From engineering at BITS, Pilani to an LL.M. in Law & Technology at UC Berkeley, what inspired your transition from a technical role to a legal career, particularly in the field of intellectual property?
I have always been someone who wanted to carve a slightly unconventional path. While many of my peers were heading towards an MBA or preparing for UPSC, I found myself questioning what would truly keep me intellectually engaged and professionally satisfied in the long run. That’s when I started reflecting deeply on my interests and I realised that law was something that genuinely intrigued me.
So, I decided to take the leap and pursued an LL.B. from Delhi University along with my first job. During my law studies, I naturally gravitated towards patent law. It was a perfect intersection of my technical background and growing interest in legal thinking. That blend of technology and law really excited me.
After completing my LL.B., I wanted to deepen my understanding and focus on this intersection, which led me to pursue an LL.M. in Law & Technology at UC Berkeley. Since then, I’ve been working as a patent lawyer, and while the transition from engineering to law was certainly a bold and challenging one, looking back now, I can say it was one of the best decisions I have made. It has been a fulfilling journey.
In what ways has your engineering background influenced your approach to patent drafting, prosecution, or litigation especially when dealing with highly technical sectors?
My engineering background plays a crucial role in how I approach patent matters. It has trained me to think logically, break down complex inventions into simpler components, and understand the technical nuances that are often central to patent drafting and prosecution. When dealing with inventions, having a solid technical foundation helps me engage meaningfully with inventors, understand the core of their innovation, and translate that into precise legal language. This ensures that the patents I draft are not only legally sound but also technically accurate and strategically strong.
Even in litigation, my ability to understand technical documents, prior art, and expert reports gives me an edge in building arguments and cross-examining technical witnesses. It helps bridge the gap between the legal and technical worlds which is essential in patent law.
Transitioning from engineering to law is quite a significant shift. What were some of the key challenges you faced early on in your legal career, and how did you navigate them?
Yes, the transition from engineering to law came with its fair share of challenges. The skill sets required in both fields are quite different. In engineering, the focus is largely on problem-solving in a structured, often individual capacity. On the other hand, law is much more dynamic and people-facing involving teamwork, client interactions, and the ability to communicate complex ideas clearly.
Initially, it was a bit overwhelming to shift from working quietly on technical problems to having to articulate arguments, think on my feet, and engage with clients, patent officers or courts. Adapting to this new environment took time, but with consistent effort and mentorship, I eventually found a rhythm. Looking back, I see this shift not as a hurdle but as an important phase of personal and professional growth.
You’ve been closely associated with the automobile industry- both through your prior engineering role at Maruti Suzuki and working on patent strategy for automobile companies. What are some of the unique IP challenges that companies in this sector face when operating in India?
One key observation I have made while working with Indian automotive companies is that IP is often not treated as a strategic priority. It usually comes in late during product development, especially in a sector traditionally focused on production and supply chains. Enforcement is a major concern, particularly when it comes to tackling counterfeit products. Another challenge lies in vendor-level IP protection,many companies work with third-party suppliers without clearly defined IP ownership in contracts, which becomes a legal nightmare at a later stage.
However, the landscape is evolving. With the rise of EVs, connected mobility, and software-driven features, IP is becoming increasingly important. Buyers today often care more about tech features than mechanical specs. Yet protecting such innovations especially software and AI is tricky in India due to patentability restrictions. A proactive IP strategy is now more essential than ever.
Having represented clients in opposition proceedings and patent office hearings, how would you assess the Indian patent ecosystem in comparison to international jurisdictions? What best practices could India adopt to strengthen its system?
The Indian patent ecosystem has come a long way, especially in the last few years. Timelines have improved, rules have been amended, digitization has made filings and hearings more efficient, the Patent Office is becoming more responsive, and special IP divisions are being set up at major High Courts. However, when compared to some international jurisdictions, there’s still room for improvement particularly in consistency of examination standards and depth of reasoning in office actions or opposition decisions.
Another area where India can improve is in increasing technical training and specialization of patent examiners, especially in emerging fields like AI and biotech. Greater transparency in outcomes and timelines would also build confidence in the system. Adopting global best practices and encouraging early engagement between applicants and examiners, could also go a long way in strengthening the Indian IP ecosystem.
Your time at UC Berkeley exposed you to global perspectives on intellectual property and business strategy. How has this international exposure influenced your legal thinking and practice within the Indian framework?
Patent law is one field where the core concepts like novelty and inventive step remain largely uniform across major jurisdictions, thanks to global frameworks like the Paris Convention and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). My exposure to the US patent system and interactions with peers from over 50 countries at UC Berkeley significantly broadened my perspective on how different countries approach similar IP challenges.
This international experience equipped me to handle patent prosecution in jurisdictions like the US and EU with greater confidence. More importantly, it helped me view IP not just as a legal formality but as a strategic business tool. I now encourage clients to think about IP early and align it with their commercial objectives. It also made me more mindful of global standards in drafting, prosecution, and portfolio management. Bridging international best practices with the Indian framework has added real value to my practice and client outcomes.
With rapid technological advancements, how do you see AI reshaping the legal industry? What steps can lawyers take to remain relevant in the age of AI??
AI is a topic I am deeply passionate about. I would like to touch on two key aspects here- how AI is transforming the legal profession, and the legal challenges AI itself brings.
AI will reshape every area of law, from IP to liability and contract interpretation to competition, data privacy, and regulatory compliance. Even without a dedicated AI law like the EU AI Act, existing legal frameworks will increasingly need to address AI-related issues. The day is not far when most law firms will have dedicated AI law practice.
On the other hand, AI is also changing how we practice law. Given the template-driven and repetitive nature of much of legal work, AI tools are being widely adopted to improve efficiency. Major law firms in India have started integrating AI into their workflows. While this boosts productivity, it also raises concerns about the future of certain legal roles.
As the saying goes, “AI would not replace lawyers but will replace lawyers who don’t use AI”. To stay relevant, legal professionals must embrace technology, continuously upskill, and focus on areas where human judgment, strategic thinking, and empathy remain indispensable.
Following up on the previous question, what are the key legal issues AI raises in the context of IP law?
AI raises several complex legal questions in IP law because it challenges traditional concepts of authorship, inventorship, and ownership. For instance, most patent and copyright systems globally require a human creator or inventor but how do we address inventions or creative works autonomously generated by AI? Should the AI’s developer, user, or owner get the rights?
Another major issue is training data. AI models are often trained on vast datasets that may include copyrighted works, raising concerns about infringement and fair use. Determining the originality of AI-generated content also becomes tricky when the model relies on pre-existing works.
Additionally, protecting AI algorithms and models themselves whether through patents, trade secrets, or copyrights poses its own challenges, especially when the invention combines both software and data-driven elements. Courts around the world are grappling with these issues, and it’s prompting a re-examination of existing IP frameworks. As AI continues to evolve, significant legal reforms may be necessary to address these emerging challenges effectively.
Looking back on your professional journey, what advice would you offer to students or young professionals aspiring to build a career in IP law, especially in patents?
My advice to students or young professionals aspiring to build a career in IP law, especially in patents, is to stay curious and build a strong foundation in both technology and law. Patent law sits at the intersection of science, innovation, and legal reasoning, so having a genuine interest in understanding how things work is key.
Second, be patient. The learning curve can be steep, especially when dealing with complex inventions or international legal frameworks. Also, focus on sharpening your writing and analytical skills, they’re at the core of good patent practice.
Lastly, stay updated. With emerging technologies like AI, biotech, and quantum computing, IP law is constantly evolving.
I would especially encourage science and engineering students to consider patent law as a career option. It’s a unique field where your technical background becomes a real asset, and the work is both intellectually stimulating and impactful.
With over 11 years of experience across commercial law, technology, and AI, what drew you to this unique intersection as your niche? Were there specific moments or projects early on that sparked this direction?
This niche was never planned. It was a series of opportunities seized at the right time and a passionate deep dive into whatever crossed my path. I have never been one to restrict myself to just scratching the surface. On the contrary, I have always been a business-oriented legal professional. I went down the rabbit hole in any new opportunity, and each one became a moment of evolution. I still can’t say for certain that this is the finishing line. I continue to learn and evolve. In fact, I would take a step further to say that AI itself will not remain a “niche” for too long. It has already started to become mainstream. The world will soon see specialized domains being created within the supposed “niche” of AI. So what part of it I would end up being drawn to is for time to tell. As of now, I am just learning.
As for specific moments, there have been many. At the beginning of my career itself, I had a front-row view of the impact of regulatory compliance issues on the overall business and sustenance of a company. I had joined Unilever as an in-house counsel, and my entry coincided with the infamous MSG/ash in instant noodles fiasco, which had hit 3 of the largest FMCG conglomerates in the country. I was posted in UP at the epicenter of it all. While it was an incredible opportunity, the impact on business was palpable. That continued through Covid when I was with Coca-Cola when boilerplate clauses like force majeure became the biggest game-changer for a company, followed by my role in Qyuki coinciding with the TikTok ban, which had shaken the entire creator economy. Qyuki, however, was my first tryst with technology in which my seniors encouraged me to go down the NFT rabbit hole and explore synergies from a legal and business perspective between content and the metaverse. I ended up writing a white paper on it, which was dropped as an NFT at All About Music in a session in which we presented it. As a certification and security mechanism, blockchain is one of the primary drivers of AI. I continued my journey with Qyuki as a consultant while also building a legal technology product powered by AI. From concept to pivot to funding and building the beta version of the product, it was not only a journey down a rabbit hole, but also a massive learning curve for me. But there are darker truths behind the shiny veil of startups, and most startups are not able to make it. So that’s when I considered going back to a job and joined Dentons as a Partner for the AI and technology practice. Yet, a traditional law firm environment is not the right environment for someone who has gained interdisciplinary skills to thrive and grow in. That’s what led to the birth of The AI Lawby. I had already spent enough time in the creator economy and learned to create content. Governance of AI was jumping out as the most pressing issue. While the world kept talking about privacy, I was creating diagrams on a mind map to go to the roots of the product and evaluate it from a multi-lens perspective: Brand building, Compliance, and Technology.
From founding a venture-backed legal tech company to shaping AI governance frameworks for global teams, what motivated your shift from traditional legal roles to innovation-driven leadership?
As I said, it was never by design but always an accident. I grabbed opportunities, thought out of the box, and kept discovering my path as I kept carving it. It’s not over yet. I am always a work in progress, and I would like to be so till my last day. There’s nothing as empowering as discovery and a realization that there is so much more to learn and do. Also, I never liked being placed in a box anyway. Most people believe that an in-house counsel’s role is that of a postman. There could be nothing farther from the truth than that. I chose to become an in-house counsel because that enables you to be entrenched in the business. You are both a lawyer and a client, and you can see the consequences of decisions you take directly on the client’s business. From a bird’s-eye view, it grounds you in reality. So I always used strategy over theory. That was my DNA. So I don’t think I was ever in a traditional legal role. At every stage I have embraced challenges and opportunities at the intersection of law and business. As technology kept invading our lives, the lines of traditional roles kept blurring. I firmly believe that we are in a day and age where interdisciplinary skill sets are the need of the hour while also having a specialization in one field. For instance, in law, I choose to specialize in technology—not just AI, but data privacy, intellectual property, product liability, and so many other aspects of technology—and I would not trade that to dip my fingers into a practice of M&A or banking or ESG, etc. However, at the macro level, beyond law, I am a complete generalist—be it UX, brand building or brand development, content writing, optimizing user journeys and efficiency, strategies in product funnels, etc. So when I work with a client, it is well beyond just legal advice – I am in the trenches with them.
You’ve worked closely with creators, artists, and founders to solve cutting-edge legal challenges. Can you share an experience which was the most interesting to you?
I honestly don’t know where to start—there have been so many. I think the “most” interesting challenge is the one I am solving for and advocating aggressively—AI governance. Most people make the blunder of considering governance as a policy document being created, and the benchmark for them is a privacy policy, which is generally a boilerplate clickwrap agreement. But AI has pushed boundaries in incredible ways, and every use case is a separate one and mandates an extremely curated approach. The type and level of governance is influenced by so many variables—industry/sector, geography, unit economics, whether they are manufacturers or providers or deployers of technology, the specific use case in the industry, and so on. There can never be a one-size-fits-all approach, and unlike most lawyers, I dive extremely deep into product features specifically and entire workflows for every feature. My role does not end with just an assessment of the risk but extends further to providing solutions basis the resources and existing incentive/operational framework of the organization. So each one is honestly a fresh learning altogether for me.
You’ve supported businesses with fundraising, IP governance, and workflow automation. What are some of the key legal or ethical blind spots you see in today’s AI adoption and how do you guide clients through them?
There are two elements to this question. From a pure play compliance point of view, I would say there are three broad issues: data privacy/cybersecurity, intellectual property, and product liability. As I said I not only dive deep into every feature workflow but I interview at least a sample set of the entire value chain of stakeholders (internal and external) and every inquiry, whether for the product or the stakeholder, is curated to the nature of the business. For example, if the client is in fintech, I would explore their ways of protecting customer data as well as an inquiry into the training data set to see if the system can be misused to cull out personal data once deployed.
From the ethical blind spots point of view in terms of the consequence of using the tools, I would say that there are issues of bias stemming from the systemic bias of the data set on which the model is trained or even the cognitive bias of the individuals training the system. security is another massive blind spot. And here i dont mean just cyber-security but even the safety of using the product – consider the crashes of autonomous vehicles. So ethical blind spots depend on the nature of the product, the use case, and the industry.
You’ve co-authored a first-of-its-kind e-book on art law and worked on complex issues of art estate and provenance. What are some legal challenges unique to the art-tech intersection, and how do you approach them strategically?
