesses through the maze of IP licensing can justly be viewed as a balancing act based on knowledge and communication. One of the major challenges I see more often than not is the general lack of awareness (or desire to comprehend) responsible IP rights and licensing agreements. This is particularly true of startups. The case examples are pretty minimal, primarily because many new ventures receive limited or zero direction and experience managing and structuring these kinds of agreements. 

    Using a Academia-Industry partnership adds to the challenge, particularly for the commercialisation of technology and associated contracts. Parties need to specify who owns what, how the IP can be used, what will be the method of profit sharing. They also need to ensure how the confidentiality of the parties is preserved. Having the interests of all parties aligned would be preferable. 

    Startups may face some of these challenges given their limited resources and less power to negotiate, while established companies can face IP portfolio management challenges, as well as competitive edge protection challenges. We all know this is made even more challenging when one tries to facilitate developing constructive, industry specific, strategies for clients, as the true potential of their IP is unlocked and allowed to flourish, whose value could easily be compromised.

    Your career started with internships and junior associate roles in IP and civil litigation. What early experiences have helped you navigate complex IP disputes and establish yourself as a trusted advisor?

    I think my development as a practitioner was really shaped by the formative early years. I started out doing internships and then as a junior associate, and I was lucky to experience two very different but related areas of law, civil litigation and intellectual property litigating. During that time, I was not merely learning about the law in theory. I was sitting through hearings, helping to draft pleadings, and seeing the approaches that senior advocates took in court in deciding how to strategize.

    My best experience was being able to balance both prosecution and litigation. So on the one hand, I had actual experience with patent drafting, oppositions, and trade mark filings, which I think taught me a very technical, detail-oriented framework, while on the other, I had the experience of working with seniors on IP enforcement issues before the Madras High Court and the erstwhile IPAB. 

    I learned two things: that preparation and details are very important when working with complex disputes; and then also, I learned the importance of having trust and a good flow of clarity with clients. Because when a client comes to you, they are looking for more than a lawyer. They need someone who can sort through technically complex, high-risk disputes and return clear, readily manageable solutions. Over the years, that aspect is what made me credible and established me.

    Having managed multi-faceted IP portfolios and brand strategies, how do you foresee the convergence of AI, digital platforms, and global trade impacting IP enforcement and commercialization in the next five years?
    I visualize the next five years will see the intersection of AI, digital platforms, and international commerce, which will dramatically reshape enforcement and commercialization. Regarding enforcement, brands will increasingly rely upon AI-based monitoring systems to identify infringement, monitor supply chains, and detect misuse on e-commerce and social media platforms. Furthermore, we are already seeing the implications of the power of data analytics and image recognition methods to detect infringement much faster than traditional efforts allow. 

    With respect to commercialization, AI will start to re-use and re-imagine the notion of an asset, not only as a tool. Whether it is through AI-generated content, predictive analytics to inform research and development, or digital licensing platforms, businesses are increasingly going to understand that intellectual property is not merely a shield, but can also be used as a mechanism to create financial value.

    For us as professionals, this means transitioning away from the strictly enforcement-based position to advising the business more strategically. We will need to align legal protection with technology adoption, but also to align the business’ global strategies. In short, the practice of intellectual property will necessitate more and more a combination of legal skills, technology adoption, and commercial insight.

    Finally, what advice would you give to young lawyers and professionals aspiring to specialize in IP law, particularly in balancing litigation and prosecution on a global stage?

    As I tell young lawyers, both prosecution and litigation have something to offer and embracing both helps you become better at each one. The IP practice in India has also expanded tremendously; it is no longer a “road less taken.” The competition in this domain has intensified, and the number of practitioners is now greater. Moreover, IP is not a one-stream subject; it has many distinct subfields like trademarks, patents, copyright, designs, and geographical indications, all of which require different expertise. Young practitioners should consider specializing in these subfields and develop a focus area, while retaining a broad understanding of the other sub-disciplines.

    The rivalry among young lawyers has reached unprecedented levels, particularly due to the surge of private institutions producing law graduates every year. On the positive side, this generation is skilled in the use of technology and AI tools; however, I would advise them not to use these platforms at the expense of other more dependable methods. The core of any law practice is undertaking thorough legal research, reviewing original texts, statutes, case law, and recognized commentaries.

    Get in touch with Nithya Somasundaram –

  • “Currently, India’s renewable sector is full of promise with scalability, strong government push, and growing global investor interest.” – Varun Chauhan, Partner at Luthra and Luthra Law Offices India.

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

    What initially drew you to specialize in banking and finance, given that they are such niche fields? Was law always your first choice, or did your interest evolve over time, and how did your experience at law school shape that journey?

    Law was always my first career choice after school, though I did take a 2.5-year break post-graduation to prepare for the civil services exams. During that time, I also enrolled in a regular post-graduation program in Corporate Laws and Management, which kept me connected with my subjects. While not getting selected did dampen the morale, I always had a stronger plan B to practice law. Banking and finance, however, happened by accident. I was inclined toward corporate laws, and during my first corporate internship I realized I enjoyed advisory work and project finance diligence more than litigation, which eventually set me on this path.

    In the early phases of your career, you worked with various law firms. What were the key learning experiences that laid the foundation for your practice and deepened your understanding of these niche fields?

    I started my career with a boutique law firm where my seniors gave me the right guidance and also the personal space to grow. That early trust helped me take ownership of matters in the project finance space. It gave me vast exposure in banking and finance and laid a solid foundation for my practice.

    Over the past decade, you have advised several leading financial institutions and banks. From your perspective, what are some of the most common challenges clients face in large-scale finance and infrastructure deals, and what is your approach resolving them?

    The most common challenge clients face is aligning their business targets with regulatory procedures and the internal legal processes of multiple lenders before disbursement. My approach is to simplify the legal risks, break them into practical solutions, and ensure the documents reflect clarity for all stakeholders. This balance builds trust and helps achieve timely closures.

