Super Lawyer

Tag: Data Privacy

  • “The TMT field moves too fast, and the opportunities are extraordinary for lawyers who master the hybrid skillset.” – Roopam Verma, Partner at IRIS Legal.

    “The TMT field moves too fast, and the opportunities are extraordinary for lawyers who master the hybrid skillset.” – Roopam Verma, Partner at IRIS Legal.

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

    Sir, you have built an impressive career spanning over 18 years across a top-tier law firm, a broadcasting company, a multinational IT consulting giant, and now as Corporate, TMT and Fintech Lead Partner at IRIS Legal. How has this diverse journey shaped your expertise, and what inspired your transition into private practice leadership?

    My journey at Khaitan & Co. gave me the essential foundation every lawyer needs, the ability to spot issues, conduct thorough research, and build watertight arguments. That big law firm environment teaches you precision and attention to detail.

    But the real transformation came in-house as Associate General Counsel at Capgemini and Senior Lead Counsel at Ten Sports. I discovered that being legally correct isn’t always the same as being commercially useful. You’re not just analyzing what the law says—you’re figuring out how to make business objectives happen within legal boundaries. I learned to ask different questions: How can we structure this deal so it actually gets done? What’s the smartest way to navigate regulatory requirements without stalling progress? It was a shift from binary yes-or-no answers to providing a menu of options with a solution-oriented mindset.

    After gaining this dual exposure, I returned to private practice with something unique to offer: not just legal expertise, but genuine understanding of how businesses actually operate. Now, as the Corporate, TMT, and Fintech Lead Partner at IRIS Legal, I bring that business-first perspective to everything I do. My clients get practical, informed advice that helps them achieve their goals. I’ll flag the risks that matter, but I won’t derail a good deal over theoretical concerns. At the end of the day, successful legal practice is about enabling business success, not preventing it.

    During your early years at Khaitan & Co, you worked on cross-border and domestic M&A, private equity, and joint ventures. Which experiences from that period continue to influence how you approach corporate and technology-driven transactions today?

    My Khaitan years were foundational in several ways. The cross-border work taught me to map regulatory complexity upfront rather than discover deal-breakers halfway through—crucial now in tech and fintech deals. Working with PE firms helped me understand commercial dynamics and evaluate legal structures through a risk-return lens. Joint ventures taught me stakeholder management across different corporate cultures—invaluable when working with multinational tech companies with different risk appetites and decision-making processes. Most importantly, that M&A training instilled rigorous due diligence and issue-spotting skills—the ability to quickly distinguish between genuine deal risks and ‘nice to have’ cleanups that can wait.

    You later transitioned into the media and entertainment space, handling high-stakes content acquisition and cross-border broadcasting deals. How did this experience broaden your legal skillset compared to traditional corporate and technology law?

    The transition to Ten Sports was a complete game-changer. I moved from the law firm hierarchy to reporting directly to the CEO, contributing in strategy discussions with brilliant minds from IIMs, IITs, and major financial institutions where business decisions happened in real time. We were doing creative cross-border structuring to establish global presence for a popular sport, coordinating with international firms across time zones on tight deadlines in a relentless, fast-paced environment.

    What made this particularly exciting was that broadcasting regulations in India were being completely redefined. Unlike traditional corporate work with periodic regulatory interaction, broadcasting required constant regulator engagement, anticipating policy changes, and building compliance into deal structures from day one. There were no established playbooks, so innovation was essential in structuring untested solutions.

    This experience fundamentally changed my approach—teaching me to think several moves ahead, build flexibility into structures for rapidly evolving frameworks, and integrate legal solutions with real-time business needs. Those skills have been invaluable in complex technology and fintech transactions where innovation often outpaces regulation.

    In your role at Capgemini, you managed various high stake legal portfolios, led complex software licensing and cloud transformation deals, and negotiations. What were some of the most challenging aspects of these negotiations, especially in the software and cloud service space, and how did you navigate them?

    As Associate General Counsel-North Americas at Capgemini, managing high-stake software licensing and cloud transformation deals required navigating multifaceted challenges under tight timelines while balancing cross-jurisdictional jurisprudence and business expectations across EMEA, APAC, and Americas—each with distinct data sovereignty and regulatory frameworks.

    Some of the critical negotiation points centered around licensee’s rights on original source code, ownership of developed IP, royalty and revenue split models, managing third-party and open-source components, establishing robust escrow mechanisms with clear release conditions, post-termination IP treatment including perpetual licenses and wind-down periods, the binding nature of revenue forecasts where clients wanted flexibility while we needed commitment, and structuring appropriate liability caps and indemnification with adequate representations and warranties.