I don’t see any specific challenges unique to the art-tech intersection. The art industry has some unique challenges—provenance, counterfeits, art financing, and royalties from the art estate, such as exclusive merchandise. These problems simply get accelerated with technology and are also countered with technology. For instance, AI has made it easier to detect counterfeits in the market and also create counterfeits seamlessly. Rights management has similarly moved from physical rights of a visual art piece to digital rights management wherein NFTs are created based on the artwork, or prints are sold through e-commerce without a royalty being passed on to the creator and without any licensing arrangement in the first place. So technology has simply added complexity to the existing issues in the art-tech space. However, one issue that personally disturbs me is of Generative AI – take the case of The Next Rembrandt – while it was a scientific experiment to identify how far AI could go, it has paved the way for so many iterations and developments, which I personally believe are unethical for the art ecosystem. The Next Remmbrandt is a new painting completely generated by AI in the style of the legendary artist Rembrandt after training an AI model on the enormous volumes of his original works. Technically, it’s a new piece. But has come into the picture with old pieces having been used as a base. The same thing happened with Ghibli Studio. This is not just personal inspiration. This is a usage of creative intellectual pursuits for commercial gain without a license. Strategy is different for each of these – for instance the Gen-AI problem is very well solved by a licensing arrangement which would propel AI and incentivise artists to continue creating breathtaking work.
You’ve held leadership roles in prominent firms and companies. What led you to establish your own independent practice and what were some key experiences from that transition?
Most importantly, I would clarify that The AI Lawby is not a traditional private legal practice. And that itself is what powered the shift. If I get an opportunity tomorrow to play a part (even temporarily) for a futuristic organization that paves the way for me to leverage my skills appropriately, I would absolutely go for it. The old structures and paradigms are giving way to new ways of working, and progress lies in embracing the new. The present day demands agility, and I would continue to evolve as a multidisciplinary professional. What I offer to my clients through The AI Lawby is not legal practice. It is strategic consultation with an added feather of legal specialisation.
You’ve moved seamlessly between domain law firms, media-tech, AI governance, and art law. How has your legal philosophy evolved through these transitions, and what values ground your work at The AI Lawby today?
The values that ground me are the same ones that I started my career with a decade and some ago: the willingness to be a perpetual student, the one to jump into the trenches with a solution-oriented mindset whenever a problem arises big or small; and resilience to spring back up after every setback. These remain consistent and actually more entrenched with every passing day.
With your expertise in legal tech and automation, how do you envision the role of technology transforming legal advisory over the next five years? What advice would you give and what skills should the next generation of lawyers start building now?
The progress in legal technology is phenomenal but there are limitations inherently to legal tech. I think it’s a futile exercise for legal tech companies to create workflows that provide analyses. That cannot become helpful until we reach significant success in AGI (Artificial general intelligence) and we are far from even an entry into that as of now. However, in terms of document extraction and automating mundane tasks I think legal technology is already revamping the profession. It has multiple implications – TAT for lawyers should come down resulting in the need to focus on volume as the unit revenue from a mandate would be significantly reduced. Further, clients would also come with more awareness and not be at the behest of the lawyer. The change is inevitable.
My advice to new lawyers is to start with humility and be on a constant pursuit of new skills and learning. If they don’t develop interdisciplinary skills they will be left behind. However, this works even for those in more advanced stages of their career. The legal profession has always been called “an old boys club” and it’s time for those who continue to remain stringent in their perspectives and models to wake up and smell the coffee.
In your profile, you described AI as a “young associate” in the legal field. Could you elaborate on how AI is redefining traditional legal roles and the kinds of responsibilities we might pass on to AI? How can lawyers adapt to this shift?
I came to law from a manufacturing and engineering background, which gave me a unique perspective. The legal industry differed dramatically from manufacturing and engineering—specifically the accountability and lack of measurement. Much of law is learned through apprenticeship, which is vastly different from the formal training in engineering. In fact, I felt law school left me far less prepared for my career compared to the preparation engineering school provided for engineers.
When I entered the legal field, I realized law practices could be more efficient. I compared it to medicine, where patients now play an active role—researching symptoms, diagnosing themselves (sometimes overly so), and bringing their questions to healthcare professionals. Medicine became somewhat democratized, allowing patients to take ownership of their health, for better or worse. This shift hasn’t happened in law on the same scale.
Most of my career has been in corporate law, and I observed real changes in other corporate departments, like accounting and finance, which moved away from manual tasks toward insightful, risk-based processes supported by software. By contrast, legal departments stayed static for many years. While there were incremental innovations, such as moving from typewriters to word processors or shepherdizing cases online, none of these fundamentally transformed the legal industry.
One significant development came with Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSPs), which began specializing in areas like eDiscovery in litigation. They didn’t threaten traditional lawyers because these tasks were in untraditional fields. Similarly, in-house legal operations began to introduce the idea of running law as a business, but even that didn’t fundamentally change legal practice, which remained heavily relationship-driven.
We also saw the rise of skilled paralegals, legal process-outsourcers, and other support, but the core practice of law didn’t evolve significantly. In the U.S., access to justice remains a major issue. A large portion of the population can’t afford legal assistance unless they are at a very high-income level. While many dedicate themselves to justice-based work, the problem persists.
Where I see generative AI playing a significant role is in finally shifting some of the ways legal services operate. Generative AI has the potential to fundamentally change the role of outside counsel by improving productivity, reducing rote work, and allowing legal professionals to practice at the top of their expertise. It could bring greater satisfaction to legal roles by enabling lawyers to focus on higher-level thinking, problem-solving, and client strategy. I’d like to believe this will make the field more engaging—and even more fun.
Many lawyers fear AI might take over the legal profession. You’ve been teaching AI engineers to understand “how humans do law.” What surprising or challenging aspects of this collaboration have you encountered? How has your legal and engineering background shaped your perspective?
I wouldn’t go so far as to call myself a “professional” engineer, but my engineering mindset informs everything I do. Regarding AI, I understand the fear—that it might replace lawyers. But I see it differently. As AI reduces costs and improves productivity, legal services become more accessible. More people will be able to afford legal help, and demand will rise. In turn, lawyers will manage more clients while performing at a higher level.
AI isn’t going to take over the legal profession. It’s going to be a tool—a partner and an enabler. This means lawyers can focus on preventing problems, conducting root-cause analyses, and understanding systemic issues instead of repeating the same tasks or racing against time. That’s why I encourage younger associates not to fear AI but to embrace it, adapt to the inevitable pace of change, and maintain a mindset of continuous learning.
What have been the most important skills or mindsets you developed while working on more than 35 M&A deals across 13 countries? How did you navigate the cultural and demographic differences in those deals?
Every culture, country, and even corporation has its own personality. Two key lessons stand out from my experience: humility and collaboration. I don’t assume I know everything. For example, even if I’ve done M&A work globally, the local counsel advising me always knows far more about the nuances of their jurisdiction. They bring priceless insights that I wouldn’t have on my own. Similarly, I’ve learned to be transparent about my preferences, expectations, and objectives while fostering trust.
In any negotiation, it’s critical to show truth, trust, and vulnerability to create an environment where others feel safe to reciprocate. That allows for the best possible collaboration and outcomes.
You’ve negotiated with Fortune 100 companies and Big Four banks. What challenges and rewards have you faced in those negotiations, and how have those experiences influenced your role as a mentor?
The hardest part of negotiations is working with someone unprepared, especially when you’re doing most of the work for both sides of the deal. It doesn’t make for great results. On the other hand, negotiating with the Big Four banks was challenging but rewarding. They were experts—specialists who deeply understood nuanced regulations like credit reporting laws. Collaboration required me to respect their expertise and remain concise and factual while educating them on where our roles aligned.
In negotiations, preparation and confidence are essential. But you must also align closely with your team and communicate openly to achieve success.
You heavily emphasize mentorship and learning. What’s the most impactful piece of advice you’ve received that you pass on to mentees?
Be true to yourself. Focus on developing your strengths rather than obsessing over weaknesses. I believe we’re all given unique gifts. While it’s important to address our shortcomings, trying to “fix” them at the expense of our strengths does more harm than good. The key is to leverage your natural abilities while minimizing distractions from your weaknesses.
You seem to live a life of continuous learning. How do you practice implementing new knowledge in both your personal and professional life?
The key is repetition. Whether it’s a new skill, concept, or even something as simple as someone’s name, using it consistently helps retain it. Skills, particularly technical ones, are perishable if not employed regularly. Teaching, in particular, has been a way for me to cement what I learn. When I share knowledge with others, I not only reinforce what I know but also open myself to learning from their insights.
Your profile mentions a love of backpacking. How has that hobby helped you manage stress or shaped your approach to life and law?
Backpacking forces me to unplug. It takes me back to the essentials of life: reaching the destination, managing supplies, and supporting those hiking alongside me. The simplicity is both grounding and rejuvenating. It reminds me to keep stress in perspective and appreciate the privilege of the work I do.
You’ve had a diverse career across industries like fintech, MedTech, and law. How has this versatility shaped your perspective?
My career has been a journey of curiosity and learning from diverse environments. Moving between fields allowed me to bring insights from one industry into another. For example, working across corporate governance allowed me to see how brilliant leaders approach complex issues. These experiences have helped me ask better questions, foster collaboration, and apply versatile approaches to newer challenges.
Ultimately, people matter more than tasks. Empathy, kindness, and respect guide my interactions, whether I’m working with a Fortune 500 CEO or a junior colleague. Maintaining humility and staying true to these principles is essential.
As technology and societal shifts disrupt the legal profession, how are you preparing for the next decade? How do you mentor others to adopt a similar mindset?
The legal profession is undergoing the most significant inflection of my lifetime, and I’m excited to be part of the generation ushering in this change. To prepare, I focus on continuous learning—keeping up with technology, gaining simulation-based experience, and staying abreast of fast-paced changes.
Personally, I see the democratization of justice as a key issue for the next decade. I hope to leverage my skills and technology to support pro bono efforts and improve access to justice. While the system is imperfect and broadcasts its flaws, history shows us that societies cannot exist without the rule of law. Ensuring we uphold and adapt that system responsibly is a challenge I’m ready to embrace.
You started your educational journey with the University of Cape Town (UCT), and then went to the University of Warwick, and from there went on to do your master’s at The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). Was law a planned choice for you and what were the challenges you faced in law school?
To be honest, I really didn’t want to study law, let alone be a lawyer of any kind.
But the BA degree I took at UCT gave me a much broader education, majoring in English and Comparative African Government and Law. This allowed me to study in depth English language and literature, and the rise of African independence movements and the politics of liberation. Some of the lecturers on those two courses were inspirational – and brave. In my final year, I was taught by Mary Simons (both of whose parents were major figures in the ANC and were then in exile) while she was under a succession of 90-day banning orders. I have her to thank for the most important part of my education there – or anywhere. In summary, being a student at UCT at that time, and opposing Apartheid, I faced challenges just being there.
The BA I took was part of the (then) South African legal qualification, leading to a second, LLB, degree. During my BA, I was exposed to some legal studies, as we had to take Roman Law, Roman Dutch Law and Constitutional Law. Roman Law was historically and intellectually interesting and challenging as it also required university-level Latin, but bore no relationship to the socio-political, economic and human reality of Apartheid SA. As I saw it, Roman Dutch law was equally irrelevant to the lives of most South Africans.
I knew that I wanted to leave South Africa because of my views on Apartheid. And I was lucky enough to have British nationality, so the UK was, thankfully, my first and only choice. I left SA forever as soon as I could, soon after graduating from UCT.
I had become interested in English law – mainly through my constitutional law studies at UCT (which were largely based on UK constitutional law). So, when I arrived at Warwick to study for the LLB degree, I was committed to studying law, and about four-five years older than most of my undergraduate class. Being a mature student, I understood why I was there and was committed to my UK legal studies. Warwick had (and still has) an exceptional and pioneering Law School – having developed its “law in context” approach to studying law. I had several inspirational teachers, too. It was at Warwick that I became so interested in English law that I then seriously considered an academic legal career.
The main challenge I faced at Warwick was settling into a very different institution, approach to teaching and studying law, and, of course, learning what it was actually like to live in the UK – a challenge that many international students are likely to face when arriving in the UK for their studies. I had no doubts about being there, studying law, or the value of its LLB degree. And it didn’t take too long to settle.
In my final year at Warwick, I realised that I wanted, if possible, to take a master’s or equivalent degree to broaden my legal thinking and to allow me to study and think about subjects that weren’t available to me as an undergraduate. Financial constraints meant that it had to be a one-year degree course.
The LSE was my first choice, mainly because of its outstanding reputation as an institution and because of the quality and fame of its Law Department. Again, I was lucky to have some inspirational teachers and mentors. I studied the law of restitution and English legal history. I was also able to study in much greater depth constitutional and administrative law and wrote my dissertation on administrative law. (It was subsequently published in The Modern Law Review in 1984.) Again, I had no doubts about being at LSE.
The challenges I faced as a law student were different at each of UCT, Warwick and LSE. Those I faced at UCT are obvious from the way I have outlined my background. The main moral challenge I faced at UCT is that you can’t divorce law from its place in its social, political, economic and human contexts, and that, as in Apartheid SA, it was an instrument of oppression for the majority. The Law Faculty at UCT did what it could under very challenging circumstances. As I said, some of my teachers were trying to live and teach under a series of banning orders (in effect, house arrest, and under near constant surveillance). Others were arrested, charged and imprisoned for serious offences in resisting Apartheid.
At Warwick, I had to settle into a new country and a very different university and academic life. Those challenges were more personal. By the time I arrived at LSE my challenges were mostly financial, especially as I had then decided to become a barrister. I knew I was going to have to find ways of keeping myself for some time beyond LSE, at the Inns of Court School of Law for my Bar Final Examination studies, and into 12 months’ pupillage in London barristers’ chambers. I was fortunate – and I am grateful to this day – that the Law School at Warwick offered me extensive part-time lecturing and tutoring, and the LSE Law Department engaged me as a part-time teacher, too. These, among other jobs I held while studying at LSE for my LLM and at the Inns of Court School of Law, kept me afloat.
More broadly, one challenge I have come across often is trying to answer the question asked by many in the UK who are contemplating a legal career: should I study law at university, or something else?