    Project finance and structured finance transactions often involve multiple stakeholders across jurisdictions. What have been the most significant challenges in managing the interests of various parties, including cross-border entities?

    The most significant challenge is reconciling different regulatory and legal regimes while keeping the transaction commercially viable. Coordinating with foreign law counsel and managing across time zones often adds another layer of complexity. Clear communication and early identification of friction points help me act as a bridge between parties without compromising legal safeguards.

    Renewable energy financing is emerging as a key driver of India’s growth. Based on your experience advising on large solar and hybrid renewable projects, what do you see as the biggest opportunities and challenges in financing India’s clean energy transition?

    Currently, India’s renewable sector is full of promise with scalability, strong government push, and growing global investor interest. In recent years, I’ve also seen foreign banks gearing up for the Indian renewable market. The major challenges, however, lie in evolving regulations, land/title issues, and tariff uncertainties.

    Having worked extensively on both real estate and infrastructure finance matters, what are some of the key differences and unique legal considerations that distinguish these two sectors?

    While both real estate financing and infrastructure financing (like roads, ports, hotels, etc.) follow a broadly similar financing structure, real estate deals revolve heavily around title diligence of land and immovable properties. There are also RERA-specific nuances, particularly in the working of escrow accounts, which operate very differently from a standard infra sector financing deal. Each comes with its own unique risks, and navigating them requires sector-specific expertise and tailored solutions.

    Looking back at your career so far, what has been the most rewarding or intriguing high-value transaction or case you have worked on, and how did you navigate its challenges?

    Some of the most rewarding matters for me have been InvIT financing deals, which often involve complex funding structures at the InvIT level and on-lending to multiple SPVs. These transactions require balancing the interests of lenders with the operational realities of the SPVs. Navigating those complexities through clear structuring and negotiation has been both challenging and extremely fulfilling.

    Considering the demanding nature of your work, how do you strike a balance between professional commitments and personal life, and what practices help you avoid burnout?

    I believe it’s equally important to spend time with friends and family. I am also lucky to have a life partner who understands the demands of this profession, and she is truly a blessing. We follow a strict rule of avoiding work on weekends. Of course, there are times when the team has to deliver under strict timelines, and being there to support them with execution and strategy is non-negotiable. I also try not to over-commit to clients—discussing timelines with the team beforehand ensures realistic commitments and gives them a sense of inclusion.

    What has been your guiding philosophy throughout your career, and how has it helped you grow and manage challenges effectively?

    My guiding philosophy has been to stay curious, adaptable, and solution-oriented. Law is dynamic, and no two transactions are alike – embracing that mindset has helped me grow and navigate challenges. I believe consistency and integrity go a long way in building lasting professional relationships. Looking ahead, I see every transaction not just as a legal exercise but as an opportunity to learn, collaborate, and contribute to India’s evolving financial and infrastructure landscape. For me, the real reward lies in building lasting relationships and helping clients achieve their goals with clarity and confidence.

    Finally, what advice would you give to young lawyers aspiring to build a career in banking and finance law, particularly those who wish to specialize in real estate finance? What resources would you recommend?

    My advice would be to first build a strong foundation in contract and corporate law, and stay updated on RBI and sectoral regulations. This profession demands patience and consistency, so juniors should avoid being impatient and focus on diligence. Stay curious and never hesitate to ask questions, don’t let the fear of being judged stop you from clarifying crucial aspects of the practice. Practical exposure through internships and resources like legal commentaries or transaction-focused case studies are invaluable.

    Get in touch with Varun Chauhan –

  • Inside the practice of a First generation Litigator & Supreme Court AOR – Gagan Narang, Partner at Triumvir Law.

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

    Let’s start with your remarkable, successful career of being an Advocate on Record and partner at Triumvir Law. Looking back, what was the initial motivation behind pursuing the career in a law and was there any specific driving factor that you chose this field?

     So to start with, my parents, my family is a family of professionals and that is where the work ethic or the drive to be a professional.  Both my parents are doctors. Having said that, I was always into multiple different domains. I was always multifaceted, having multiple interests. Was involved in quizzing, debating, in fact was involved in the equity markets, had an interest in the equity markets in very early years as well. And that is where somehow the journey towards law shaped in, because I understood law to be a profession wherein you’ll get exposure to all kinds of environments, all the kinds of businesses, all the kinds of different facets of the world where every case in the legal field is a new case. Every case is unique in its own way, and that is the advantage that the legal profession gives. It keeps  things interesting, it keeps things fresh. That’s how my career shaped towards law in the first place.

    Also, I was kind of a rebel as a kid, did not wanna get into medicine because of those reasons as well.

    Thank you for openly sharing your decision to not pursue medicine despite your parents being doctors. You made it to Gujarat National Law University that shaped your legal and business acumen? Starting with a top law firm in Mumbai to now leading your own litigation practice in New Delhi, how was that journey? As a first-generation lawyer, what challenges did you face, and how did you overcome them?

     So, let’s put the first generation thing first. Multiple times in the process there have been days when you think that maybe a profession in the medical field would’ve been better because obviously there would’ve been some legacy that I would’ve carried. But having said that, the work ethic that was instilled or the work ethic that was put into me and the way I’ve seen my parents go about their days right from 8 in the morning to maybe 11 in the night. I’ve seen them working and that’s where the idea of hard work that is required in your professional field came into picture, and that is probably what helped in getting into the GNLU, that is Gujarat National Law University as well. 

    Everything basically came in a flow, so I started off at LKS – Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan and it was through the college, got college placement, went to Bombay, did tax advisory for a year or so. Tax was considered to be the toughest field of law that existed while we were in college and even today in practice I see there is a niche that’s been created about tax. And a big advantage that my experience that LKS gave me was that I understood probably what people or what lawyers don’t even want to get into because it’s a very specific, very niche field. A criminal lawyer is still comfortable doing civil law. I’ll not say anything is easy or tough, but with due respect to everyone, there are multiple lawyers dealing in different domains that do not actually want to get into tax.