    The key to timely deal closure was maintaining preparedness with legal alternate solutions to navigate negotiation impasses—whether through hybrid licensing models, phased implementations, or creative commercial structuring that addressed both parties’ underlying interests.

    With extensive experience in software, digital, IoT, and 5G technologies, what do you see as the most pressing legal challenges in the TMT sector today, particularly around cloud services, outsourcing, and cross-border data regulation?

    From my experience, the most pressing challenge is implementing the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 while preserving India’s competitive edge as a global technology hub. Organizations are navigating the delicate balance between data localization requirements, cross-border transfer mechanisms, and serving global clients across multiple jurisdictions. This becomes particularly complex in cloud and outsourcing contexts where Indian service providers must reconcile DPDP Act obligations with clients’ home country regulations—whether GDPR, CCPA, or sector-specific frameworks—often requiring sophisticated contractual architectures and sometimes separate processing environments.

    Secondly, there’s significant regulatory uncertainty around cloud services and emerging technologies. While DPDP Act rules are still being notified, sectoral regulators like RBI, SEBI, and IRDAI are issuing parallel guidelines, creating a complex compliance matrix. For cloud services, we’re seeing ambiguity around ‘significant data fiduciary’ classification, liability allocation between providers and customers, and critical information infrastructure obligations. In 5G and IoT, clarity remains limited on device security standards, edge computing liability, and supply chain security requirements.

    The key is building flexible compliance frameworks that adapt as regulations evolve, while ensuring legal rigor doesn’t stifle India’s innovation advantage. Success requires proactive regulatory engagement and translating regulatory complexity into pragmatic operational solutions.

    Having advised on M&A and strategic business transfers in technology and IP-driven sectors, what are the most critical considerations that companies and their legal counsel should keep in mind when structuring such deals?

    One of the most critical considerations is comprehensive IP due diligence that goes beyond ownership verification to understand value creation architecture. This means mapping registered IP, unregistered trade secrets, open-source dependencies with potential viral licensing obligations, third-party components, and ensuring proper assignment agreements exist for contractor and employee-developed IP. I’ve seen deals nearly collapse when acquirers discovered core technology relied on restrictively-licensed open-source libraries or that critical IP was personally owned by founders rather than the company.

    Equally important is analyzing transferability—whether customer agreements contain change-of-control provisions and ensuring data privacy compliance for cross-border transfers post-transaction under DPDP Act and GDPR. In IP-driven businesses, talent retention often matters more than IP, as innovation resides in people—structuring proper rebadging, enforceable earn-outs, retention bonuses, and non-competes while maintaining team morale is essential.

    The key lesson is that technology M&A requires legal counsel to think like business strategists and technologists, structuring appropriate representations and indemnities that fairly allocate IP-related risks.

    As a leader at IRIS Legal, you advise clients on both complex technology transactions and broader corporate advisory matters. Managing such a high-profile, demanding career alongside personal commitments can be challenging. How have you approached work-life balance, and what strategies have helped you manage both professional and personal priorities effectively?

    Work-life balance in demanding legal practice requires intentional strategies. At IRIS Legal, we’ve found several approaches effective.

    • First, creating clear time boundaries is critical. AI has made life significantly simpler by automating routine research and tasks, allowing us to work more strategically. When pressing deadlines or client emergencies arise, we put in the hours needed to deliver excellence. However, we encourage our team to leave early when there’s no immediate deadline—preventing burnout and maintaining long-term productivity.
    • Second, we’ve implemented a hybrid work model combining office collaboration for complex matters with focused, interruption-free time for deep work. Every day begins with a 15-minute priority discussion to align on what needs immediate attention versus what can wait—this simple practice brings remarkable clarity to otherwise chaotic days.
    • Finally, we leverage technology strategically — using AI extensively for research and routine tasks to free mental bandwidth for high-value, strategic work that truly requires our expertise. We also follow a 15-minute rule, prioritizing tasks that can be completed quickly to prevent small matters from accumulating into overwhelming backlogs.

    These strategies help us maintain high client service standards while preserving personal time and team well-being.

    Finally, what advice would you give to young lawyers aspiring to build careers in technology, especially those contemplating whether to start in a law firm or an in-house role?