There are two opposing schools of thought here: one is that it is better to have a broader education than the typical, three-year, UK undergraduate law degree offers, and to take the law conversion course later, and then the professional examinations. The argument is that this creates a more rounded individual with broader perspectives to bring to legal practice. There are many, including some of our most senior judges, who advocate this thinking.
The other is that it is better to immerse yourself in law from the start to get a deeper understanding of, and grounding in, law as an academic discipline. And besides, that saves you taking a law conversion course, so there is a timing and financial advantage, too.
I realise that, for many prospective law students in India and elsewhere, this may not be a dilemma, but I thought this challenge may resonate for some.
You’ve been involved in the technology and outsourcing sectors since the mid-80s. How have you seen the landscape evolve, particularly in terms of regulation, client needs, and technology advancements like AI and cloud computing?
The information technology landscape has evolved markedly from product (think mainframe computers that occupied entire buildings) to software and applications and then to IT-enabled services, including IT and business process outsourcing (which has of course, led to the dominance of India as an offshore IT services destination). This isn’t to say that the infrastructure – information networks and systems and their components – aren’t important. Obviously, they’re critical, as we’re now seeing at GPU level in AI compute. It’s just that, over the years, there’s been greater focus on software and services, especially from market and client perspectives. This broad evolution has obviously led the focus of regulatory responses and client needs from a product-supplier perspective leading to a service-service provider perspective.
To illustrate this evolution from hardware to software – cloud computing is a good example of a business model – less a technology (though some may argue with that), that has evolved to become all-pervasive “as a service”..
AI has been and is evolving all the time and will continue to evolve. To be honest, I think it’s too early to call how AI will evolve.
But, based on experience of tech hype cycles to the point where tech ultimately delivers real value, I think we must take the long view of all technology developments. This means that it’s probably wrong to take either of the extreme views that, on the hand, AI spells the end of humanity as we know it and should be regulated accordingly, while, on the other, AI will be the saviour of humanity and should, if it’s regulated at all, be regulated as lightly as possible. AI’s actual benefits, risks and challenges will become clearer over time. This makes regulation today, and even client needs, much more difficult to formulate – and to deliver.
Today, the greatest challenge facing governments and regulators with AI – as with any significant, fast-developing technology – is if, how and to what extent to regulate it. We can see at either end of the spectrum the US approach (broadly, don’t regulate federally or we’ll stifle innovation) and the European Union response evidenced in the recent and comprehensive AI Act, with which I am sure all your readers are familiar. The UK is perhaps somewhere in the middle, for now. It’s hard to read the direction of travel that the current UK government and our sector regulators will take. For those interested in this subject, have a look at writings on “the Collingridge Dilemma” and “the Pacing Problem” in technology regulation.
Can you walk us through your journey from starting your career with the UK Civil Service to your current role? How has your career evolved over the last 40 years, and what were some pivotal moments that shaped your path?
In the 1980s while in the UK government, I was lucky enough to have access to some leading-edge information technologies, systems, and products. I became fascinated by them and their potential. I also started to understand – at a very basic level – how those technologies, products and systems were supposed to work and what their implications might be for the mission-critical networks and computer systems then deployed by the UK government and its agencies – and for the outputs and outcomes of those networks and systems. At the same time, in the mid- and late-‘80s, I found myself as probably the only lawyer in the UK government having to advise on some leading-edge technology applications and the start of what we’d now call outsourcing (then, we called it “facilities management”).
I had to learn very quickly to apply traditional legal rules and principles, that had no apparent application to the transactions before me, to developing technologies and the services around them, where there were no textbooks or precedents – in fact, no guidance at all, either from the UK, the USA, or elsewhere. So, I learned the hard way, and certainly made some big mistakes of various kinds along the way. Those mistakes were all my own.
I found this challenge both daunting, but also exhilarating and fascinating, and I still do today, for example, when I must think about and advise on AI. That’s what drew me to becoming a technology lawyer. IT law and the challenges of being an IT lawyer aren’t for everyone. But they were pivotal for me and made me want to practise “computer law” (I am not sure it even had a name then) when I left the UK government and went into legal private practice in the City of London. And so I became a highly specialised (some would say, too narrowly specialised) advisory and transactional commercial lawyer, focusing on the strategic and operational aspects of IT and related regulation. As I am today.
Recognising that I had chosen such a narrow path in my legal career, as soon as I’d established myself as an IT legal practitioner, I realised that I needed to broaden my perspective. It wasn’t common then – and it’s still relatively uncommon – for lawyers like me in private practice to represent IT suppliers and service providers. But I decided that I should represent some selected suppliers and service providers, because this would broaden my transactional perspectives, my legal, contractual, and negotiating experience, my practice base, and my career prospects. And I thought it would make me a more rounded, effective IT lawyer.
Also, I started to engage with others in the IT ecosystem, for example, management and procurement consultants, business advisers, corporate financiers, banks that debt- funded IT companies and projects, and private equity and venture capital houses – all of which increased my networks, live connections, and opportunities. That isn’t to say that I became a corporate, corporate finance, finance or any other kind of lawyer – but I was (and am) able to introduce my colleagues who were (and are) to those IT-market and client-related opportunities. So, this was a career- and practice-enhancing pivot.
Another major development in my career comes from, and is about, India. When India started opening up economically in the early 1990s, its IT sector became recognised, and Jack Welch at GE had decided to site GE’s back-office operations in India. This eventually opened a very important new practice for me. It came about because my team and I were often instructed by Western organisations to advise on the newly emerging offshore outsourcings from India to our client locations, as well as to represent our Western clients in the development and operations of Indian-based captive and build-operate-transfer structures. This took me to India frequently, and I came to know the giants of the Indian IT sector: Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys, Wipro, HCL, Satyam (as was) and Tech Mahindra, along with most of the other major IT and newly emerging business process service providers like L&T Infotech (as was), NIIT Technologies (as was), WNS, Genpact and EXL Service. Consistent with my desire to broaden my practice and client base, I started representing many of those Indian Tier 1 and 2 service providers in their first major IT and outsourcing transactions in the UK and Europe, as well as being involved in their first M&A transactions in the UK. India being India, and with such a highly networked business community, I found myself drawn into a wide range of Indian transactions and opportunities, irrespective of my legal experience. I have spent many happy years travelling in India, also on family holidays, from the far North to the deep South.
Another one of those unexpected developments that proves to be pivotal in a career: while I was making my way as a partner in Stephenson Harwood (where I started my IT private practice legal career in earnest in the 1990s), a fellow SH partner and I were approached by the UK firm of Coopers & Lybrand, then one of the global accountancy practices, to set up and lead their first associated UK law firm. So we established Tite & Lewis. This meant learning new, very different, and much broader management skills alongside running an IT law practice and serving clients. Coopers & Lybrand very soon merged with Price Waterhouse, to become what is now PwC. We became, in effect, PwC Legal. So, my co-founder and I, along with our T&L colleagues, saw a massive, complex, global merger at close quarters. All I can say is that it was quite an experience, and not an especially comfortable one, either.
The direction of travel and aspirations for PwC’s legal practice changed, but not in a way that appealed to all of us. So, when Ernst & Young (EY) UK approached us to create their first associated UK law firm, we moved shop and created Tite & Lewis a second time. I learned much from the experience, too, as this was a complete start-up that needed to scale up rapidly and, on the EY side, it was led with a different senior management style to PwC’s. Again, I had to combine senior management learning with running a successful IT law practice and serving clients, often in places like Europe, the USA, Hong Kong and Australia. That experience came to an end because of Enron, the demise of Arthur Andersen, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and changes in SEC public audit rules, all of which meant that a standalone UK legal practice was no longer viable for EY.
So, I returned to mainstream legal private practice as an IT specialist and held various practice leadership and senior partnerial positions. And I now find myself – very happily – back where I started my specialist IT legal career, at City of London and international law firm, Stephenson Harwood LLP, but this time, as senior consultant, not a partner.
Finally, another direction that proved pivotal for me has been serving as a non-executive director and adviser to various companies, including chairing a UK plc. The first opportunity arose because an important academic client needed someone to represent it on the board of a funding body operating in the medical and scientific technology areas. I had never served on such a board. So I learned.
The next, much more significant, opportunity arose because a client who had become a close friend had been appointed chief executive of one of Europe’s leading IT and outsourcing advisory groups and wanted me to support him and the board as non-executive chair. The other directors interviewed me and agreed. As this was a UK public company, I had to learn, understand, and apply corporate governance rules and London Stock Exchange regulations, as well as – and most challenging of all – boardroom dynamics and politics. This was a powerful and valuable, if occasionally unnerving, experience, from which I learned more than I could have imagined. As the company I chaired operated in the IT and outsourcing markets, often involving my clients, I had to consider and negotiate my way through potential conflicts and other legal practice governance rules. But, overall, my part-time, non-executive, chairing and later non-executive director role at this company complemented my legal private practice very well and helped me to develop my skills and experience.
Other corporate and academic non-executive director and senior advisory roles followed, all of which were complementary to my practice as an IT lawyer, and actively enhanced my career. I had to ensure that none of these roles was going to cause difficulties for my work as a private practitioner, which was always top priority.
Based on my experience, are there any messages for readers? Maybe these:
broaden your networks and horizons,
learn from your colleagues, your clients, and others you meet along the way,
keep an open mind about the opportunities that may come your way (some which you may make for yourselves, some of which may be entirely fortuitous),
be open to taking up those opportunities, even if you decide, ultimately, not to take them,
consider all opportunities and roles that are complementary to, and will enhance, your personal, business, and legal skills and experience,
think about helping, giving opportunities to, and nurturing others when you can. It’s rewarding in so many ways, and
above all, it’s really important that you enjoy your work and your role(s), accepting that there will inevitably be moments that are definitely less enjoyable.
In your experience, what are the key legal or regulatory risks that companies face when outsourcing critical IT services or adopting cloud computing solutions.
Each critical IT outsourcing or cloud computing transaction raises legal and regulatory risks depending on specific contexts and conditions, including on the customer side, for example its operational readiness for the transaction and the strength of its IT and compliance functions. It would be wrong and potentially misleading to set out a long list of specific legal or regulatory risks in such situations. Instead, based on my experience, I’ll list some of the most common key legal and regulatory risks concerned.
Regulatory compliance, especially in the UK and Europe, with the financial services sector outsourcing and cloud controls under, for example, the European Banking Authority outsourcing guidelines, the EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) and the UK Operational Resilience requirements.
Similar regulatory compliance in the EU critical national infrastructure (CNI) sectors, under the Network and Information Systems Directive (NIS2). The UK should soon be legislating to introduce similar rules in our CNI sectors. NIS2 has important implications – and obligations – for the IT, data centre, internet infrastructure, managed services and outsourcing markets.
Third-party supply chain transparency, especially in the context of cloud sub-outsourcing, clearly identifying where the cloud service provision is in the customer supply chain and putting in place suitable contractual governance.
Concentration risk in contracting with one of the small group of cloud hyperscalers, and how to relocate and ensure continuity of service in the cloud-delivered services in the event of a hyperscaler service outage or failure.
EU and UK GDPR compliance, including in cross-border data transfers outside Europe.
The application of the Acquired Rights Directive (ARD) and its UK equivalent, the TUPE Regulations (TUPE), effecting the mandatory transfer of in-scope staff on outgoing employment terms to the new outsourcing service provider or back to the customer where it takes the outsourcing back in house, especially where certain contractual pensions and enhanced redundancy rights are included in the transfer. It has not (yet) been established conclusively that the ARD and TUPE will apply to cloud computing transactions (especially public or hybrid deployment models), but in principle these rules could apply to certain kinds of cloud outsourcing.
Exit provisions to ensure efficient and timely migration of IT and cloud services on the expiry or termination of the outsourcing or cloud service provision.
As a trusted advisor to boards of some of the world’s largest corporations, what are the key strategic factors you emphasize when advising companies? Additionally, could you describe a particularly complex IT or outsourcing transaction you’ve been involved in, and how you approached overcoming the challenges associated with it?
In my experience, corporate boards do not usually call on external counsel in my practice area early enough in transactions or projects to advise on key strategic factors. Maybe they should, but usually that advice has been given before by a combination of external consultants and internal stakeholders.
When I’m called on to advise boards, it’s most often in the final stages of a transaction or technology implementation, when the board wants an external counsel’s view, delivered face-to-face and supported in writing, on the particular material risks in the IT or outsourcing transaction or project, and how those risks are being mitigated by contract, operationally, or in some other way. The board wants final legal sign-off. The key strategic risk factors vary from transaction to transaction, and from board to board. There is no one list of these factors, so it would be misleading to list them here.
In many cases, my role is to support board and corporate governance to enable the board to reach a critical “go/no-go” decision. You may think that it seems too late for such a decision, and you would be right, but that’s often the way it is. Usually, I’m able to give the legal assurance sought.
One exceptional (in every way) transaction that fell into the above category was a massively complex, business- and mission-critical IT outsourcing and data migration project for a UK bank. Because of the history of the bank, its financial situation, and its standing in the UK retail banking market, for the first time in my experience, this outsourcing project was under the regular, direct supervision of the three UK financial regulators – the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. Such was the importance of this outsourcing in the UK retail banking market, that I was interviewed personally by the three regulators on the risks of the outsourcing to the bank concerned, and how they were being mitigated.
I was then asked to attend a full board meeting of the bank with the bank’s then general counsel to address those risks and the mitigation. My team and I prepared a graphic chart to illustrate and clarify the transactional risks to the bank’s board – this helped to explain and emphasise the issues and concerns. The board questioned me and, finally, the chair asked me directly if I would sign the outsourcing contract in its present form, given the legal and contractual risks we had identified and the mitigation in place. I said I wouldn’t unless certain contractual and operational measures were put in place, which was consistent with the advice we had been giving as the outsourcing progressed.
The board did not sign off the transaction until, sometime later, we had been able to negotiate various additional risk and operational mitigations with the outsource service provider and other entities. When these had been achieved and the documentation was finally agreed, I was able to confirm to the board that the outstanding risk areas had been addressed in contractual and operational mitigation.