    Working at LKS gave me that exposure and gave me that understanding that the toughest, probably the perceived toughest facet of law can also be understood, just by applying yourself to it. Something about GNLU, GNLU is one of those unique law schools which allows you to study multiple domains of law. So there is a BBA LLB which I pursued then there is a B.Com LLB that is going on. There is a BSc LLB  as well. There is a BA LLB, normally law schools have BA LLB, BBA LLB so they have multiple facets. Additionally, there are various co-curricular  activities, there are Interdisciplinary schools such as Center for Sports Law, Center for Public International Law. So there were a lot of opportunities that came my way thanks to these centers and thanks to these programs that the college provided. While pursuing all these courses, you always have the option to learn more, to understand more assets and not just understand the law in itself, but understand various domains as well.

    That is where the institute helped me a lot, besides, GNLU is always very proactive in moot court competitions, in debates, in parliamentary debates in MUNs as well. So that is another facet which helped in developing that personality, the exposure was always there. No matter where I was sitting in a remote corner in the Western part of the country, the exposure was always there to learn more and gain more knowledge in the journey.

    You have been representing clients both nationally and internationally in arbitrations, including obviously the cases that you have represented in Abu Dhabi, which was a SAP company in an international arbitration.

    What were some significant challenges that you encountered during those cross- border arbitrations and what unique difficulties do you see while you are doing those cross-border arbitrations and the way you strategize to overcome them?

      Cross-border arbitrations are a unique ballgame. When we understand a domestic arbitration or when we understand the way arbitration is practiced in India, mostly the arbitrators or mostly the tribunals are either retired judges or some significant authoritative figures who know the system that is applicable in a domestic arbitration very well. The system that is the Indian law very well. When you come to an international arbitration, the ballgame shifts completely. First and foremost, the arbitrators mostly, up to a certain extent, are mostly lawyers themselves.

    More importantly, these arbitrators mostly are from neutral backgrounds and neutral jurisdiction. So they per se might themselves not know the procedures that are involved in the applicable procedural law or the substantive law. They might not be privy to the substantive law in the first place.

    It becomes very important for the practitioner, for the council to specify, to take the tribunal along with them in the substantive law and in the procedural law because the arbitrator sitting might not correct in a domestic arbitration. An arbitrator might correct you if you’re going wrong in the procedure at least. An international arbitrator, the arbitrator themselves might be new or might be knowing the substantive legal part of it less, and therefore you need to take the arbitrator along with yourself. The second and more important facet is there is always a language or a communication gap that will exist. There is a specific way in which English is pronounced by us, which is Indian English. When you’re sitting in an international arbitration, the accent changes, the pronunciation changes and the understanding of the accent also changes. So it is very important to not just be clear in what you’re saying or what you’re thinking, but also to articulate your thoughts in a much better and a much simpler manner so that it’s conveyed properly to the opposite party, to the arbitrator, to everybody.

    This becomes an important aspect there. It is very important to be a very good listener in an international arbitration as well, because you have to be on your toes to decide your strategy later on, and for that you need to understand what your opposite party is saying or what is falling from the tribunal as well. These are the three observations that go besides the legal parts of it, but coming to the legal parts.

    The challenges always exist because when you’re doing an international arbitration, the domain entirely shifts. Now, the law that you might be dealing with, the substantive law that you might be dealing with is not the local law of your in-line that you practiced since whenever you started your legal education.

    So what happens is that you need to be very aware, you need to be very thorough and very well researched about the laws that you’re dealing with. So for example, the arbitration that you were talking about, the local law was of Abu Dhabi or United Arab Emirates. Now, a lot of facets came from Muslim law. A lot of facets came from Islamic law, per se, Sharia law per se. And when we initially got on to it we were not very privy to it. It did not come naturally to us, so we also had to go through a lot of details. We had to also go through the law in many details. Had it been a common law country, I would’ve said it still comes naturally because following common law, you know, the flow, you know the logic behind things.

    But when it comes to a country where the procedure, where the substantial law is entirely different from yours, comes, you need to be very thorough and very well researched in that aspect as well. So these are the few challenges that you face now.

    You have an expertise which spans through commercial litigation, international arbitration, as well as white collar disputes, which are often considered very high risk, and obviously confidentiality becomes a very important corner store for white collar crime.

    What kind of key factors do you focus on while you are dealing with these kinds of areas of law, which are not only very, very confidentiality centric, as well as privacy centric , because confidentiality is for the whole case, and privacy is for the parties. So how do you deal with all these?

    What I basically focus on, whichever field it is, is to break it down to the simplest molecule possible, to the simplest form of a thing possible. And when you come to white collar and you try to break it down, as I see there are two elements involved.

    There is one, a business or a company transaction that is happening and a company’s interest that is happening. And the other aspect is basically the criminal laws that are applicable to the same. So when we look at a white collar crime, it is a company doing a monetary transaction wherein the financial interests of the company are involved and maybe some element of criminal law to achieve those financial goals.

    When you are defending a company, or the corporate or the financial transaction, it is simpler because the transaction may be good, may go in your favor, the transaction may go against you but what is at stake is only the monetary aspect of it, which while is important to the company’s interest. Does not paramount the personal interest of the directors or the stakeholders sitting in the company. When you deal with white collars, the parameter expands and the personal aspects become more important because there could be a lifting of corporate will, there are criminal laws involved, so there will always be a liability or a penal liability that can arise in the form of imprisonment, in the form of fines, penalties on the directors, on the shareholders, on key managing personnel as well.