    My advice is simple: in TMT, technology literacy is as critical as legal expertise. You need solid legal fundamentals, business acumen, and genuine tech fluency—not surface knowledge, but actual understanding of how tech such as AI models work, how cloud architectures function, how platforms handle data. I’ve seen talented lawyers struggle because they couldn’t grasp what their clients were building.

    I’d recommend starting at a specialized firm for 2-3 years to get breadth—exposure to how different companies handle tech governance, cross-border data flows, emerging tech compliance—then moving in-house to understand how legal advice translates into product reality.

    Staying current is non-negotiable. I follow AI researchers, read tech blogs as much as legal updates, and track policy developments constantly. When new regulations drop—which happens monthly—you need to understand both the regulatory requirements and technical implementation.

    The lawyers succeeding in TMT can walk into meetings with engineers and speak their language, then explain regulatory implications to the C-suite. The traditional ‘learn law first, industry knowledge later’ approach doesn’t work in TMT—the field moves too fast, and the opportunities are extraordinary for lawyers who master this hybrid skillset.

    Get in touch with Roopam Verma –

  • “In global data protection, it’s not just about conflicting opinions, it’s about reconciling overlapping laws, operational realities, and evolving expectations.” – Daniella Sankar, Independent Data Protection Consultant.

    “In global data protection, it’s not just about conflicting opinions, it’s about reconciling overlapping laws, operational realities, and evolving expectations.” – Daniella Sankar, Independent Data Protection Consultant.

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

    With over two decades of legal experience across aviation, manufacturing, IT, banking, and more, what first drew you to specialize in data protection and privacy law?
    In 2016, I had the privilege of working with a mentor who saw potential in my analytical approach and encouraged me to explore data protection more deeply. At the time, privacy was gaining global traction with the GDPR on the horizon and organizations beginning to grapple with what responsible data stewardship truly meant. What intrigued me wasn’t just the regulatory complexity, but the human dimension: how we protect dignity, autonomy, and trust? 

    How did your law degree at The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados shape your worldview and influence your approach to international data protection and cross-border compliance?

    Studying law in Barbados gave me a strong foundation in critical thinking and comparative legal analysis. I was surrounded by students from across the Caribbean (from The Bahamas to Guyana) and our coursework often involved comparing legal systems from the UK, India, and the US. It was a diverse, intellectually rich environment that encouraged me to look beyond borders and see law not just as a set of rules, but as a tool for societal transformation. That exposure shaped my global mindset and continues to guide my work today; whether I’m advising on GDPR compliance, India’s DPDPA, or data protection frameworks in the Middle East. I approach cross-border compliance not merely as a technical exercise, but as an opportunity to bridge cultures, align values, and foster global accountability. Legal compliance is more than a regulatory requirement. It’s a step toward building trust, empowering communities, and strengthening institutions.

    You’ve advised organizations on GDPR, DPDPA, and other global privacy regulations. What are the biggest challenges multinational companies face in harmonizing compliance across jurisdictions?

    When it comes to legal compliance, the saying “too many cooks spoil the pot” doesn’t quite capture the complexity. In global data protection, it’s not just about conflicting opinions, it’s about reconciling overlapping laws, operational realities, and evolving expectations. The most pragmatic approach for MNC’s is to anchor their framework in the highest standard (typically the GDPR) and then layer in jurisdictional nuances across your operations. It sounds simple, but implementation requires careful calibration. MNCs need to weigh time, cost, enforcement risk, the litigious nature of data subjects, and the reputational impact on their brand. These factors, when considered together, help determine their compliance priorities. This juggling act is one of the greatest challenges for multinational organizations. And it doesn’t end once the framework is built as keeping up with changing requirements, new enforcement trends, and emerging technologies is a continuous process. Compliance isn’t static; it’s a living, evolving discipline.

    After more than a decade in inhouse legal roles, you transitioned into independent consulting and later established your own practice. What motivated this shift, and how did it change your perspective?

    I reached a point where I wanted to change both professionally and personally. I had gained significant experience across aviation, manufacturing, IT, and banking, but I felt the pull to work more closely with small and medium-sized businesses that often can’t afford large legal teams but still need strategic guidance to transform their operations. Independent consulting gave me the freedom to support these organizations across industries, helping them build privacy programs from the ground up. It also allowed me to take better care of my health and spend more time with my family :something the corporate pace rarely permitted. Along the way, I’ve realized that data protection compliance is still viewed by many as a luxury rather than a necessity. It’s not always a top priority, especially for growing businesses. That’s where I bring added value not just through privacy expertise, but by integrating my cross-functional skills in contracts, intellectual property, and operational risk. I offer clients a holistic view of compliance that’s practical, scalable, and rooted in their business realities.