The deal signed and is still considered one of the most effective banking technology and data migrations and outsourcings in the UK market.
As a Visiting Professor in Practice at LSE Law School, you teach subjects like AI, cloud computing, and legal technologies. What do you think are the most pressing legal issues in the realm of advanced technology today, and how do you prepare your students to tackle them?
LSE’s motto is “rerum cognoscere causas” meaning “to know the causes of things”. I am going to apply the motto broadly in answering this question.
In the realm of advanced technologies today, I think – and it’s a personal view that others in LSE Law may disagree with – that what serves our students best is an intellectual framework to help them “know the causes” of advanced technologies and their implications, and understand and analyse the most pressing legal issues that follow from those causes. So when I am preparing and delivering lectures, I have in mind a framework, which I hope will help our students to know and to understand the following kinds of things (this is not intended as an exhaustive list):
the way(s) that the advanced technologies concerned work
their macro and micro impacts, positive or negative or both, on the world, for example, the environment, society at large, on human activities and interactions, and in all relevant contexts, including in the commercial sphere(s) concerned. For example, in the context of AI in retail financial services markets, how bias in datasets and skewed algorithms might result in denying credit to particular, say ethnic, groups in society,
the specific risks and harms, as well as the positive impacts, associated with those technologies (see the example in (2) above),
the main providers of such technologies and their market position, for example, if those providers are dominant, as the hyperscalers are in the cloud infrastructure markets, and especially if this creates systemic concentration risk in, say, the regulated financial markets,
the ancillary issues and considerations that may arise from such technologies, for example, the impact of the growing cyber risk on the insurance markets, how AI and sovereign actors and their proxies may be contributing to that risk, and the decreasing insurability of certain kinds of cyber risk, or the private right of self-defence in response to cyberattacks,
the geopolitical consequences of advanced technologies, for example, the so-called “arms race” for GPUs in AI, and the rush to acquire alternative energy sources to drive the increasing power demands of data centres in AI compute, as well as the strategic importance of AI in the “Third Offset”,
how current law and regulation may apply to those technologies and those risks, especially in unintended or unexpected ways, and
how proposed law and regulation may apply to those technologies and those risks.
How do I try to prepare our students to tackle these issues? By encouraging them to think about them, to discuss them in class and, if students wish, to write about some or all of these issues in their summative essays.
You may be surprised that I follow this approach. I think that having a framework to “know the causes of things”, then trying to understand and think more about the impact of those things, is a more adaptable, flexible and useful approach in considering the most pressing legal issues in advanced technologies like AI, which are constantly evolving and changing. Our thinking needs to be able to keep track, and to evolve, too.
You’ve played significant leadership roles at firms like PwC and EY. How have you navigated the challenges of managing large teams of lawyers while maintaining a focus on technological innovation and client service?
The honest answer is that it was a struggle, though an exciting and rewarding one in many, though not all, ways. And it remains so for all senior lawyers in private practice and, similarly, for general counsel in corporate roles. There is an inherent and constant tension in balancing the following:
developing new and maintaining existing client relationships,
delivering the best possible legal service to clients,
being aware of, and deploying, new technologies, processes and techniques in legal service delivery,
nurturing, managing and retaining teams,
taking difficult decisions about people and the business,
general management, and
interacting with other, non-legal, colleagues.
I don’t mean this to be a complete list.
There is another, more personal and, maybe for your readers, more important challenge here. I allowed work to come first. Because of those challenges, I wasn’t at home much, I wasn’t around to support my wife much of the time and missed my three children growing up. While being an international technology lawyer looked, and was, exciting and took me all over the world serving household-name clients, I was away from my family and home for long periods over many years.
So, as I say, while it was exciting for me, and materially rewarding for my family, there were significant downsides in trying to balance these challenges. If I had my time again, I hope I would do, and be more able to do, things differently in that respect.
Your career spans across both legal practice and academia. How do you balance the practical demands of being a Senior Consultant at Stephenson Harwood LLP with your academic pursuits and publications?
These roles are actually quite complementary. My main academic commitments, which involve lecturing to the LLM and LLB classes in LSE Law, are concentrated in a relatively short period, around which I can plan my legal practice and academic work. I also have an understanding, supportive and inspirational leader in LSE Law, Professor Andrew Murray, who happens also to be one of the foremost academic lawyers globally in IT law and regulation.
My title at LSE says it: Visiting Professor in Practice. What LSE expects from me is exactly that – perspectives from practice. It says much about the LSE Law School that it recognises that a perspective in practice benefits both undergraduate and taught postgraduate students.
More importantly, I find that the learning and experience I have from my practice and academic careers enhance each other. I have the chance to think more widely and deeply about subjects like cybersecurity, cloud computing and AI when I’m preparing and delivering my lectures. This, in turn, brings additional perspectives and also opportunities to my private practice work, both substantively and in offering new and creative ideas to clients.
At Stephenson Harwood, I’m grateful to Simon Bollans, Technology practice global lead partner, and Dan Holland, overall practice leader, for their vision, understanding, and the opportunity to work in their team.
Given your involvement in legal innovation and technology, do you have any personal projects or initiatives that you’re particularly passionate about in the field of legal technology?
I’m going to interpret “legal technology” here as it applies to legal practice thinking and operations, and to client delivery of legal services in the broadest and narrowest senses.
In answer to this question, I wouldn’t single out one single personal project I can say I am particularly passionate about.
What I am passionate about is an initiative, both in my private practice and academic roles, which starts from this proposition: all lawyers, especially those studying law at university or elsewhere, and those coming into legal private or in-house practice, need to understand as best they can, and to embrace, developing legal technologies and processes, wherever and whenever they have the opportunity to do so. A current example is AI in legal use cases and applications, legal analytics, document assembly tools, workflows, and so on.
All lawyers today need to be aware of and to manage the implications of legal technologies and new processes for their clients, their markets, their own legal careers, and for their effectiveness as lawyers, especially in the age of artificial intelligence.
And, as senior lawyers, whether as practitioners or academics, we have a responsibility to our junior colleagues and students to provide them with opportunities to help them understand, and to embrace where suitable, legal technologies and processes. This doesn’t mean that all lawyers should become legal technologists, software developers and coders, or data scientists – just that all lawyers nowadays must understand the impact of these technologies and processes on their work to be able to operate effectively as lawyers, in whatever capacity.
This is a subset of the much wider challenge of AI in society: to have a future, we must try to understand the impact of AI on our lives, working and otherwise, and to harness AI by working with it. If it will let us!
In your career, you’ve mentored numerous lawyers and young professionals. What advice do you typically offer to those considering starting out as technology lawyers?
While I’m often glad that those who approach me are considering becoming technology lawyers, I feel dutybound to point out that, whether they intend to be and remain in legal private practice or work in-house, they are choosing a narrower career path for themselves than many others for lawyers.
To be blunt, in legal private practice IT law is not mainstream in most law firms, unless they are IT law boutiques. And even in boutiques, there is likely to be a need for more broadly based practitioners, for example those who can advise clients on VC or PE deals, fundraising, IP rights protection, as well as on operational IT commercial work.
So, the first piece of advice I give anyone thinking of starting out as a technology lawyer is this: understand that you would be choosing a much narrower career path than other areas of legal practice. I discuss the obvious and real implications of that choice, whether in private practice or in-house practice, including a smaller range of career opportunities, more limited opportunities for career advancement, and in many scenarios, lower levels of remuneration. I also emphasise the upsides of choosing IT law as a career, which I hope everything I’ve said here supports. But obviously it’s a personal decision.
If anyone then remains determined to pursue a career in technology law, I encourage them to find ways of broadening their perspectives, markets and market opportunities, networks, and potential client bases, and I explain how (as I have earlier in this interview) this could benefit them. Above all, my message to them – and to you – is that you need to have fun!
How did you come to choose the legal profession, and who has been your biggest inspiration along the way? Could you please walk us through your journey from the beginning to where you stand today?
It’s often said that sometimes the best plan is not having a plan at all. My journey reflects that sentiment perfectly. Initially, I followed my passion for food technology, but as life progressed, my career path took unexpected turns. I found myself exploring an array of choices being accounting, languages while learning Spanish, preparing for the entrance exam to pursue a career in hospitality management, and even considering a master’s in business finance or becoming a chartered accountant. Becoming a lawyer was never part of the plan.
Then, one day, I stumbled upon a short course in corporate law. I was pleasantly surprised when my perspectives in class were appreciated, which sparked the idea of pursuing law. As I explored further, I came across an intriguing course on intellectual property rights, and that was the moment I decided this was the direction I wanted to follow.
Looking back, every deviation taught me something valuable. In fact, I find myself applying the knowledge from those diverse experiences to the best interests of my clients today. Whether it is handling patents in food technology, understanding the intricacies of accounting in business, drawing insights from the hospitality industry while drafting legal documents for clients in such businesses, or even reading contracts in Spanish. Each skill I picked up along the way has become part of my legal toolkit.
This diverse background allows me to approach legal issues from a unique perspective, enabling me to offer well-rounded, thoughtful solutions that benefit my clients across industries. In hindsight, my unplanned journey shaped me into the professional I am today, equipping me with insights that a more linear path may not have provided. It reinforced the cliched yet unfinished saying, A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one!
Having worked with renowned firms like Amarchand Mangaldas, Crawford Bayley & Co. and Tata Chemicals, how did those experiences help you develop a new dimension of understanding in Intellectual Property Rights and how all these experiences helped you start your own firm? Please share your challenges you came across while opening your firm.
Although I was initially hired to handle corporate legal matters, my interests always gravitated towards intellectual property rights. This alignment, even if unexpected, enriched my skills in ways I had not anticipated. Handling corporate legalities gave me a solid foundation in drafting intricate clauses, formalizing agreements, and negotiating through deadlocks. I found that bringing a fresh perspective to the table helped resolve even the most complex issues. The meticulous process of proofreading multiple times sharpened my attention to detail, and I quickly learned that no amount of research is ever truly enough.
While I was learning on the job, I wished to pursue a master’s in law. However, juggling the demands of a law-firm eventually, led to the decision to quit my job. But sitting idle was never an option for me. With the support and encouragement of those around me, I embarked on the journey to establish Intellexsys, with just enough savings to cover my expenses for a few months.
As a doe-eyed girl new to entrepreneurship, I faced a constant challenge of convincing potential clients to believe in my legal skills. More often than not, I was met with sceptical glances that questioned my abilities. But slowly, as I delivered results, perceptions began to change. The doubt faded, and there was no looking back from there.
As a participant in the WIPO Summer School, what new dimensions did you uncover about Intellectual Property on a global scale, and how do you apply those insights in your practice today?
I gained invaluable insights into the global applicability of intellectual property. One of the key takeaways was understanding the intricacies and the differing legalities involved across jurisdictions. This gave me a broader perspective on how to strategically position clients’ intellectual properties in a way that ensures longevity and relevance in multiple markets.
I also learned nuanced contract negotiation tactics that emphasized a global perspective and helped me shift focus on learning how to solve problems creatively, and look at the bigger picture, i.e. how my work can impact innovation, society, and global markets. I realized that in international negotiations, the objective is often about building long-term relationships rather than short-term wins. Today, I am more focused on constructing agreements that prioritize sustainable collaboration.
Moreover, this experience helped me understand that intellectual property law is about fostering innovation on a global scale. I now approach each client’s IP strategy with a long-term vision, ensuring that their creations are protected and can thrive in an interconnected world.
You have worked on high-profile trademarks, including securing name trademarks for A-list celebrities. What was the most challenging case in your career, and what did you learn from it?
One of the most challenging cases I worked on involved conducting a comprehensive trademark search across more than 26 countries. The complexities were multifaceted, as we had to navigate different legal frameworks, languages, and classifications unique to each jurisdiction. For instance, translating a brand name into Chinese revealed potential issues with cultural sensitivity. Moreover, the limitations of classification systems in various regions often created obstacles, requiring us to reframe strategies to ensure our clients’ trademarks were protected globally.
Similarly, when securing a name trademark for a high-profile celebrity, the stakes were incredibly high. In that case, we had to gather years of data to demonstrate goodwill through continuous use, which was critical to proving trademarkability. Likewise, we have faced similar issues with securing trademarks for brands for family-run generational businesses.
In another instance, negotiating innovative service offerings with government bodies and large corporations presented its own set of challenges. The process of overcoming layers of approvals and navigating the limitations imposed by the prevailing party tested our resilience and creativity. Despite the hurdles, each experience taught me that no challenge is insurmountable if you remain committed, think creatively, and leave no stone unturned in your pursuit of a solution.
Your firm has worked with over 2000 global clients. What strategies do you employ to stay updated with global legal developments, and how does this help you provide innovative solutions to your clients?
Staying updated with global legal developments is critical to providing cutting-edge solutions to our diverse client base. The cornerstone of this strategy is simple: learn, unlearn, and relearn. Reading legal journals, industry reports, and global legislative updates allows us to stay ahead of the curve. However, given the fast-paced nature of the legal landscape, we have also integrated artificial intelligence tools to streamline this process. AI helps us track recent developments, new regulations, and shifts in jurisprudence in real time, enabling us to stay informed reasonably.
Our approach goes beyond merely working for clients, we work with them. We invest time in understanding their industries, goals, and pain points, which enables us to offer tailored solutions. Whether it is navigating international filings, understanding cross-border data privacy regulations, or providing strategic counsel on matters, our focus is always on creating value through collaboration.
Moreover, word-of-mouth referrals are what continue to drive our business. The trust we build by staying updated and offering relevant, forward-thinking solutions has led to a steady influx of clients referred by those who have experienced the effectiveness of our approach firsthand.
You have a strong focus on mediation and a litigation-free approach. Could you explain the importance of mediation in today’s legal world, and how it can transform the traditional practice of law? What advice would you give to aspiring lawyers who want to specialize in Intellectual Property Law, especially in emerging areas like AI and data privacy?