    What is important in the first place is to understand that most of these people, if there is an element or if there is an allegation of a crime that is alleged might not…, the boundaries of law are so thin and so bleak that they might not themselves know when they have actually transcended the boundary.

    Something which might be very obvious or something which might be very simple for someone, that person might have transcended the boundary a bit, and it becomes important in the first place to explain in a very normal, in a very conversational manner, without losing the confidence of the client, that there might be an issue or where the issue first or foremost arises.

    Obviously there will be transactions where there is a willful default and there is a willful transaction. But when there is not, it’s important to explain to the client where that particular transaction has happened. In other transactions, there might just be that there is an allegation, but there is actually no substance to the allegation and it becomes important to explain considering the Indian judicial sphere and considering the pendency in India that there will be light at the end of the tunnel. There will be justice at the end of the day. And these are procedural regulatory issues that will be handed in due course of time just by putting the best foot forward or the most transparent foot forward.

    One more aspect that is important to be understood is.

    Normally when a person thinks of crime, the person automatically becomes defensive. Even  as individuals, when these clients are in front of you, it becomes very important to get the truth or the exact truth out of them. So you need to be very careful with what you ask. Sometimes they’ll not tell you the entire thing because either they want to hide something or they don’t consider it to be important themselves.

    So it is important for you to ask the right questions, to get the right answers, and then formulate the strategy accordingly.

    In addition to all these kinds of legal responsibilities, you also have developed business for yourself, administrative tasks that you have taken up, and you are managing your Delhi office as well.

    How do you manage all of this and over the years, how has your role evolved in each of the segments of the organization? What kind of experiences are there in those challenges that you have overcome and the roles that you have kept on changing over time?  

     The challenge is an everyday thing. It’s still a challenge. It continues being a challenge, and I think it’ll continue being a challenge forever. And that’s the best part of it because every day when you deal with a challenge, you successfully come out of it. You feel you have achieved something which will help you sleep better that night . Having said that, I joined Triumvir Law back in 2021 when it was a smaller organization compared to what we have now, but we were gaining a reputation. The organization was gaining reputation in leaps and bounds back then as well. When I joined, my tasks were cut out very clearly for me, which was to start with making a base for the firm .

    And to also handle the litigation part of it because Anubhav, Akash, my partners were themselves getting overloaded with the kind of work that was coming in that is exactly where Anubhab reached out and asked me to join in, being friends since almost 2015, it was a no-brainer to go ahead. Since I left my firm role in 2018, I had only worked as an advocate. It was more about the legal thing, more about the matters, more about the cases rather than about a firm, rather than about running an organization or rather than about thinking of the business aspect of it. So the first challenge that came into picture and the challenge that keeps on probably repeating every day when I deal with it is to consider it to also be a business, to consider it to also be a profession that you are there to grow, that you’re there to make money, and not just to sit there as an advocate dealing with the legal aspects of it. That’s a dilemma that will always be there because unfortunately in India, what the problem is that legal fees are always considered to be a cost or a liability. So you have to make the client also understand how you become useful to the client in the longer run, and that is the transition that you achieve from an advocate to say a contributing member in a firm and a partner in a firm to bridge that challenge.

    A lot of my time being in courts, being litigating a lot of my time, always went into the court work because that is how court life is. So starting the day at say 10.15, 10 AM or 10.30 in the morning from court, you never know. Your matter might reach in two minutes, your matter might reach in four, six hours at 4:00 PM as well, and a lot of the time is wasted.

    So you have to be very careful how you spend time with increased responsibilities, with the responsibility of building an office, the responsibility of building a base, growing the base in Delhi. Time management has become a key issue. Time management becomes the biggest issue right now, and it’s very important, the way I look at, it’s very important to establish systems for each and everything in place so that almost every exercise is automated to the best possible manner.

    Secondly, it becomes very important to have the right personnel to work with you and develop a team to work with you so that 80% or 60% of your responsibility in one facet is covered by the team. And then obviously you are there to oversee, you are there to manage whatever is required. There will be clients who will always require you to be present on board, but it is important to make the client also understand that the team is good enough or maybe better than yourself to handle the cases themselves as well.

    But you’ll be there whenever you need to be there. Similarly in the administrative part, also in the business development part, it’s important to make the client understand that the primary point of contact will be handy enough and will be a good substitute for me.

    When you have those systems in place, it becomes easier with passage of time and that is what we have seen in bigger firms as well.

    So you have transitioned from so many roles and kept on learning and enjoying every bit of it. While doing so you have also advised on online gaming platforms, obviously, on legal matters and other forms such as digital wallet regulations and RBI licensing.

    Given the kind of nature of the sector and the new challenges that it faces every day, particularly around regulatory compliances, how have you set your agenda of breaking it down again, in your own words to singular molecules and finding those solutions for your clients who are actually involved in these kinds of gaming platforms?

     So sports law or say gaming law is a niche field in law itself, which is still up and coming. Having said that, it’s not something like, say, a tax law, which has entirely a different kind of practice. A sports field or a gaming law field is an interplay of multiple different facets of traditional laws.

    Basically, there will be some element of the company’s law involved there. There will be some corporate advisory involved there. There will be some element of litigation that will be involved there, and there will obviously be regulatory compliances and tax compliances, so on and so forth that are inward.

    For these kinds of transactions when we were handling, the most important part where in the legal bit, the litigation mind came into play was the discourses that the Supreme Court had over a game of chance or a game of skill. So this law had been evolving and is still probably evolving to certain extent, wherein what is considered a game of chance and what is a game of skill, what element of a game of chance will be allowed, what element and to what extent the game of skill will be allowed to say be legalized in a country or be considered legal.

    And there will always be games wherein there will be a mixture of both game of chance and game of skill and the important question to be answered in all of these for all of our clients would’ve been that a particular game that they are proposing mostly and specifically in the online domain.