    In your diverse practice, what has been one of the most challenging cases for you, and how did you navigate it?

    Everyone uses templates and guidelines today but preparing for GDPR compliance before 2018 was a very different story. There were no ready-made toolkits, no plug-and-play solutions. Crafting documentation meant starting from scratch interpreting the law line by line, understanding its intent, and translating best practices into operational reality. It was challenging, especially under tight timelines and high-stakes environments. Time-sensitive projects always come with pressure, but I’ve learned to navigate the magnitude with focus and resilience. A few grey hairs later, I’m proud to say I’ve pulled through and helped organizations build privacy programs that are not just compliant, but meaningful.

    You’re deeply involved in privacy training and awareness programs. What’s the most common misconception employees or leaders have about data protection? How do you see AI reshaping legal compliance and data protection practices in the near future?

    One of the most persistent challenges in data protection is that many people still struggle to grasp the basic concept of personal data. Culturally, there’s a long-standing comfort with sharing information in many countries (photos, medical details, contact numbers) with service providers, often without a second thought. So when it comes to implementing data protection compliance within organizations, employees may not fully understand what they should avoid or why it matters. 

    That’s why education is critical. It’s not just about rules, it’s about understanding the reason behind the law and the consequences for both the individual and the organization. Leaders, too, often underestimate the importance of compliance. Some assume regulators won’t enforce the law, so they question the need to invest in privacy programs. What they miss is the long-term brand value that privacy compliance can bring. That’s trust, credibility, and resilience.

    AI is reshaping the compliance landscape. It introduces new challenges especially around automated decision-making and data ethics but it also brings precision and efficiency. Many data breaches stem from human error, and AI can help reduce that risk by handling repetitive, high-volume tasks with consistency. When used responsibly, AI becomes a powerful ally in building smarter, more secure privacy frameworks.

    While designing and implementing data protection policies and internal controls, what are the most critical factors organizations should keep in mind? 

    Policies should be written in clear, accessible language to ensure all employees can easily understand and apply them. They must be reviewed annually to remain relevant and effective. Updates should reflect current industry trends as well as internal insights and lessons learned. To reinforce understanding, training should be used to animate policy content, thus transforming written guidelines into meaningful, memorable practices.

    How can data privacy be effectively embedded into day-to-day operations rather than treated as one-off compliance exercises?

    Embedding data privacy into daily operations starts with applying core protection principles consistently, regardless of one’s role or department. When privacy is treated as a shared responsibility, it naturally becomes part of business-as-usual. One-off compliance exercises may check legal boxes, but they rarely build lasting habits or cultural awareness. By integrating privacy into everyday activities ..step by step, day by day…it becomes second nature to staff and strengthens both trust and compliance.

    You’re passionate about mentoring young legal professionals. What key qualities should future privacy leaders cultivate to thrive in a rapidly evolving regulatory environment?
    Future privacy leaders must embrace adaptability by welcoming new challenges, evolving technologies, and diverse ways of working. Flexibility isn’t just a skill, it’s a mindset that allows them to navigate shifting regulations and organizational cultures with confidence. Equally important is respect. Privacy is a collaborative field, enriched by voices young and old, technical and legal, strategic and operational. Every colleague brings a unique ingredient to the pot and leaders who listen, learn, and uplift others will build stronger, more resilient privacy cultures.

    With data protection laws expanding globally, what major trends do you foresee shaping privacy compliance over the next five years, and how do you see your practice evolving?

    Over the next five years, AI will be one of the most transformative forces in privacy compliance. Its rapid adoption will pose significant regulatory and operational challenges, especially around transparency, accountability, and lawful processing. Initially, many practitioners may struggle to keep pace with the evolving tools and frameworks. But as familiarity grows, AI will become an ally streamlining meticulous tasks such as maintaining records of processing activities, comparing cross-border legal requirements, and conducting compliance assessments. Those currently take up a lot of my time, so I’m especially keen to explore how AI can reduce administrative burden while enhancing accuracy and consistency.

    Get in touch with Daniella Sankar –

  • “Today, businesses operate in an environment where regulatory frameworks and expectations are rising faster than internal systems can adapt.” – Anandini Purohit, Founder & Partner at Simpli Counsel.

    “Today, businesses operate in an environment where regulatory frameworks and expectations are rising faster than internal systems can adapt.” – Anandini Purohit, Founder & Partner at Simpli Counsel.