Mediation is crucial because it offers a faster, more amicable solution than traditional litigation. It saves time, money, and relationships, which is especially important in industries like entertainment or technology, where long-term partnerships are essential. By focusing on resolving disputes collaboratively, we can prevent the fallout that often comes with litigation.
Mediation also allows for more creative solutions. In a courtroom, decisions are binary, you win or you lose. In mediation, however, both parties can work towards a mutually beneficial outcome, which often leads to more satisfactory results.
For aspiring IP lawyers, particularly in emerging fields like AI and data privacy, I would say that one requires a constant willingness to deepen your knowledge in ever-changing sectors like technology. Learning never stops, one has likely only scraped the surface, there are always new developments and unexplored areas. Whether it is AI innovations, blockchain, or data privacy regulations, with the issues we are facing now, one needs to secure a client from anticipated legal challenges that may not even exist yet. The law will continue to evolve as technology grows, and your ability to pivot and adapt will be crucial in staying relevant.
Moreover, as AI advances, legal issues surrounding liability are also emerging. For example, the question of who is responsible when an AI-powered autonomous vehicle is involved in an accident depends on the software license agreements, vendor agreements, manufacturer’s liability, user terms, amongst other conditions such as malfunctioning equipment, glitches, violation of traffic rules, loss of internet and applicable regulations. I recently watched a film titled “Leave the World Behind,” where AI-powered cars crashed due to a global internet shutdown. Such scenarios could raise complex liability questions, as they may fall under force majeure events. Therefore, understanding and adapting to these legal complexities is critical for aspiring lawyers.
As a visiting faculty and mentor, you interact with the next generation of legal professionals. What trends do you see shaping the future of Intellectual Property Law, and what key skills should aspiring lawyers focus on developing?
As I interact with the next generation of legal professionals, it is clear that technology is reshaping intellectual property law at an unprecedented rate. Fields like AI, blockchain, data privacy, and digital content protection are becoming central. The trend toward globalization of IP is another, where businesses must protect their innovations across multiple jurisdictions, all with differing regulations.
Aspiring lawyers need to focus on developing technical proficiency, not just in legal terms but in understanding how emerging technologies work. Also, foresight is crucial having the ability to anticipate potential legal challenges with tech that does not fully exist yet. You will also need collaboration skills, as IP law increasingly requires working with cross-border teams, clients, and governments. And most importantly, a learning mindset, the law will evolve, and you must continuously adapt.
For instance, in response to the growing misuse of artists’ personality rights through AI technologies like deepfakes, we have incorporated specialized clauses in our contracts to protect against unauthorized replication or manipulation of their likeness, patterns, voice, or image. These provisions ensure the safeguarding of a client’s rights against new methods of exploitation, addressing unknown risks with varying potential.
With your vast experience and accolades, including recognition from Idex, Asian Legal Business and Forbes, what is one piece of advice or learning from your career that you believe has been instrumental in your success and can help others?
Neversettle for the first answer or solution. I have learned that no amount of research is ever truly enough. There is always more you can do, another perspective to consider, or a more innovative approach to take. This relentless pursuit of improvement has been instrumental in my career, and it is something I encourage others to embrace. Whether you are drafting agreements or solving complex legal issues, push beyond what has been done and think creatively. It is this continuous learning and commitment to growth that can set you apart.
What is the most pressing change required in the legal fraternity and judiciary today, and what suggestions would you offer to young law graduates entering the field?
One of the most pressing changes required in the legal fraternity and judiciary is to embrace technology and streamlining of processes. The pace of technological advancement is far outpacing the legal systems that govern it. We need more efficient case management systems, a deeper understanding of emerging technology by the judiciary, and faster adaptation of regulations that address modern IP challenges like AI, data privacy, and digital rights.
I would recommend the next generation of lawyers to be adaptable and proactive. The legal world is evolving, and you must be ready to innovate with it. Equip yourself with technical knowledge beyond just the law, understand the industries and technologies you will be working with. Be ready to embrace change, whether in how cases are handled or how laws are interpreted. The future of law will be as much about innovation as it is about tradition. Stay curious, diligent, and forward-thinking, and you will thrive.
Hello and welcome to SuperLawyer Youtube channel. And once again, we are here with a phenomenal personality Vibhav Mithal and a very dear friend. I have known him for more than a couple of years now. Welcome Vibhav. Thank you for agreeing to this interview. And yes, I should introduce him as a partner at Anand and Anand and other than that, he will carry forward with his own story.
I would request you to tell us about your journey into the legal field, and how you decided to become a lawyer, especially in intellectual property rights, which you are fascinated about and have made a name in. What inspired you to specialize in such a niche area? And please take us through your journey. Welcome Vibhav and thank you.
Thank you so much, Divya. It’s an absolute pleasure to do this with you. I’ll start from the beginning of my journey. My parents are doctors, and there’s a conventional expectation in India that a doctor’s son will become a doctor or an engineer’s son will become an engineer, right?
My father told me clearly, “Son, you won’t be able to do engineering,” so it was between medicine or another profession. I honed in on law because, at that point, it was more a process of elimination. I didn’t want to do engineering, and although I considered medicine, I wasn’t sure. Both my parents cast long shadows, being very successful in their fields. I felt that pursuing law would give me the flexibility to move into journalism, which interested me at the time. I was heavily involved in theater during school, and I thought I might explore laws around theater and playwrights, or perhaps even pursue an MBA after law school. Thus, I chose law, keeping my options open.
Once I made up my mind, I started coaching during class 12. Even though I was busy with my board exams, I began career launcher coaching from SDA market in New Delhi. I remember this very clearly; it was back in 2007-2008 when I took the CLAT exam while also preparing for my 12th boards. Despite taking up the coaching, I couldn’t focus entirely on it because I prioritized my 12th exams. However, I was very mindful and present during the coaching classes, which were held every Monday from 5:30 to 7:30 PM.
By the time I reached the CLAT exam, I had a good understanding of how to approach competitive exams. I also did a crash course with Career Launcher in April before the exam. Fortunately, I made it to NUJS, Calcutta. I had a clear strategy for the CLAT exam, knowing how many marks each section was worth, how much time to allocate to each section, and the order in which I would tackle them. I prepared thoroughly for the black-and-white sections like GK and English vocabulary, while practicing the more nuanced sections through mocks.
NUJS was fantastic for five years, but I won’t go into too much detail. Moving on to the question about intellectual property, one of my uncles, Ratan Masaji, introduced me to the concept when I was in my second year of law school. We were at the Indian Habitat Center, having tea on the terrace, and he mentioned an IP case. The idea of intellectual property intrigued me
By the end of my third year at NUJS in May 2011, two significant events occurred. First, I interned with Geeta Luthra, a renowned civil litigator, which ignited my passion for litigation. It was an intense internship, with long hours from 10 AM to 1 or 2 AM, spanning four weeks. During this period, I experienced the trial courts in Delhi, which remained active until June.
The second notable event was meeting Rodney Ryder, a prominent figure in intellectual property law, in CP. He shared his experiences and recommended I read “Rembrandts in the Attic,” a book on intellectual property rights and monetization, particularly focusing on patents. This book, written in the early 2000s, discussed the evolving perception of intellectual property in America.
After reading the book in the summer, my fourth-year courses in intellectual property began. My professors, Anirban Majumdar (copyright law), Vishwas Devaiya (trademark law), and Shamnat Basheer (patent law), further solidified my interest. Anirban sir’s teaching resonated with me, especially due to my background in theater. Shamnat sir shifted my focus from copyright to patents, and Vishwas Devaiya sir introduced me to trademark law.
By the end of my fourth year, I was certain about pursuing intellectual property law. Despite being in the top 20 of my batch, I chose not to participate in placements. My commitment was clear to my peers, who often went on weekend trips while I focused on internships and coursework to enhance my CV.
In my final year, I faced pressure from my mother to consider placements, but I remained steadfast in my decision to specialize in intellectual property. I dedicated my time to relevant internships and coursework to ensure my CV reflected my focus on IP. This was a stressful period as IP litigation jobs were scarce.
Fortunately, in March 2013, Anand and Anand held a recruitment fair at my college. I was interviewed and selected the same day, about 40 days before my final exams. The interview, which has become part of ANA folklore, involved questions on patent law and the concept of a person of ordinary skill in the art. My current boss and Mr. Anand himself conducted the interviews.
This journey, from my third year to securing a position at Anand and Anand, highlights my commitment to intellectual property law and the steps I took to achieve my goal.
Your story is truly fascinating, especially how you were so determined to focus solely on intellectual property litigation. This field is still quite niche and hasn’t become mainstream yet. Thank you for your dedication, as it ensures we have skilled lawyers in India who specialize in intellectual property litigation.
With that in mind, you must have witnessed significant changes over the past decade in this field. What kind of advancements or enhancements have you observed, and how have you contributed to these changes? Please share your story.
I think one of the main aspects of changes in intellectual property law over the last decade is my tenure at Anand since I left law school. One important thing for the audience to understand is that Anand and Anand is a pro-IP firm.
We protect and enforce intellectual property rights, standing up for the IP owner across various fields, including trademark law, patent law, and copyright. For instance, in patent law, we represent the patentee, such as a cancer drug owner. In trademark law, we stand with brand owners, and in copyright law, we support individual artists or singers against any opposing party. The changes we’ve seen in IP law are viewed through this protective lens. Much of the intellectual property rights litigation occurs at the Delhi High Court.
Let me highlight two to three major changes in IP law from different perspectives. First, regarding the reliefs granted by the court: On my first day on the job, my immediate boss handed me the 275-page judgment passed by Justice Manmohan Singh in the Roche Cipla patent infringement dispute. This was the first lawsuit filed under the Patents Act of 1970 after the product patent regime had begun. My first two and a half years involved being part of the Roche versus Cipla appeal. Roche, a cancer drug maker, had initially lost before the single judge, and the first appeal was before the division bench. During this process, I learned a great deal about patent law, conducted extensive research, and honed the art of handling complex matters.
A significant change occurred on November 27, 2015, when we won that appeal. The court laid down several concepts of patent law and jurisprudence, particularly in the context of pharmaceutical patents, which remain relevant today. This victory marked a shift towards a pro-patentee stance about two and a half years into my profession.
In terms of substance, trademark law reliefs have blossomed, now including costs and damages against infringers. Copyright law jurisprudence has also been evolving and growing. The reason I emphasize this from a patent perspective is that it illustrates how jurisprudence evolves, especially in the more nuanced areas of law.
Another significant experience was my involvement in the Monsanto dispute at the Supreme Court level after returning from my LLM. This dispute provided a different type of experience, where I was not only the most junior member but also deeply familiar with the case files.
So, the issue was more in the context of patent eligibility tests. Simply put, it was about determining whether an invention qualifies as a plant variety, a gene, or something else. The court was able to understand the various legal issues, set aside the decision of the division bench, and sent it back to a single judge for reconsideration and trial.
I highlight these points from a patent perspective to show how courts adeptly understand the nuances of legal issues. Outcomes can vary, but this change shows progress.
The second change relates to procedural aspects. In India, associates involved in litigation ensure that once a lawsuit is filed and summons are served, service is coordinated through their office. I remember in 2015, about two years into my career, I had to serve a defendant in a foreign country. I got their address from public domains and gave it to our courier service, but they reported the address as incorrect. This led to a lengthy argument, as an incorrect address meant the defendant wouldn’t be served, prolonging the litigation unnecessarily.
One notable change is the introduction of WhatsApp service by the Delhi High Court in 2018, which streamlines this process. Additionally, procedural laws have evolved, imposing strict timelines. If a written statement isn’t filed within 120 days, the right is forfeited. Previously, after filing a written statement, separate processes like admission denial affidavits would extend the timeline significantly. Now, these processes are clubbed together, expediting litigation.
For example, in 2022, post-COVID, I handled a trademark case where the defendant had no viable defense. We moved for summary judgment, argued, and received a favorable ruling, saving the client’s costs for a full-fledged trial. These changes, largely due to the Commercial Courts Act, recognize IP as a commercial dispute, altering litigation timelines and procedures. The Delhi High Court’s rules also include WhatsApp service, reflecting significant procedural advancements.
Lastly, with the abolition of IPAB, the Delhi High Court’s Intellectual Property Rights Division now handles both IP infringement cases and appeals from the registry. This has expedited the resolution process; for instance, two trademark appeals were decided within 36 days.
For students and new practitioners, these rapid changes require a clear understanding of timelines and meticulous planning. While litigation often focuses on immediate deadlines, having both a macro and micro view is crucial. Balancing short-term responses with long-term planning helps navigate the evolving legal landscape efficiently.
Your explanation is meticulous. Your ability to recall dates, days, years, and everything in such detail is impressive. It’s not easy to maintain that level of precision, and it’s commendable.
As you mentioned your LLM, could you elaborate on that a bit more? Specifically, what differences did you notice between the study process in India and in the US? A comparative analysis would be very insightful. Additionally, how did your thought process change after completing your LLM and returning to rejoin your work? Would you be willing to share those experiences?
Of course, it’s an excellent question. Before I address the differences and changes, I think it’s essential to first discuss when to pursue an LLM. The decision is highly personal.
An LLM’s value depends significantly on what you make of it. One of the most crucial aspects of an LLM is how you utilize the program, the choice of the program, the professors, and the course combinations. How you spend your time in the program defines your LLM experience and impacts your time after completing it.
Whether to pursue an LLM immediately after college or after gaining work experience is a personal choice. I chose to do it after working for a few years for several reasons. Firstly, you gain better clarity about your goals with an LLM after having two to three years of work experience. While two to three years of work experience is ideal, a minimum of two years is necessary. This experience teaches you discipline, how to handle stressful situations and deadlines, and it clarifies your mind after some time in practice.
For instance, if you’re practicing in a specific area, you might decide to pursue an LLM in that same field. In my case, I was practicing intellectual property law and chose to do an LLM in the same area because my practice confirmed my interest in intellectual property. However, it could have gone the other way. After two or three years in intellectual property practice, I could have concluded that I wasn’t enjoying it and decided to pursue an LLM in a different field.