    Whether that game is a pure game of chance, then obviously the law doesn’t allow it. You have to remove it, you have to either find a way around it or you have to structure it in a manner that there is a level of skill involved. Secondly, if there is a mixture or an interplay of game of chance and a game of skill, then whether that interplay can be put in a manner to state that it is more of a game of skill, and that is why it can be allowed in the country. Having said that, now where the complexity or where the problem becomes multifold is that sports laws or gaming per se, comes into the state list. Now there is a national list, there is a union list, and there is a state list and there are concurrent list.

    So these facets fall under the state list. And every state has different kind of legislations on it. There are states who have legalized or who have allowed certain games. there are states which completely banned even game of challenge and game of skills as well.

    Now when you are dealing with an online platform, the other thing that becomes important is where do these games actually happen? Or which are the platforms that you go on? So even today, if you see an Android Playstore, you’ll not find a game of skill also on an online platform, a game like, I don’t want name, but let’s take an example of a Dream 11 per se

    or My 11 circle, which is currently the IPL is going on My 11 circle is the sponsor for IPL, Dream 11 has been a sponsor for the Indian team, so definitely the operations that they’re involved in are very much legal, considered to be legal in India. However, still Android Playstore does not have the kind of apps there because there are Android policies or regulatory policies which do not allow Android to have those games on their app store. So that is where the lawyer’s role comes into picture, or our role came into picture to understand what are the regulations? Why are the regulations in a manner, if possible, to make the platforms also understand whether these can be allowed or not, or to find a way around them as well.

    And an interesting element that exists in this field is that the tax aspect of this field is still under question. There was a giant casino company in India that has been called by the tax authorities and has been asked to pay taxes on the entire sum that a person gets as winnings and not just the winning aspect itself.

    And if you actually calculate the tax on the entire sum then probably the platform will be left or the company will be left with nothing to show in their books and they might even go bankrupt.

    So this is an interesting evolving element. We’ll have to see where the Supreme Court takes it or where the laws in India take it, probably, there could be some form of government interference there as well, or the government stepping in to allow certain things. These are the evolving aspects of it, but that is where sports law or gaming law is there.

     In India’s evolving legal landscape like with cryptocurrencies being taxed despite not being legal tender, navigating grey areas is key. With your background in both BBA and law, has this unique combination shaped your litigation practice and business development approach? Do you feel that a business degree like a BBA or MBA offers an edge in understanding the commercial aspects of running a legal chamber?

    Has it helped you in strategizing and scaling your practice over the years? And overall, how has this blend of business and law influenced the way you approach the profession today?

    Okay, I’ll start from a personal example, and I know a lot of my friends in the legal fraternity who have been doing that, and probably this will also be a suggestion for all the upcoming lawyers , especially once they go independent.

    When you start and when you have joined a firm and somebody else is paying you a retainer or a compensation.

    And there is a fixed element to it, it becomes easier for you because all you need to do is tell your one savings bank account details to the person that salary or compensation will be transferred there. However, once you go independent or when you’re starting a firm, all of these things, when you’re doing, now, it becomes important for you to understand how a business runs and understand what is the importance of a current account, what is the importance of different business accounts, to separate, as they say, your personal from your professional. When you’re running the practice at a smaller scale, what happens is these lines get blurred a lot. Just like your time, your time also gets blurred a lot. You’re working at your will, so you’re working probably through 24 hours. Anytime, there is no personal time, there is no professional time demarcated.

    But over time, it becomes important for you to demarcate it and it’s better or the best for individuals to understand it in the beginning, get those compliances sorted in the beginning itself where a BBA comes helpful to that is BBA is basically Bachelor of Business Administration.

    You understand business organizations, business setups, very importantly and very clearly in the first place. When you have a clear cut idea, theoretical idea also what a business organization is and how different business systems work, it becomes easier for you to understand what will work for yourself or what idea can be theoretically good for you, and try and implement that practically as well.

    It becomes further more important for you to help yourself understand the client’s requirements or how the client’s organization works as well. When you have that basic idea of how businesses work. Every business might work in a different way. Every corporate client might work in a different way, but you understand where the eventual goal lies, how they distinguish their profits, how a balance sheet is made. From making a balance sheet to arriving at profits and losses to understand where the assets go, where the liabilities go, once you have sorted that out for yourself, it becomes easier for you as a litigator, as well as a corporate advisor to basically get the hang of it.

    Secondly, it plays even a bigger role when you’re in a corporate advisory sector, so supposedly we are advising on a share purchase transaction or an acquisition. Certain elements of the company’s law are very intricately connected with the finance aspects, the business administration aspect.

    And once you have that basic background, it becomes easier for you to explain to your clients also what different forms of  shares are, what are hybrid securities, all of those. And it becomes easier for you also to implement or structurize those transactions for your clients. So that is where the business BBA knowledge comes into picture and helps you with that.

    Keeping all this in mind, you were talking about when you start your own firm or when you work individually, you tend to work even for 24 hours. I would request you to talk a little bit more about the kind of mental health impact that it gives when you are under pressure while developing your litigation practice or developing your own firm. How have you taken care of that particular aspect, given the fact that your parents are doctors?

    And what is your advice to the new entrants who are so desperate in making it within overnight or something like that, that we just have to make our names bigger?

    Just to clarify, when I said 24 hours, I didn’t mean you’re working 24 hours. What I meant was your professional and your personal timings are blurred. Say a person in a job will actually come home, spend time with family, or do something personal, might go to the gym. They have their set patterns as an individual, especially freshly independent, you’ll not have those patterns.

    Or when you’re working to grow an organization at that point of time, you might blur those lines and those patterns. That is why you’ll be working in different domains and that’s what we have done and that’s what we keep doing at Triumvir Law as well. When a case needs us, when a transaction needs us to work overnight, we will still be working overnight.