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

    With over 14 years of experience in corporate and banking litigation, what initially motivated you to pursue law as a career, and what early experiences strengthened that decision?

    My interest in law was sparked quite early, I was drawn to the way legal frameworks shape real-world outcomes. I found the intersection of reasoning, language, and impact particularly compelling. What truly cemented my decision, however, were my early internships and court visits during law school. Watching senior advocates argue complex matters and observing how legal strategy could influence the course of businesses and individuals made me realize that this was a profession where intellectual rigor meets tangible change.

    In your early years with law firms, what experiences shaped your understanding of banking laws and guided you toward this specialization?

    In my formative years at leading law firms, I had the opportunity to work closely on recovery actions and regulatory compliance matters for major banks. My involvement with corporate recovery teams gave me a ground-level understanding of how financial institutions operate, where the friction points arise, and how legal intervention can create both risk mitigation and strategic advantage. These experiences naturally drew me toward banking, corporate and financial litigation,  a field that demands precision, meticulous research, commercial awareness, and long-term perspective.

    Having worked extensively with banks, corporates, and financial institutions, what do you see as the most pressing challenges businesses face today in managing disputes and compliance?

    Today, businesses operate in an environment where regulatory frameworks and expectations are rising faster than internal systems can adapt. Disputes often arise not just from contractual breaches but from operational gaps, inadequate documentation, and ever-evolving regulatory landscapes. The most pressing challenge I see is the lack of proactive legal risk mitigation & management. Many entities still view legal strategy as a reactive tool rather than an integrated business function, which leads to avoidable disputes, compliance lapses, and reputational risks. As the saying goes ‘prevention is better than cure’.

    You’ve also advised on digital and social media laws, as well as data privacy. How do you see these evolving areas influencing the future of corporate legal practice in India?

    Digital regulations and data privacy are no longer niche concerns, they’re becoming central to corporate strategy. With the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and increasing regulatory oversight, companies must build data governance and responsible handling into their core structures. Social media presence, influencer marketing, and tech platforms are creating entirely new legal questions around liability, consent, intellectual property and reputation. I believe corporate legal practice in India is at an inflection point where traditional commercial law will increasingly overlap with technology, media and communication laws, and lawyers will need to re-equip and upgrade constantly.

    What inspired you to establish Simpli-Counsel, and how does your approach to advising startups, Gen Z entrepreneurs, and corporates distinguish your consultancy?

    Simpli-Counsel was born out of a simple observation: many startups, Gen Z founders, and even established businesses need practical, clear, and commercially aligned legal advice — not just legalese. After years of working with large institutions, I wanted to build a consultancy that bridges structured legal strategy with the agility that modern businesses require. Our approach is deliberately collaborative and solutions-oriented. We focus on simplifying complex legal frameworks so that founders and business teams can make informed decisions swiftly, without feeling overwhelmed by jargon or legal process.

    Looking back, what has been one of the most complex or high-stakes matters you’ve handled, and what were your key learnings from it?

    One of the most challenging matters I’ve handled involved a multi-jurisdictional recovery action for a consortium of banks against a large corporate borrower. The case involved layered security structures, parallel insolvency proceedings, and regulatory sensitivities. Navigating this required not only deep legal analysis but also constant coordination between stakeholders across jurisdictions. My key takeaway was the importance of strategic clarity and communication — aligning diverse teams behind a coherent legal roadmap can often make the decisive difference in complex disputes.

    In your transition from working with established law firms to building your own consultancy, what have been the biggest challenges and most rewarding aspects?

    The transition from structured law firm environments to building my own practice has been both demanding and deeply fulfilling. The biggest challenge has been stepping out of established institutional systems and creating operational, branding, and business development structures from the ground up. But the reward has been immense: the freedom to shape a practice aligned with my values, the ability to work closely with clients as strategic partners, and the joy of seeing the building something authentic and future-oriented.

    Data privacy is becoming increasingly critical. What practical advice would you give startups and entrepreneurs on mitigating legal risks early, especially in this domain?

    Startups often underestimate data protection until they face a regulatory hurdle or breach. My advice is: embed privacy-by-design early on. Map what data you collect, define clear consent processes, implement basic security hygiene, and assign responsibility for compliance. Even simple steps like robust terms of service, privacy notices, and access protocols can dramatically reduce risk. More importantly, build a culture of respect for data & privacy — because in today’s world, trust is currency.

    What vision do you hold for the future of your practice, and what guidance would you offer younger professionals aspiring to build careers in data privacy and banking law?