There are advantages to gaining work experience before pursuing an LLM. The overall LLM experience is different because, with work experience, you don’t get overwhelmed by tough professors, challenging assignments, or grading concerns. You’re able to handle situations on their merits and substance, focusing on what you want to learn without being overly concerned about grades. This clarity often comes with work experience.
Additionally, work experience helps you decide which LLM college to attend. I had a few options, but I chose to attend Boston University School of Law for their niche LLM in Intellectual Property program, even though it didn’t qualify me for the US bar exam.
Of course. It’s an excellent question. Before I address the differences and changes, I want to first discuss when to pursue an LLM. This decision is a personal choice.
I made a conscious decision in my journey. I remember having an informal interaction with a leading law firm in the US. They mentioned that they had encountered many Indian lawyers who come to America, but I was the first one they met who didn’t intend to take the bar exam or even choose a course that required it. I explained that given my job experience and exposure in India, achieving an equivalent position in America would take three to five years, perhaps even less, but it would still require significant time. Therefore, the bar exam was not a priority for me. Instead, I focused on learning intellectual property.
During my studies, I took diverse courses, including Trade Secrets Law, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Law, and an IP Workshop at Boston University School of Law. In the IP Workshop, we critiqued leading academics’ papers, including one on the Oracle-Google Java API copyright dispute, which the US Supreme Court later decided in favor of Google. I wrote a paper supporting the copyright owner, diving deep into the history of the dispute.
This academic course, seemingly detached from practical practice, taught me to understand and formulate arguments based on the underlying positions of opposing papers. This skill has been invaluable, even aiding me in the Monsanto decision when I returned to India.
In terms of differences and takeaways, one significant aspect of American legal education is the required study time. For every hour of class, an average reader needs at least three hours of study outside class. For instance, 10 hours of class time a week, or 10 credits, translates to 40 hours of study. This means dedicating eight hours every day, Monday to Friday, solely to studying.
Each lecture comes with assigned readings, and professors ask questions based on these readings. If you’re unprepared, you’ll fall behind and have to catch up on your own. Staying on top of readings is crucial for continuous learning. Professors will push you if you’re diligent. For example, in my Food and Drug Law course, my professor encouraged me to compare the biologic and biosimilar regimes in India, rather than taking an end-semester exam. She is an authority in the food and drug space, and her guidance was invaluable.
This commitment to preparation and engagement defines the American law school experience and is a key difference from other systems.
I ended up writing a 70-page paper for that course, not because I had planned to, but because the professor engaged with me continuously, rather than assessing me on an end-semester exam. She kept giving me deadlines, saying things like, “I like the discussion. Why don’t you come back with a title next week?” So I went back with a title. Then she said, “I like the title. Why don’t you come back with an abstract next week?” I wrote the abstract. Then she said, “Now that you have the abstract, let’s work on the informative portion of the paper, and then we’ll come to the analysis.” This created a different kind of engagement.
On the academic side, the LLM experience involves investing in your education and studies. However, an equally important aspect is the exposure outside the classroom, where you meet people from different countries. During orientation, I made sure to meet every single batchmate. This is common across any law school, but I made a concerted effort to connect with everyone. As a result, my friend circle grew to 16 people from 11 different countries. Despite the craziness of studies, we managed to do three trips together. We went to Mexico during spring break with half of the group, and after exams, all 16 of us took a trip to Cape Cod in Massachusetts. We rented a large house that could accommodate all of us, which took half an hour just to explore fully.
One memorable moment was when we arrived at the house in May, around this time of year. The American winter had just ended, and summer hadn’t fully started yet. We got there around noon, but by 7 PM, we realized no one had entered the kitchen, and we were all hungry. We discovered the stove didn’t work, so we called the person who arranged the rental. He panicked, saying he would send someone to fix it, but that person didn’t speak English. We assured him it wasn’t a problem, given our diverse group from 11 different countries; we would manage.
This experience highlighted the value of an LLM beyond academics. It teaches you many skills and builds lasting friendships and big ideas. It’s been seven years since I finished my LLM, and I’m still in touch with my alma mater, BU Law. I even spoke there recently. We had a reunion in 2019, reinforcing the strong connections formed during that time. My LLM books are still on my shelf, and I refer to them when needed. Some recent matters I’ve worked on directly relate to my LLM studies, particularly in IP law.
An LLM experience isn’t just about ticking off a checklist; it’s about growth and development, both consciously and subconsciously. It’s important to be clear about why you’re pursuing an LLM and how you intend to use it. The combination of professors and courses you choose is crucial, but so is enjoying the journey. My schedule was set: I studied from Sunday to Friday evening, then spent Friday evening and Saturday with friends. Saturday morning was for house chores and a bit of study, and Sunday was dedicated to studying. Every weekend, from September until graduation, we had fun on Friday and Saturday nights. Looking back, I feel like I balanced my studies and social life well, and I certainly made the most of my time with friends.
Wow, what a fascinating journey you have had! I don’t know whether you planned it all or if it just happened flawlessly for you, but you always seem to achieve the best possible outcomes in whatever you do. From my experience with you on AI and law, as well as AI and IP, I can certainly attest to that.
As you enjoyed your LLM and your work with Anand and Anand, where you decided to prioritize IP, it has clearly become your niche. You are now an authority in the field. I want to ask, how did you come to love AI and law, as well as AI and IP, in the same manner? What prompted this interest, especially since you started working on it long before it became a popular topic? Additionally, could you please share your perspectives on the current impact of AI on IP and what you foresee in the future, given your extensive experience?
Thank you for that question. My interest in AI is something that often surprises people, both at my workplace and elsewhere, especially considering my passion for IP. They often wonder how I got into this field. I think it boils down to a couple of key factors.
First and foremost is curiosity. I’ve always been curious, and AI intrigued me way back in 2019, just two years after completing my LLM. Second, my brother-in-law, who is heavily involved in AI, played a significant role. Similar to how I had a masaji who spoke about IP, I had a jijaji who mentioned AI in conversations. Additionally, in 2019, Mr. Anand organized a moot court focusing on AI issues, which led to further discussions and piqued my interest in AI.
The real turning point came during the COVID lockdown. With the extra time on my hands, I stopped watching TV by mid-April 2020, just a month after the lockdown began. Instead, I started reading more. I came across articles by Karen Hao, who wrote for MIT Technology Review and published a weekly newsletter called “Algorithm.” Her writings sparked my interest further. I even wrote to her, and she knows about my admiration for her work.
Around the same time, I joined the MKAI (Milton Keynes Artificial Intelligence) community. They held weekly events on AI, which I found fascinating. They also had a WhatsApp group for discussions. By November 2020, I was actively participating in these discussions, dedicating an hour or so each evening to reading, responding, and sharing my views instead of watching TV.
This routine continued for about six months until Richard Foster Fletcher asked me to become the voluntary head of the MKAI community in early 2021. I held this role until the end of 2022. During my one and a half years with MKAI, we conducted numerous LinkedIn Live sessions, where I often served as the lead panelist. This period significantly enriched my understanding and involvement in AI.
So, my journey into AI began with curiosity and was fueled by influential people and timely opportunities during the COVID lockdown.
My journey into AI ethics began with what could be termed as a long-distance LLM, or an interactive LLM, if you will. Monthly events and my role as a lead panelist in LinkedIn Live sessions required extensive reading, sparking my interest in AI ethics. One particularly impactful read was a book on AI ethics authored by Mark from MIT, alongside literature on machine learning and “Transforming in the Age of AI,” which I began exploring in 2020, just before COVID-19. These discoveries were driven purely by curiosity.
Soon after, I became involved with a Springer journal titled “AI Ethics,” joining its peer review board upon nomination. This marked my formal introduction to the field. Subsequently, my tenure as voluntary head of community at MKAI, an organization dedicated to general AI, spanned one and a half years. MKAI proved invaluable for anyone looking to delve into AI and establish themselves in the field.
My involvement with MKAI coincided with my joining ForHumanity, a role closer to home as they were then developing an AI systems audit framework under data protection laws. This move solidified my commitment, and I haven’t looked back since. With ForHumanity, initiatives like Koli Team India were launched, focusing on India’s AI policies from 2021 onwards. We meticulously reviewed the national strategy, responsible AI reports, and contributed to shaping the AI audit scheme proposed in the withdrawn data protection bill. Throughout 2022, I actively participated in responding to industry calls for comments, forging connections that furthered organic growth.
LinkedIn played a significant role during this period, facilitating high-quality interactions and connections across the globe, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 until early 2022. Although initially centered on IP and AI debates, my focus evolved towards understanding AI comprehensively—exploring AI ethics, responsible AI, and its ethical implications. This broadened perspective led to collaborations with industry bodies and engagements with legal aspects, particularly concerning generative AI and IP issues.
My involvement extended to providing initial feedback to NASSCOM on their generative AI guidelines, an effort recognized in their published report of June last year. These experiences have shaped my understanding of AI from a legal lens, highlighting its impact on intellectual property and sparking debates on ownership and authorship.
Looking back, my journey has been defined by a deliberate curiosity and a strategic choice in how I allocate my time. Engaging with AI holistically, I’ve maintained a non-technical approach, leveraging my legal background to translate ethical considerations into responsible AI practices—focusing on data protection, IPR, and security implications. As the landscape continues to evolve, my commitment remains steadfast, anchored in a clear understanding of AI’s legal implications and its transformative potential.
Wow, “Chip War” is one of my favorite books. Yes, Lord Tim Clement. I’ve read a lot about him and have interacted with him a couple of times. I enjoy how with every sentence he speaks, there’s always a book reference. That’s something that makes me really happy. It’s rare to find someone who always has a book to refer to, and I love that. I’m an avid reader myself. I have all the books in the series, like “Chip War,” “Breached,” and others that explore AI and law from a non-technical perspective. It’s important not to always view it from a technical standpoint.
Knowing you as someone who demystifies AI from a non-technical angle, I’d like to ask: What key points do you think everyone should understand about AI, not just from a technical standpoint but also from a legal perspective? Additionally, for students and young lawyers in fields like litigation or IP law, how do you suggest they approach building a career similar to yours? What should they focus on as law students or early-career lawyers?
I appreciate these insightful questions. I’m glad to see the flow of our conversation touching on various aspects. Let me share my journey, focusing on two key areas you’ve highlighted: understanding AI and what students can do in this domain.
Firstly, it’s crucial to grasp the current AI landscape. AI can be categorized into two main types: artificial narrow intelligence (ANI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI). ANI, as a pattern recognition tool, generates outputs like images or text based on recognized patterns, albeit within its defined tasks. AGI, on the other hand, envisages AI reaching human-level intelligence, a frontier still distant despite ongoing research and occasional claims.
For students entering this field, understanding these distinctions is pivotal. Current laws and regulations, including those from bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization and recent EU AI Act amendments, predominantly address ANI. This underscores the importance of comprehending AI’s present capabilities and limitations.
AI pervades everyday experiences—from entertainment streaming to social media interactions. Viewing AI through a non-technical legal lens helps appreciate its omnipresence and anticipate associated legal challenges such as privacy and security.
Regarding AI’s impact on employment, it’s essential not to confine discussions solely to job displacement. While some roles may shift, others will emerge, akin to historical technological shifts. Embracing AI comprehensively demands holistic perspective, encompassing its societal, economic, and ethical dimensions.
For aspiring students, clarity in career aspirations is crucial. Whether pursuing AI or intellectual property (IP) law, introspection into personal interests is foundational. Knowing oneself—what interests and excites—is pivotal in shaping a fulfilling career path. My own journey into IP law stemmed from personal curiosity and academic exploration rather than mere prestige.
Specializing in IP law necessitates a focused approach. Awareness of diverse opportunities beyond prominent firms is vital. During my own career search, I meticulously researched roles across various tiers of firms, aligning each with specific career goals and progression plans.
Internship experiences are pivotal in this journey. Commitment and diligence during internships often translate into tangible career opportunities. I recall instances where interns’ dedication during intense projects led to permanent roles—a testament to the importance of commitment and understanding one’s responsibilities.
Opportunities in AI and related fields abound for those passionate about technology and policy. Playing to one’s strengths, whether technical or legal, is essential. My advice to younger individuals exploring AI is to leverage their interests and strengths effectively within this dynamic field.
In conclusion, navigating the evolving landscape of AI demands not only technical acumen but also a clear understanding of its legal and societal implications. By aligning personal passions with professional pursuits and seizing internship opportunities with dedication, aspiring professionals can forge rewarding careers in AI and IP law.
“You’ve highlighted a crucial aspect: respect for the job and for the person assigning you tasks. Upholding this can significantly increase your chances of securing a job offer or a pre-placement opportunity, even during internships.
I believe this perspective you’ve raised is vital. It’s not just about putting in 16, 18, or even 20 hours of work. What stands out is the importance of being respectful and mindful of the consequences that follow. The significance of a task isn’t solely determined by whether it’s handled in the Supreme Court or High Court.
It should be seen in terms of its impact on your career. When you assist, recognition follows. That’s the essence of your suggestion, as I understand it. It’s crucial for students to grasp this concept, and it’s what we aim to convey here.
We’ve covered much ground in this interview, but there’s one important question I haven’t asked yet about your personal life. How do you manage to maintain balance amidst your rigorous reading and work schedule? What advice would you give to others who struggle to find time for their personal lives?
Could you share how you’ve managed this so far and offer insights on how others can emulate your approach?”
Work-life balance is a crucial topic, especially in the post-COVID era. Personally, my parents, family, friends, and my wife have played pivotal roles in maintaining this balance.
Initially, living with my parents in Delhi before marriage provided significant support. Litigation demands time to develop, and being able to consult and spend quality time with my parents was invaluable. Both of them are doctors, and observing their disciplined work schedules—from leaving early in the morning to returning by evening—left a lasting impression on me since childhood.