    However, the attempt will always be, the aim will always be to reduce that kind of work and to form such systems that will help you in the longer run. As a freshly graduate person, as a person who has started an organization or as a person who has just gone independent, it’s easier to do that in the first place and those blurred lines help you in probably maximizing the results for yourself and to an extent satisfying the clients there. However, these will never be sustainable in the longer run. You’ll have added responsibilities. At the initial phase, your number of clients are also restricted. You can give that amount of time to a client where you can give that attention. Once you have gone a bit ahead in your journey, the number of clients will increase and automatically, if you start being available all the time, it’ll become a problem for everybody. Now, how you tackle it in the first place, you make good systems. I started earlier as well. It’s very important to form those systems so that it becomes easier for you in the longer run.

    Once you go ahead, you get, as I said earlier, you get a good team with yourself who can take away the day-to-day load from your shoulder and your inputs are required only when something new crops up in the middle. So that is where in the longer run, preparing the fresher talent in a manner that they can also independently work. They can apply themselves independently, but the work in the system becomes important.

    And most important advice to everybody will be to choose the people that you work with very properly and very wisely. I am blessed to have the kind of people that I work with, the kind of partners, the kind of team that I work with. They ensure that whenever that break is required, somebody’s there to follow up, somebody there to fill in your shoes so that you can take the burnout break. You can always enjoy that rejuvenation and be back at work while somebody’s handling the work as well. That’s the advice. That’s how I saw it in my family. That’s what I see in my partners. That’s what I see around me.

    All of us have some kind of interests, which are beyond the legal sphere. Always work on your interests. You might say a specific sport, you might not be good at it. You might be very good at it, but play that sport. I heard an influencer say this, and I was very impressed by this dialogue.

    It was actually not an influencer. I don’t remember who but yeah, in a podcast I heard this, especially in your twenties and thirties, go to that concert you wanted to go to.

    Attend that cricket match that you want to see, attend that stand-up comedy show that you want to do, whatever is your interest. Follow that as well along with your work because eventually in life you will have to compromise on that as well. So when you have that kind of time, take time out from your professional life that will help you make your professional life better in the longer.

    And although I’m sure after this answer, my partner will be complaining to me that you do nothing of that, but this is what it is.

    Keeping that in mind, I would request you to suggest or rather talk a little bit about how you have transitioned along with the technology because obviously without technology today we would not be having this conversation.

    How do you see the technology has helped you have a better representation, have better way of learning and the kind of disruptive tech that is happening today, especially AI, IOT, blockchain? How have you equipped yourself with the new understanding of this and where do you see that our legal field is moving towards, along with these kinds of technologies that are infiltrating our law fraternity as well?

    Just a disclaimer, I am very bad with modern technology. When I say very bad, I’m trying every day to adapt to more things, but not at the pace where the generations that are coming ahead will be. Having said that, we are trying to do whatever we can to reduce our burden or to reduce our workloads, and that is probably the whole aim of implementing technologies in your daily life or in your professional life. So how we normally do it or how we are trying to do it, to start with was a big transition from those hefty files to basically an iPad and a cloud account where, all your files, all your devices are scanned and stored, so you don’t need to carry those empty files to courts.

    And in the recent past, we have seen the courts also transcend towards promoting. And I have personally seen in court, in the Supreme court before the former chief justice actually asking senior designated lawyers also to follow a practice of reading the briefs on iPad and not on paper files so they can also transcend towards the newer technologies.

    That’s the basic beginning and we are still trying to harness and maximize that sphere. So that is the first place saving a lot of paper. Obviously with our workload, we are only supposed to carry one iPad now and not the entire set of files, so that is where it helps in the first place.

    Secondly, now thanks to the digitization of all the records. And neutral citations present, like the entire databases shifting to technology based data share bases. We are not required to maintain those libraries that were earlier a compulsion. Now they have over time become a luxury of sorts.

    So it is more of an interest or a hobby kind of a thing to maintain that library. Having said that, thanks to the tools that are available and thanks to technology. It’s become much easier for us to operate on devices rather than those volumes or those libraries.

    Just to add what you are saying, we have incorporated an AI platform with us. We are trying to automate the contracts that we do, to basically reduce the amount of time that we spend on it and to get the regularities sorted. That is how AI is transforming for us as well. The regular stuff is always there where we use whatever AI tools are available for say emails or drafting basic things, but in the longer run we are also looking to incorporate AI outputs into our deliverables as well.

    Get in touch with Gagan Narang –

  • “Being dual-qualified in both India and California, allows me to advise clients navigating regulatory requirements, commercial expansion, and product launches across both legal systems.” – Anuja Shah, Privacy, IP & Tech Lawyer  ant Inventus Law, California.

    “Being dual-qualified in both India and California, allows me to advise clients navigating regulatory requirements, commercial expansion, and product launches across both legal systems.” – Anuja Shah, Privacy, IP & Tech Lawyer  ant Inventus Law, California.

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

    With several years of experience in the legal industry, and an international practice, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law? What experiences guided you toward specializing in this particular field of IP and Data Privacy, and how did your law school journey shape your career?

    Growing up, I was the inquisitive child in the family, always asking questions like “Why?” “What does this mean?” and “How does this work?”, not to challenge authority, but out of genuine curiosity. So, when it came time to choose a career path, law felt like less of a decision and more of a natural evolution. After all, what better profession for someone who spent their childhood debating dinner table negotiations? Law gave me a way to turn that endless curiosity into something constructive, to ask better questions, find sharper answers, and help others navigate the “whys” and “what ifs” of the world.

    But law was not my first choice. As a kid, I was equally captivated by science and believed I might one day become an aeronautical engineer. One of the defining moments that shifted my perspective occurred while watching Kalpana Chawla on the news during the Columbia shuttle tragedy alongside my father. I remember wondering, What happens when science fails? Who steps in when technology breaks down? That moment planted the seed for a different kind of career, one that still engages with science and innovation, but from a legal lens.