    My vision for Simpli-Counsel is to build a modern, agile legal advisory practice that combines deep subject expertise with empathy for how businesses actually function and not how they should. I see tremendous opportunities at the intersection of corporate, technology, and regulation, and want to help clients navigate this evolving landscape with clarity and confidence.

    For young professionals, my advice is twofold: develop strong foundational legal skills, and stay curious about emerging areas like fintech, data privacy, and digital laws. The future belongs to lawyers who can blend legal acumen with strategic foresight and adaptability.

    Beyond your legal career, you are passionate about heritage crafts, travel, and fitness. How do these interests help you maintain balance and perspective in your professional journey?

    Law can be an intense profession, and for me, travel, heritage crafts, and fitness offer grounding and perspective. Exploring crafts connects me to India’s rich cultural fabric, travel fuels my curiosity and adaptability, and fitness keeps me focused and energized. These interests remind me that while our work is serious, our growth is richer when we remain open, balanced, and inspired by the world beyond our desks.

    Get in touch with Anandini Purohit –

  • “The real shift ahead will be from treating privacy as a legal checkbox to making it part of core business strategy.” – Ankita Sabharwal, Managing Associate at Chadha & Chadha.

    “The real shift ahead will be from treating privacy as a legal checkbox to making it part of core business strategy.” – Ankita Sabharwal, Managing Associate at Chadha & Chadha.

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

    Being in this industry with such diverse experience, what initially motivated you to choose law as a career, and what inspired you to specialize in Intellectual Property, Data Privacy, and Technology Law?

    As a child, I was always writing poems for school magazines. I still recall one incident when I shared an unwritten poem with a classmate, only to find it published under his name in the very next issue. I came home in tears, and that’s when my mother first introduced me to the concept of copyright. That moment sparked my curiosity about how law can protect creativity and original thought.

    Naturally, when I began my career, intellectual property became my first area of focus. Over time, as I engaged with clients and industries evolving rapidly in the digital age, I found myself drawn to the adjoining fields of technology and data privacy. It felt like a natural transition, broadening my horizon from protecting creative works to safeguarding innovation, digital assets, and personal data.

    Today, my work allows me to bring these threads together: using IP, technology, and privacy law not just as legal tools, but as enablers of innovation and trust in an increasingly interconnected world.

    You started your career at top-tier firms specializing in IP. What early experiences helped lay the foundation for your practice, and how did you navigate your way into such prestigious firms straight out of law school?

    When I first joined my law firm, most of my work was around intellectual property including litigation, opinions, and strategy. That’s when the GDPR had just come in, and suddenly everyone was talking about data privacy. I remember being really curious about it and actively looking for ways to get involved in those matters, even while my main focus was IP.

    What struck me was how naturally the two fields connected. On one hand, I was helping protect brands and creative works, and on the other, I was seeing how technology and privacy were becoming equally critical for businesses. That overlap made me want to broaden my horizon beyond IP, and it eventually set me on the path of building a practice at the intersection of IP, data privacy, and technology law.

    With years of experience across various domains in IP law, how do you approach complex IP disputes especially in the brand protection domain, and what are the key challenges in managing global IP portfolios?

    In IP disputes, whether trademarks, patents, or copyrights, I focus on aligning enforcement with the client’s long-term strategy and reputation. In brand protection, a recurring challenge is timing. Many businesses delay securing rights until the brand has grown or infringement has already occurred. The same happens with patents, where filings are often an afterthought instead of being integrated with R&D. Another common issue is skipping clearance searches, whether for trademarks or prior art in patents, which leads to avoidable disputes and costs. The key is to start early, secure strong and defensible rights, and stay proactive rather than reactive.


    You have advised clients on data privacy compliance under DPDP, GDPR, CCPA, and other international regulations. What are the major challenges companies face while ensuring compliance with these data privacy frameworks?
    One of the biggest challenges is procrastination. Companies know compliance is important but tend to delay it until there’s a breach or regulatory action, when it’s already too late. Another recurring issue is the way data is handled: it’s often scattered across departments, systems, and vendors without proper mapping or controls. Many organizations don’t even have a clear view of what data they collect, where it’s stored, or how long they retain it. Without that foundation, compliance with frameworks like DPDP, GDPR, or CCPA becomes patchwork. The real solution is to start early, streamline data handling, and embed privacy into day-to-day processes rather than treating it as a last-minute fix.

    What are the most critical considerations when drafting and negotiating technology contracts, licensing agreements, or cross-border data transfer agreements?