After marriage, my wife’s unwavering support has been transformative, particularly from 2017 onwards, coinciding with significant milestones in my career, including Supreme Court cases and ventures into AI. Her background as a former corporate lawyer, now a teacher, brings a deep understanding of professional challenges, which greatly contributes to maintaining balance.
Finding balance, for me, involves consciously investing time in activities that bring joy and relaxation. During the COVID period, this meant pursuing hobbies like reading about AI, alongside family time with shows like “The Crown.” As life resumed, balance shifted to outings for movies or enjoying quiet mornings together.
Balancing responsibilities extends to our household, where everyone, including my sister-in-law who is a teacher, contributes. Even our dog plays a role in keeping spirits up. Quality time spent together during leisure hours significantly impacts our overall balance.
Self-care is crucial. Taking time to connect with oneself amidst busy schedules is essential for maintaining equilibrium. Structuring my day with discipline has been key—I start work promptly in the morning and ensure to leave by early evening unless urgent matters demand otherwise. This routine allows for dedicated time at home, whether it’s enjoying moments with family or unwinding with entertainment.
Achieving work-life balance hinges on transparent communication about priorities and mutual understanding within the family circle. This approach has been instrumental in shaping my perspective on balancing professional and personal commitments effectively.
Thank you, Vibhav, for bringing such insightful perspectives to our conversation. Your thoughts on work-life balance were particularly inspiring, emphasizing the importance of discipline in achieving harmony. I’m certain our learners and listeners will find your approach worth emulating, and I encourage them to connect with you. Your responsiveness and generosity are truly commendable.
I also appreciate your role as a community builder, bridging the gap for us lawyers in AI and other emerging fields, making these advancements accessible in India and beyond. Lastly, thank you for agreeing to this interview. I hope you found it enjoyable, and once again, your participation is greatly appreciated.
It’s been my absolute pleasure.
I have just shared my perspectives and more than happy to listen to anyone. Any questions and you’re right I do respond to everyone almost who reaches out to me. So there’s absolutely no problem. Anyone is confused. If there’s anything they have questions, they want to ask more, happy to converse.
So thank you so much. It’s been an absolute pleasure interacting with you.
Can you share what initially drew you to pursue a career in law? Was there a particular moment or influence that sparked your interest?
My decision to pursue a career in law stemmed from my love for books, writing and languages. Mystery, crime and thrillers have always been my favourite genres and continue to be so till date. Whether it was devouring legal thrillers or reading about real-life cases, I couldn’t help but marvel at how the law shapes our world by helping us unravel clues and arguments to uncover the truth that can make all the difference. Moreover, from a young age I have found myself drawn to the concept of justice and fairness. The law provides a platform to champion causes, protect the vulnerable, and advocate for change. It offers the opportunity to use analytical skills to solve complex problems, negotiate effectively, and provide counsel that can profoundly impact individuals and communities. It was a combination of all these factors that influenced my decision to pursue law as a career.
How did your time at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences and King’s College London shape your perspective on law and your career path?
The methodology adopted to teach law at WBNUJS was what made the institution stand out from the other law colleges and the way law was taught in those colleges. We were constantly encouraged to think critically and be intellectually curious. The rigorous coursework challenged us to delve into the complexities of legal theory and practice, and every class was a stepping stone towards a deeper appreciation for the nuances of law. Beyond the classroom, we were provided exciting opportunities for practical learning through internships at prestigious law firms and with eminent legal practitioners, which allowed us to apply theoretical knowledge to real world scenarios. These opportunities enabled us to decide on our areas of interest and work towards forging a career path accordingly upon graduation.
The diverse and inclusive community at King’s College London enriched my perspective on law. Interacting with students from various backgrounds and cultures exposed me to different legal traditions and societal norms, broadening my worldview and giving me useful insights into the importance of cultural competence in legal practice. The course that I was specialising in (Intellectual Property Law) was administered through engaging lectures, case studies, and discussions led by esteemed faculty members and industry experts, I gained a deep understanding of the legal frameworks and complexities surrounding IP law. Beyond the classroom, King’s College offered unique networking opportunities with professionals in the field. Seminars, and alumni events connected me with practitioners who shared their insights and experiences, and provided me with a holistic perspective of the subject as well as the potential career opportunities therein.
What were some key takeaways from your early roles at Paras Kuhad & Associates and Khaitan & Co. that helped shape your legal career?
My early roles at these law firms provided me with key insights and foundational lessons essential to my development as a legal professional. It taught me the importance of time management, prioritisation of work and multi-tasking, attention to detail and meticulousness. I also learnt important lessons in humility, team work, collaboration and acceptance of my strengths and weaknesses. These skills not only enhanced my ability to analyze complex legal issues but also instilled a disciplined approach to problem-solving. Furthermore, interacting with clients during my early career taught me the importance of client service and relationship-building, as well as understanding their needs and tailoring legal solutions that align with their objectives.
How did your transition from law firms to corporate roles, starting with ITC Limited, impact your approach to legal practice and compliance?
While working in law firms provided me with a solid foundation in legal knowledge, rigorous training in analytical thinking, and exposure to diverse areas of law, moving in-house brought about a refreshing change in focus, where I was now on the other side of the fence and was immersing myself in the strategic and operational aspects of a specific company or organization. Rather than advising multiple clients on various matters, I now had the opportunity to align closely with the business’s objectives, understand its industry dynamics, and contribute directly to its success. One of the most rewarding aspects of in-house practice is the opportunity to work closely with internal stakeholders, including executives, managers, and employees across different departments. This has taught me to think multi-dimensionally and has sharpened my ability to balance legal considerations with practical business realities. I am continuously challenged to find innovative solutions that not only comply with legal requirements but also align with the company’s strategic goals and values. This holistic approach to problem-solving has expanded my skill set and broadened my perspective in numerous exciting ways.
Can you describe some of the challenges and successes you experienced as the Regional Legal Counsel at Unilever, particularly in the fast-paced FMCG sector?
One of the primary challenges I faced in my role as Regional Legal Counsel was navigating complexities across various operations in the FMCG sector. Each of these sectors have their own legal requirements, and understanding and complying with regulations while ensuring consistency in legal advice across the region required a meticulous approach and proactive communication with local teams. Another significant challenge has been managing legal risks in a rapidly evolving industry. From product compliance to advertising standards, litigation management and supply chain issues, staying ahead of regulatory changes and industry trends is essential. Implementing robust risk management strategies and providing timely guidance to stakeholders have been challenging in order to ensure operational continuity and safeguarding the Company’s reputation.
The successes in my role have also been significant. Some noteworthy ones would be successfully defending crucial litigation, significantly reducing overall litigation numbers in the region. actively working on anti-counterfeiting strategies, negotiating favorable commercial agreements, and resolving disputes through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Furthermore, implementing compliance programs and training initiatives across the region to promote a culture of ethics and legal compliance has been rewarding.
Given your specialty in Intellectual Property Law and recent certification in Data Protection, how do you see these areas evolving, and what excites you about these fields?
Intellectual property law and data protection law are both ‘future facing’ laws driven by technological advancement and global regulatory challenges. Intellectual property law is an ever evolving landscape. Advances in technology, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and biotechnology, are challenging traditional IP frameworks. Issues such as patentability of AI-generated inventions and ownership of AI-generated works are becoming increasingly complex. With businesses operating on a global scale, harmonization of IP laws across jurisdictions is a growing trend. The rise of digital platforms and online streaming services has led to new challenges in copyright protection. These developments reflect evolving consumer behaviors and industry demands and is an exciting area to be involved in, keeping in mind the role of an in-house counsel in protecting business interests.
Data protection law has also seen some key changes and developments, particularly in the Indian legislative context. The new regulations impose strict obligations on organizations handling personal data, including enhanced consent requirements and data subject rights. Mandatory data breach notification requirements have been introduced in many jurisdictions to enhance transparency and accountability in data processing practices. Organizations are now required to promptly notify authorities and affected individuals in the event of a data breach, underscoring the need for robust cybersecurity measures. Data protection authorities are increasingly proactive in enforcing compliance with data protection laws, imposing significant fines and penalties for non-compliance.
In summary, both intellectual property law and data protection law are constantly evolving to address the complexities of a digital age. Staying abreast of these evolving landscapes is crucial for businesses, legal practitioners, and policymakers alike to navigate compliance challenges and deal with a rapidly changing legal environment.
What are your primary responsibilities as the AVP – Legal at Godrej Group, and how are you applying your previous experiences to this new role?
My present role at Godrej Group involves handling areas such as legal compliance and risk management, risk assessment, contract management, policy development, environment and sustainability compliance, legal training and awareness, supporting strategic initiatives and enhancing corporate governance. My previous experiences in the FMCG sector have proved to be invaluable from the perspective of having equipped me with a unique blend of industry-specific knowledge, practical skills, and strategic insights that are crucial for effectively managing the legal aspects of an FMCG business. This has also proved to be useful in advising and managing the other businesses which are also part of my role as AVP Legal.
Finally, what advice would you give to fresh law graduates who are just starting their careers in the legal field?
The focus should be on the following areas: a) Focus on basic concepts and constantly staying informed about changes b) Develop proficiency in research and writing c) Always look for opportunities to network and gain practical insights on the industry as a whole d) explore different areas of law and identify your interests before choosing to specialise e) plan your career path and set long and short term goals for yourself.
Could you share with us what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law, and how your early experiences shaped your path?
I cannot say that law was the first choice for a profession, but it was the unanimous opinion of my elders that as conditions for landowners were becoming difficult in the country, an In-house lawyer was required for a land-owning family, and so I was dumped in the quadrant of law. I have a principle in my life that if I must do something I should do it well, so I immersed myself in the study of law with great diligence and unlike most of the lawyers my favourite subject always was Jurisprudence i.e. to understand the philosophy and logic that goes behind all laws. They said that the first laws of the world were the ten commandments, handed over to the Prophet Moses by God himself. Scholars in antiquities like Plato and Manu interpreted these and with the liberal assistance of the British who saw it fit to impose the Anglo-Saxon system upon us.
During the early part of my career, (if I remember correctly), I was a Junior with a senior lawyer who was then the Standing Counsel for the Department of Home Affairs in the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, within six months my Senior was elevated as a District Judge and for a better part of a decade took over his job of standing council for the department of Home Affairs. Later in the early 1990’s, I took up independent practice.
Your educational background is quite extensive, with degrees in commerce and law, as well as research in artificial intelligence. How did your academic journey influence your approach to the legal profession?
On the academic side immediately after LL.B., I joined LL.M. with “Jurisprudence”, as the main subject. However, after LL.M. there was nearly a decade when I undertook the then seemingly impossible subject of Artificial Intelligence with a research topic of “The Human Quest for Assurance in the Dispute settlement mechanism. A study of the Doctrine of Certainty in the Judicial Process”. At a time the subject of Artificial Intelligence was then in its very nascent stage and even though the term Artificial Intelligence, was coined between 1956-1960, and were called “expert system” in the late 80’s. In the early 1990’s the concept of the Heuristic based model of creating a tree of knowledge was proposed and this was the best suited for legal research. Then in Chicago a company called Mead Data Central had managed to convert thousands of American reports into computer readable form and were offering the same to lawyers over various rudimentary tools over FTP and other protocols available then. Mead Data central went down to become the Lexis Nexis of today.
My degree in commerce may have only sharpened my business acumen, not that I can speak about it much. My law degree, being a lover of history, I made it a point to know and understand the rationale and the logic behind every rule of law and its development from the simple societies of antiquity to the complex ecosystems today. My quest in the field of Artificial Intelligence was mostly focused on seeking a sense of certainty in the dispute resolution process for any prospective litigant and practitioner, for in fact this is now enveloped in uncertainty, mainly due to the length of the litigation, the abilities and perception of various parties and lastly the most uncertain area is the exercise of discretion by the court. Sadly, my profession does not use Artificial Intelligence, for its true purpose and purport, and is mostly used to drive home a point, even if the same is wrong or misconceived.
With over four decades of experience in litigation and dispute resolution, what have been some of the most challenging cases you’ve worked on, and what did you learn from them?
As mostly a lawyer in commercial and contractual disputes in private practice my career has been confined to mundane interpretation of civil and contractual laws. In one matter which was for the forbearance for the invocation of Bank Guarantee, a very early case in this country were Courts at that time held that the duty of the bankers to fulfil his obligations was sacrosanct, the doctrine of Egregious frauds was invoked, to put on hold a so-called performance of the bank in favour of the fraudulent beneficiaries. Another Grey area of contractual law is the interpretation and enforcement of written form contracts, that is printed contracts normally thrust upon unsuspecting customers mostly by bankers, insurance companies, and large organisations. The classical theory of contract is an agreement between two persons who have similar bargaining power to arrive at a Consensus Ad idem, or meeting of minds, to form a contract, but this is absent in the matter of Written Form Contract, where the conditionality in the clauses are predetermined by one party. Where one powerful party imposes and dictates terms to a significantly weaker party with no bargaining power this needs to be regulated by Law.
You have significant expertise in international arbitration and mediation. How do you navigate the complexities of framing contracts with enforceable arbitration clauses, especially across different jurisdictions?
In International Commercial Arbitrations, particularly where invocation or denial of insurance claims are concerned, the practitioner must put in a certain degree of his mediation skills into practice also. Enforceability of cross border contracts, particularly were jurisdictional courts are perceived to be biased, careful steps have to be taken first to bring the contracting party to a common forum of arbitration, conduct the arbitration obtained the award in whatever it may be and lastly the sheer vulgarities of domestic Courts and tribunals for the enforcement of the award and the loose seemed framework of the ICC is grossly inadequate to deal with belligerent parties.
Your profile mentions various specialisations, including maritime law, aviation law, and commercial law. What drew you to these particular fields, and how do you manage to stay updated with the ever-evolving legal landscape?
Many of the International commercial disputes, particularly when they deal with goods in transit require knowledge of laws of that particular mode of transportation like by sea and air sometimes in adjudication of contributory negligence and other related defences known to the law of torts. Intricate knowledge of systems of applicable law to the subject as well as territorial application are in play, ascertain aspects of maritime law are also relating to conditionalities.