    That curiosity eventually led me to intellectual property law, where science, technology, and legal reasoning collide in wonderfully complex ways. During law school in India, I immersed myself in this area through internships at prominent law firms, gaining exposure to a broad range of IP matters, including trademarks, copyright, technology, media, gaming and gambling, and entertainment law. The ever-evolving nature of IP, driven by innovation, fascinated me. I realized that IP law was not just about protecting rights, it was about fostering creativity, enabling progress, and balancing competing interests in a dynamic, global environment.

    Thus, after graduation, I joined a law firm as an IP attorney to get a deeper understanding of the field, and just as I was getting comfortable, the GDPR arrived and I was hooked. The realization that lawyers have to adapt just as fast as the tech world made privacy law feel less like a compliance checklist and more like a moving target that I genuinely enjoyed chasing.

    Eventually, that passion brought me to the Bay Area, the land of startups and innovation. Studying IP and data privacy here was not just about career growth; it was about being at the heart of change, surrounded by people building the future, and occasionally breaking things that lawyers then have to fix.

    Looking back, my career has been shaped by one simple fact: I never stopped asking “why?” The difference now is that I have learned how to put those questions into memos, and a commitment to helping clients navigate the complex interplay between law, technology, and human creativity.

    Starting your career with a prominent law firm, what were some key learning experiences during the early stages as you were mastering the fundamentals? Given the complexity and constant evolution of Data Privacy Laws, how did you develop an understanding of the field and stay ahead of emerging trends?

    When I first started my career as an IP attorney at a law firm, freshly out of law school, I imagined a steady path through the world of trademarks and copyright. And for a while, that is exactly what I got: think counterfeit sneakers, branding disputes, and the occasional “no, you cannot copyright a concept” conversations.

    But here is the twist no one warns you about in law school, clients do not show up with neatly categorized problems. They often bring you messy, modern dilemmas. And that is how I found myself dipping my toes into the complex pool of data privacy.

    Working with clients ranging from mom-and-pop retailers to Fortune 500 tech giants, I quickly realized that every product launch or branding campaign had a digital component, and where there is data, there is drama.

    Initially, my work was trademark-focused. But adjacent issues kept knocking on my door: copyright quirks, customs enforcement, and eventually, a new breed of question: “Hey, does our app accidentally violate three different international privacy laws?” Spoiler: it often did.

    Slowly but surely, the law kept up to the technological development with the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), aka “the EU’s gift to lawyers everywhere.” The Brussels effect had lawyers and tech enthusiast everywhere scrambling to understand cross-border compliance, and enough acronyms to make your head spin. What fascinated me was not just the law itself, it was the broader question of how we regulate innovation. The boundaries between intellectual property, consumer rights, and data governance began to blur, and I realized, this was the future.

    What started as a curiosity has become a cornerstone of my practice. Privacy isn’t just a hot topic, it is a critical lens for understanding the intersection of innovation, ethics, and law in the digital age.

    To stay updated and ahead of emerging trends, I rely on a well-balanced mix of strategies: regularly reviewing regulatory updates and key case law, tuning into insightful podcasts and panel discussions on evolving privacy topics, and subscribing to a few carefully curated newsletters. I have also joined privacy book clubs where we regularly discuss upcoming privacy regulations and challenges faced in the field. 

    So, while I did not imagine a career in the intersection of IP, privacy, and consumer protection, I am glad it happened. And for all the challenges this field throws at us, one thing is for sure: Privacy law is never boring.

    After over four years at a law firm, you chose to pursue a Master’s degree at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, specializing in Technology Law, Privacy Law, and Intellectual Property Law. What inspired you to focus on these areas, and how did your studies shape your understanding of data privacy laws on a global scale? Additionally, as a Research Assistant to Professor Sonia Katyal and an active member of the Women in Tech Law team, what other activities did you engage in, and how did these experiences influence your professional growth and development?

    After over four years of tackling trademark disputes and navigating the growing tide of data protection concerns, I realized I wanted more than just answers. I wanted to understand the bigger picture. I was curious not just about what the law said, but why it was evolving the way it was, especially in response to rapidly shifting technologies. 

    Berkeley felt like the perfect fit: world-renowned faculty, cutting-edge tech-law curriculum, and if the future was being built in Silicon Valley, then Berkeley Law was clearly where it was being legally translated.

    Immersing myself in this environment gave me something invaluable: perspective. Studying privacy law under experts who were helping shape legislation (rather than just interpret it) helped me move beyond the black-letter law mindset. I began to think more critically about regulatory intent, policy trade-offs, and the delicate balance between innovation and accountability.

    Courses like Social Media Law and Computer Crime Law sharpened my understanding of how existing legal frameworks are being pushed by new technologies. Learning about Hollywood contracts one day and GDPR enforcement actions the next made me see just how interconnected everything is in this space, and how important it is for lawyers to be adaptable, tech-savvy, and a little creative.

    Beyond academics, working as a Research Assistant to Professor Sonia Katyal was one of the most formative experiences of my time at Berkeley Law. Her work sits at the crossroads of technology, IP, and civil rights, and being part of a research project examining how copyright and trademark law intersect with identity and digital expression expanded my understanding of what the law can do, not just what it should do. It also refined my analytical skills, deepened my research capabilities, and taught me how to connect theory to real-world legal challenges.

    As part of varied organizations such as Women in Tech Law and journals such as Berkeley Technology Law Journal, I had the opportunity to engage in real conversations about the future of the profession. One standout moment was interviewing Professor Jennifer Urban, Chair of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). That conversation gave me unique insight into the inner workings of a regulatory body and offered a front-row seat to the evolution of U.S. privacy enforcement. 