    For me, the most critical part of drafting or negotiating technology contracts, licensing agreements, or cross-border data transfer agreements is balance. On one side, you have the legal and regulatory requirements i.e., data transfer restrictions, liability, compliance with GDPR or DPDP, and so on. But on the other, you have the business reality: both parties want a workable, commercial arrangement that doesn’t get buried under red tape. I’ve seen that the real challenges often lie in the details, how data is actually handled day to day, who has access, how risks are allocated if something goes wrong. Cross-border transfers especially demand extra care, because you’re not just dealing with contracts but also with differing legal regimes and enforcement landscapes. So the key for me is clarity and practicality, making sure the contract reflects not just what looks good on paper but how the technology, data, and partnership will function in real life. That’s where the trust between parties really gets built.

    Having handled numerous brand protection, domain name disputes, and anti-counterfeiting enforcement cases, can you share one of the most challenging cases you’ve worked on and how you navigated it?

    While I can’t share client names, I can say I’ve handled everything from pharma to fashion to OEMs, and each sector brings its own unique challenges. One of the toughest situations I dealt with was a large-scale counterfeiting network spread across multiple jurisdictions. It wasn’t just about seizing counterfeit goods, it involved coordinating with law enforcement, navigating cross-border enforcement hurdles, and simultaneously managing domain name takedowns and online marketplaces. What made it challenging was the scale and speed at which counterfeiters adapt. Every time we shut down one channel, another would emerge. The way we navigated it was through a multi-pronged approach through legal actions, customs enforcement, online monitoring, and working closely with investigators. It taught me that brand protection today isn’t just about one-off enforcement, but about building a continuous, layered strategy.

    How has speaking at global conferences and publishing on technology and data privacy shaped your perspective and practice? What advice would you offer to students aspiring to enter this field, and what resources would you recommend to stay current?

    I still remember my very first global conference as a young attorney. I was so anxious, sitting in the audience, just trying to absorb everything and wondering if I would ever have the courage to stand on that stage. To look back now and see the journey from being an eager attendee to becoming a speaker is something that feels very special. Speaking at these forums and writing on technology and data privacy has given me incredible exposure. It has shaped the way I think and connected me with inspiring people from all over the world. More than anything, it has taught me that this field never stands still, and the best way to grow is to keep learning and sharing.

    For students who want to step into this space, my advice would be to focus on upskilling and to trust the process. Don’t feel pressured to be part of the rat race. Choose your own path, follow what excites you, and keep nurturing that interest. In the long run, it is passion and consistency that will set you apart. To stay current, I would suggest keeping an eye on regulatory updates, following thought leaders, and most importantly, engaging in conversations, because some of the most valuable insights come not from books, but from exchanging ideas with others who share your curiosity.

    As someone who oversees high-stakes matters, manages teams, and mentors the next generation of associates, how do you manage everything such as handling complex legal mandates, and what qualities do you value most in your team members?

    To be honest, I don’t think I do much! It’s the young associates who make it all possible. They come in with so much commitment, energy, and willingness to learn that managing high-stakes matters becomes a shared effort rather than a burden. My role is simply to guide and support them, but the drive really comes from their side.

    What I value most in my team is sincerity, curiosity, and ownership. These are qualities they already bring to the table, and they inspire me as much as I hope to mentor them. At the end of the day, it’s their dedication that keeps everything moving, and I feel fortunate to be surrounded by such motivated people.


    What emerging trends in AI, blockchain, or digital technologies do you see shaping the future of IP and data privacy law?

    I think the future of IP and data privacy law will be shaped by how we respond to technologies. With AI, the big questions are around authorship and ownership, who owns AI-generated outputs and the privacy risks that come from training on massive datasets. Blockchain adds another dimension: while decentralization is powerful, it raises real challenges for enforcement and even basic rights like data erasure.

    What excites me most is data privacy itself. It’s often seen as a compliance burden, but I see it as business-friendly. Strong privacy practices don’t just avoid penalties, they build trust, open up cross-border opportunities, and become a differentiator in crowded markets. The real shift ahead will be from treating privacy as a legal checkbox to making it part of core business strategy.

    Looking ahead, where do you see your practice evolving over the next five years, and what areas are you most excited to focus on?

    I honestly don’t know what life will look like five years from now, and maybe that’s the beauty of it. What I do know is that I want to keep learning, keep growing, and keep challenging myself to create a deeper impact through my work in IP, technology, and data privacy. But more than that, what excites me is the opportunity to create a path for others.