As the chairman and founding trustee of The Heuristic Foundation and trustee of the Zal Maneck Foundation, how do you balance your legal career with your responsibilities in these educational and real estate management roles?
It was during the formative years of the 1990’s that the Heuristic Foundation was created for the advancement of knowledge in various disciplines and a few institutions are aided by this foundation. In the matter of the Zal Maneck Foundation this is purely a family land holding trust, controlling and managing various vast bits of a Real estate owned by my family personally. After the passing of all my elders, I now head this organisation.
You’ve conducted research on artificial intelligence in law and authored several works. Can you tell us more about your research interests and how you see the role of AI evolving in the legal field?
My thrust in the use of Artificial Intelligence is to see one day an autonomous body of knowledge, uninfluenced of facts and free from political and personal malaises, to provide a support system to the legal community on the merits and demerits of a lis to enable not only the legal practitioner but also all the stakeholders to understand where a judgement can possibly go.
Finally, with your extensive experience and knowledge, what advice would you give to fresh law graduates who are just starting their careers in the legal profession?
As my journey also, has been one of very hard dedicated work, any new entrant in this field, particularly first generation lawyers should know and understand that hard work and thorough knowledge of the particular subject, along with the historical background, and all surrounding circumstances should be well ingrained in the mind of the lawyer, as he stands up to face the bench or when he drafts a contract.
Can you share what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law and how your journey began?
By a stroke of fate, I found myself on the path to becoming a lawyer just a day before my 12th-grade results. It was a decision made by my father and sister to guide me towards law instead of medicine. Little did I know that this unexpected turn would lead me to a remarkable legal journey. Was fortunate to meet some great people and books in the legal field.
I pursued a Bachelor of Laws degree from Shivaji University in Sangli, Maharashtra. Subsequently, I pursued a Master of Laws in Business Law at Symbiosis Law School, where I had enriching experiences such as internships with the Competition Commission of India, contributing to international publications, and engaging in advanced legal research.
My time at Symbiosis Law School marked the beginning of a remarkable professional journey. I ventured into the corporate sphere, contributing to esteemed organizations such as Kirloskar Brothers Limited, John Deere India, Thermax Limited, and now, Bayer CropScience. Also got the opportunity to work with some great managers.
Your career spans various notable companies and roles. Can you walk us through the major milestones and transitions in your professional journey?
Well, there are many, but few are very special, like high stake arbitrations against dealers, NGO’s or PSU’s where you work hard and obtain favourable orders for your company. Arbitration requires continuance focus, as these matters are not time bound and will finish quickly.
Also implementing a compliances tool from scratch for manufacturing sites, establishments and EPC sites was a great learning experience. Further, implementation of new legislations like HSRP, EPR, Legal Metrology Packaging Rules too enriching experience. Last year I received an award by Legasis for ‘40 Under 40’.
I started my corporate journey with a capital goods manufacturing and EPC company, where I delved into the intricacies of commercial contracts, navigated complex real estate issues, and delved into the realm of Patents and Trademarks. This experience laid the groundwork for my subsequent endeavors, as I transitioned to an automobile company, where I gained invaluable insights into legal operations, statutory compliances, MACT and labour cases, advising on employment laws, and the complex web of EHS regulations.
In my subsequent roles within the power/renewable sector, I found myself immersed in a range of commercial disputes spanning India and various regions across the globe. This journey also brought me face to face with the complexities of MSME and IBC issues, enriching my understanding of the multifaceted legal landscape.
Currently, I stand as a Legal Business Partner for Legal Operations, overseeing sites and their litigations, navigating the contracts, and ensuring adherence to employment laws and EHS regulations.
As the Legal Business Partner at Bayer CropScience, what are some of the key responsibilities and challenges you face in leading legal operations in India?
The role of a Legal Business Partner is to serve as a strategic advisor and collaborator within a business, working closely with various stakeholders. Being a part manufacturing site’s leadership team- understand business needs, collaborate and advise on varieties of issues like License to operate, show cause notices from Govt. authorities, leading arbitration/litigation, dealing with complex real estate issues, negotiating commercial contracts & compliances advice.
India Legal operations have unique challenges- first, Regulatory Complexity- Navigating the intricate web of laws and regulations at the national, state, and local levels, as well as the dynamic nature of regulatory changes, can pose significant challenges for legal operations. Second, Compliance Management-Ensuring real time compliance with a wide array of statutory and regulatory requirements, including labor laws, environmental regulations, tax laws, and industry-specific regulations, requires robust compliance management systems and processes.
You have many notable achievements in resolving high-stake litigation. Can you tell us more about these experiences and what they entailed?
It was a profound experience. It demands a strong legal strategy. Further, it involves analyzing complex legal issues, anticipating opposing arguments and being ready with counter strategy. Being an in-house counsel you have to explain the complex business issue to the lawyer in a simple way and explain complex legal issues to business in a simple way, that is the advantage of being an inhouse counsel. It will also teach you resilience in intense pressure, tight deadlines, and the need to maintain composure. Being a meditation teacher is an advantage.
You will soon find that the reward for good work is more work.
However, I personally believe that litigation and arbitration are expensive, and the recent Mediation Act will play an important role in future legal disputes.
Given your extensive experience in various sectors like agriculture, renewable energy, and manufacturing, what are some unique legal challenges you’ve encountered in these industries?
In any manufacturing industry, more or less, 3 tasks are always there, 1. Employment Laws: Adhering to labor laws, industrial relations, and employment regulations, including issues related to labor disputes, contract labor, and workplace safety, presents legal challenges for manufacturing industries. 2. Product Liability and Consumer Protection: Managing product liability risks, compliance with consumer protection laws, and addressing consumer grievances and product safety standards are critical legal considerations for manufacturers. 3. Environmental Compliance and Pollution Control: Ensuring compliance with environmental laws, pollution control norms, hazardous waste management, and addressing industrial pollution concerns are significant legal challenges for manufacturing entities.
This is not about legal operations, but I believe we should have an institute or organization for in-house legal counsel, similar to those for other professions. This would help in the growth and development of in-house legal counsel.
Compliance with regulatory requirements is a critical part of your role. How do you ensure that your company stays ahead of regulatory changes and maintains compliance across various legal domains?
Technology plays an important role here. We have good numbers of compliance management tools in India, which monitor thousands of compliances and hundreds of legislations in real time. Further, the tool needs to be updated with the latest legislation. In my personal opinion no tool will work on its own, it is people who make the tool work. The success of a tool will depend on how simple and convenient the tool is. Also, we need to acknowledge employees’ efforts on compliances and compliance needs to be celebrated.
Shifting gears, GenAI has the potential to significantly impact legal compliances, it can predict and monitor compliance trends, anticipate regulatory changes, automated compliance reporting and provide Compliance Training. Inhouse counsel needs to take the advantage of the GenAI, my current organization offers a ‘Prompt engineering’ course to employees.
Finally, what advice would you give to fresh law graduates who are about to embark on their legal careers, especially those interested in working in-house within corporate legal departments?
In corporate you need to have Business Acumen, understanding the broader business context, including financial implications, risk management and strategic decision-making. You also need meaningful collaboration. Start your journey being a generalist and then move to specialist. And keep enrolling to new courses/programs.
Can you tell us about your journey into the field of law, from your early experiences to your current role as the Founder and Managing Partner of Verum Legal?
My journey into the field of law has been one of personal growth, with a vision to create a lasting impact. It all began with my fascination for justice and the legal system, sparked during my childhood but my formal journey into law started with my undergraduate studies at SLS, Pune. SLS Pune gave me plenty of opportunities and space to grow into a professional, exactly the way I liked, with the right guidance and support, through it all. I, like all other driven law students, did over 12 internships in 5 years – at law firms, with practicing lawyers, NGOs, et al!
After my law school and upon passing the bar exam, I began my career as an associate at an IP firm, believing IP to be my “calling”. While I gained valuable experience at this firm, I had a persistent desire to delve into criminology and criminal laws. This is when I met a stellar female criminal-law advocate – whom I consider a mentor, even today!
However, my entrepreneurial spirit and desire for autonomy led me to establish my own firm, Verum Legal. The vision behind Verum Legal was to create a client-centered practice dedicated to providing personalized legal solutions to upcoming technology-focussed clients – both in the Web2 & Web3 space. As the Founder and Managing Partner, I oversee all aspects of the firm’s operations. From developing client relationships to leading a team of talented attorneys, every day presents new challenges and opportunities.
My journey into the field of law so far, has been a rewarding one, filled with growth, learning, and a deep sense of purpose.
With your extensive experience in both litigation and corporate matters, how do you integrate these two areas to provide practical solutions to your clients?
I honestly believe that, for a lawyer, integrating different skills and experiences is the key aspect of providing comprehensive legal solutions to clients. Choosing on an expertise too soon in one’s career, without exploring opportunities may be detrimental to one’s overall growth.
To become an effective lawyer, the first step is to thoroughly understand the client’s needs and goals and then tailor strategies accordingly. For this, lack of understanding of what is important for a client or how legal solutions today can impact them in the future, can be precarious.
With changing times, a lawyer is also expected to dexterously implement preventive measures to avoid legal disputes, as these disputes can prove to be expensive and tedious for the client.
A lawyer must also understand that despite preventive measures, disputes may still occur and a lawyer with experience in both litigation and corporate matters can prepare clients for potential litigation scenarios effectively.
You’ve worked with several renowned law firms and also in the legal-tech space. How has this diverse experience influenced your approach to legal practice?
I’ve in fact worked with law firms, chamber lawyers and a legal-tech company before I started Verum Legal. I believe that my experiences have provided me with a unique perspective that greatly influences my approach to legal practice.
While my other experiences helped me enhance my legal knowledge, my stint with the legal tech company helped me understand businesses better, helping me provide a more client-centric approach than a traditional legal practice. My experience has been instrumental in providing me with a multi-dimensional approach with better technology exposure, evolved understanding of the market and focussing on client delivery.
As someone deeply involved in advising startups and SMEs on legal and business structuring, what unique challenges do you often encounter in this space?
As an advisor and service provider, I think the most pressing challenge encountered in this space is the obvious one – Startups and SMEs often operate on tight budgets and may not have the financial capacity or inclination to engage legal services. Since seeking legal services also requires the main stakeholders time and efforts, they tend to overlook it, till they are faced with a legal hassle. We pride ourselves on being “startup-friendly” and work on very tight budgets, timelines and innovative perspectives that help new businesses multifolds. We aim to be strategic partners who can provide practical and tailored solutions to address these unique challenges.
Your interest in Legal-Technology is evident from your experience at MyAdvo. How do you see technology shaping the future of legal practice, particularly in areas like arbitration, dispute resolution, and intellectual property rights?
Absolutely, in fact, I consider myself to be a flagbearer of technology, especially in the legal domain. The Legal system, with the myriad issues that it deals with, technology can definitely prove to be increasingly significant in shaping the future of legal practice across various areas. There are sundry applications of technology in the legal space, and it is ever-evolving too. To list a few, I can think of how Online arbitration platforms can allow parties to engage in proceedings remotely and offer secure communication channels, document sharing, and virtual hearings, reducing the need for physical presence and streamlining the arbitration process, while also creating real-time record of the entire process for accountability and precedential value. In fact, Smart contracts, powered by blockchain technology, have immense potential to automate aspects of arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution as well. If executed well, self-executing contracts can automatically enforce agreed-upon terms and trigger arbitration clauses when disputes arise.
In Dispute Resolution, I believe Artificial intelligence can be used to predict case outcomes, assess the likelihood of settlement, and recommend optimal strategies for dispute resolution by analyzing historical case data and legal precedents to provide valuable insights to all parties involved.
For Intellectual Property, AI-driven search tools can quickly scan vast databases to identify prior art, potential infringements, and registration opportunities. In fact, Blockchain technology offers a secure and immutable way to record and protect intellectual property rights. AI tools can monitor IP assets, track deadlines for renewals and filings, and provide insights for strategic IP decision-making.
From your background in handling white-collar crime issues to your expertise in intellectual property rights and data privacy, you’ve covered a wide range of legal domains. What motivates you to continuously expand your expertise across different areas?
I guess I am what they call a “Jack of all trades”. I’ve always been enthusiastic about learning, and doing only work that really interests me. There were times when we picked up assignments that we had, perhaps, never worked on before and learnt most about these assignments, on the job! I would say I’m also blessed to have extremely kind and helpful seniors and colleagues around me who have always lent a helping hand.
I love this about being a lawyer – the world is really your oyster. There are so many options that one can explore – depending on their inclinations, interests, skills – and keep evolving with experience. You never have a dull day, as a lawyer. I think all lawyers ought to be driven by a desire to grow their skill set and advance in their careers. By expanding expertise into new areas, they can broaden their practice, take on diverse cases, and develop a well-rounded understanding of various legal domains. This not only enhances their value to clients but also opens up new opportunities for professional advancement.
Can you share some insights into your role as a Co-Founder of JannAwaaz and how it complements your work at Verum Legal?
JannAwaaz is a project that has always been very close to my heart. JannAwaaz is a social enterprise dedicated to providing legal education, awareness, and assistance to underserved populations, particularly in rural areas. As a Co-Founder of JannAwaaz, my role revolves around leveraging technology to bridge the gap between legal services and accessibility for citizens of India. It’s a platform meant to help Indians raise their voice against all wrongs, violations, breaches and find their rights, using their voice.
Finally, based on your journey and experiences, what advice would you offer to fresh graduates aspiring to pursue a career in law, particularly in corporate and investment transactions?
The only advice I’d give to any aspiring lawyer – don’t decide on your “specialisation” too soon. Experience everything. Technology and the Internet have really changed the game for all young professionals today. You have so much information, available at your fingertips. An individual’s career spans over 40-50 years of their lives, spending around a decade to decide what really interests them, before committing to it, is a fair and required investment! That, and the fact that the legal world has more options and opportunities of careers today than perhaps any other profession does – it is only fair that all of us make the very best of it.