    These experiences, taken together, significantly shaped my professional growth. They helped me transition from being a subject-matter practitioner to a more holistic legal thinker. They taught me to approach problems from multiple angles: technical, ethical, regulatory, and commercial. Most importantly, they reaffirmed my passion for working at the intersection of law and technology and gave me the tools and confidence to lead in this space.

    Berkeley did not just deepen my legal expertise; it expanded my entire outlook on the role lawyers can play in shaping the future. 

    As a student researcher at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, you worked on the Digital Rights Project, focusing on policy research related to consumer data protection and compliance with California privacy laws, including the CCPA, CalOPPA, and the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. How would you compare the data protection frameworks in the U.S., India, and Europe, particularly with your certification in these areas?

    My time at the ACLU of Northern California’s Digital Rights Project offered invaluable insight into the nuanced and often fragmented landscape of U.S. privacy law. Unlike the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or India’s newly enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), both of which adopt comprehensive, centralized frameworks grounded in fundamental privacy rights, the U.S. continues to follow a sectoral and state-by-state approach, creating significant variability and complexity in compliance.

    One of the most interesting projects I worked on involved analyzing the privacy implications of QR code-based restaurant ordering systems. What initially appeared to be a straightforward user interface turned into a multi-layered compliance exercise involving the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA), and the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. It served as a powerful reminder that even the most routine consumer interactions can involve intricate legal considerations, especially when sensitive data such as payment or behavioral information is collected and stored.

    This experience strengthened my ability to assess data practices through a multi-jurisdictional, multi-sectoral lens, reinforcing the importance of understanding not just the legal frameworks involved, but also the underlying technical architecture of products and services. A lawyer’s ability to offer sound advice increasingly depends on their understanding of how data flows through systems, where risks lie, and how those risks intersect with evolving legal standards.

    A key difference I observed between U.S. privacy laws and the GDPR lies in the scope and rigor of compliance requirements. The GDPR is both strict and expansive, there is no minimum threshold for applicability. Any company, regardless of size, that collects personal data from even a single EU resident is subject to the law. It is a deeply consumer-centric regime, with limited room for flexibility.

    In contrast, while U.S. state laws like the CPRA, are also robust, they do provide some flexibility for companies, especially smaller entities and startups. Most U.S. privacy laws include applicability thresholds, based on revenue, number of consumers affected, or volume of data processed, before the obligations kick in. This approach allows smaller businesses a bit more breathing room to implement privacy compliance during their early growth stages, aligning legal obligations with business maturity. That said, it remains critical for startups to incorporate privacy-by-design from the outset, as crossing the threshold can happen sooner than anticipated. In short, the GDPR prioritizes consumer rights at every level, while U.S. laws attempt to strike a balance, offering strong consumer protections without stifling innovation and scalability.

    This comparative analysis between the EU, India, and U.S. frameworks highlighted a fundamental truth: privacy compliance is not one-size-fits-all. It demands not only legal fluency but also a contextual, practical understanding of industry, technology, and jurisdiction. This foundational experience continues to shape my approach to privacy law, grounded in strong legal analysis but always mindful of the evolving global and technological landscape.

    Being admitted to both the Indian Bar and the State Bar of California, how has your dual qualification benefited your practice? What advice would you give to aspiring legal professionals aiming to clear the California Bar Exam?

      Being dual-qualified in both India and California, two jurisdictions that are home to some of the world’s most dynamic and disruptive startups, has significantly enhanced my ability to provide cross-border legal counsel, particularly in the areas of intellectual property and data privacy. This dual qualification allows me to advise clients navigating regulatory requirements, commercial expansion, and product launches across both legal systems. Where Indian law is rapidly evolving through legislative reform, California’s legal landscape is shaped by a combination of statutes and robust regulatory enforcement. Understanding these contrasts enables me to craft nuanced, business-oriented legal strategies that are tailored to the specific jurisdiction and sector.

      As for the California Bar Exam, its reputation as one of the most challenging in the U.S. is well-earned, but not insurmountable. My advice to aspiring legal professionals is straightforward: treat it like a full-time job. Success requires consistency, discipline, and a well-structured study plan. I truly believe that the exam does not test intelligence, it is more about mastering the method, developing exam endurance, and performing under pressure. If you can commit to the process fully, passing the exam is absolutely achievable.

      Ultimately, the effort is well worth it. Being admitted in California has opened up exciting opportunities to work at the intersection of law, technology, and innovation on a truly global scale.

      Throughout your distinguished career, what strategies have you employed to maintain a healthy work-life balance? What guidance would you offer to others striving to manage both professional ambitions and personal responsibilities?

      Let’s be honest, achieving work-life balance in the legal profession is often more aspiration than reality, something everyone talks about, but few actually manage to pin down. The nature of our work is demanding, high-stakes, and often time-sensitive. But over the years, I have learned that if you do not actively protect your personal life, your professional life will quietly take over every corner of it.

      One mindset shift that has served me well is this: Don’t make work your life, make it part of your life. Law is what I do; It is not all of who I am. I have come to believe that you cannot be a high-performing professional if you are constantly running on empty. As the saying goes, you can’t pour from an empty cup! 

      For me, this means setting clear boundaries where possible. I carve out non-negotiable time for things that replenish me, whether that’s exercise, travel, sports, time with family and friends, or even just reading something that has nothing to do with legal theory. I also try not to romanticize the hustle. Being available 24/7 does not make you indispensable, it often just makes you exhausted. And, let us be candid: no matter how good you are, you are replaceable to your workplace, but not to your health, your loved ones, or yourself.

      My advice to younger legal professionals is that ambition is important, but so is sustainability. If you are building a long-term career, you need to treat your time, energy, and wellbeing as strategic assets. Learn to say no. Take breaks without guilt. Celebrate small wins outside of work. And most importantly, define success on your own terms, not just by billable hours.

      At the end of the day, being a fulfilled person makes you a better lawyer!

      Get in touch with Anuja Shah –