    As a first-generation lawyer, I know what it feels like to start without a roadmap, to rely on sheer hard work and belief. Over the next five years, I want to not only grow but also make sure that others like me, first-gen lawyers know they can dare to dream, carve their own space, and make it big. If my journey can inspire even a few to believe that it’s possible, that would be the most meaningful achievement of all.

    Get in touch with Ankita Sabharwal –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Get in touch with Shreya Mehta –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Get in touch with Kunal Sinha –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Get in touch with Anuja Shah –

    1. Leading with Curiosity: My Journey with Law, Tech, and Mentorship. – Astha Srivastava, Principal Associate at Ikigai Law.

      Leading with Curiosity: My Journey with Law, Tech, and Mentorship. – Astha Srivastava, Principal Associate at Ikigai Law.

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

      With over nine years of experience, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law? What drove your decision to choose this profession, and how did your journey shape you into a mentor and a leading voice in technology law?

      It’s always nice to be asked this question. It gives you an opportunity to pause and reflect. And when I do that, I’m taken back to the time I seriously started thinking about law – probably around Class 8 or 9.

      I knew I enjoyed public speaking. I loved talking to people, reading, analysing things, and connecting the dots. Law felt like a natural extension of these abilities.

      That was also around the time when internet use was just picking up in India. I remember, sometime in Class 10 or 11, my father got us a desktop computer. I used it to look up what CLAT was, what law school meant, and what this profession was all about.

      I also had a clear sense of what I wasn’t great at – I was average at maths. And I remember thinking: if I became an engineer, I’d probably be an average one. I didn’t want that. So I chose law. And looking back, I think that was absolutely the right call.

      I didn’t overthink whether I’d succeed or not. At that point, I just knew I’d enjoy it. And that was enough.

      Once college started, I found myself drawn to finance pretty early on. That’s what pulled me toward corporate law firms. I began with transactions—PE/VC, mergers and acquisitions. I spent four years doing that at JSA. But I gradually realised that advisory work really resonated with me.

      As I moved from JSA to IndiGo, I became more and more certain that the intersection of finance and tech was where I wanted to be. And that brought me to Ikigai Law.

      It’s been five years since. And honestly, most days, I’m genuinely excited to go to work. I think that’s rare and I’m grateful for it.

      Basically, if you love what you do, you don’t really work, you just do it.

      Well, you still work. It’s still hard. That said, there are definitely parts you enjoy. There’s intellectual satisfaction, a sense of recognition, and those moments of achievement that keep you going. Over time, you also start to see a bigger purpose. Whether it’s mentoring others, hopefully inspiring them in some small way or doing something else for the society based on what you have built. All of that becomes a motivator. You learn something new every day. And most days, you walk away feeling good.

      We all have our own challenges to navigate, and when it comes to FinTech, especially disruptive tech like blockchain, it becomes even more complex. Since blockchain sits at the intersection of technology, finance, and law, we’d love to hear your views on how companies are planning for this shift and how you tailor your consulting approach. As someone deeply involved on the corporate side, how have you adapted to these evolving technologies? What challenges have you faced, and how are companies responding to them? For instance, how do you navigate legal ambiguities around cryptocurrency, which isn’t legal tender but is still taxable?

      It’s a very interesting question. I do work a lot in the Web 3.0 space, along with traditional domains like lending, payments, and Wealth-Tech. The interesting part about being a blockchain lawyer is that it allows you to do the same thing but in a completely different plane. It’s like being transported to another universe where you’re doing the same things, paying, investing, lending, but in a blockchain-based world.

      Right now, there are very limited laws in select jurisdictions that apply to such technologies. The exciting part of being a lawyer here is that you apply traditional laws, for instance, those regulating cross-border money flow, like RBI’s foreign exchange regulations or the PSS Act, to this entirely new world. The best part is that nobody has done this before. There are hardly any judicial precedents. So your thought process is as original as it gets.

      As lawyers, we rarely get the chance to be that original. And naturally, a corollary to advising clients on emerging tech is that you get pulled into policy-making. So you get to do exciting work that I don’t think the previous generation of lawyers got to do. 

      But the hard part is, you have to really think originally. You have to know how the law applies in the traditional world. You need experience. Take, for instance, something like the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. You can pull out provisions from it and apply them to blockchain. Or the Collective Investment Scheme, something SEBI has been regulating since 1999. You might apply those same rules when advising a blockchain-based product emulating that scheme.

      So yes, it’s exciting, it’s hard, but it’s the right time to be in this space.

      You’re helping shape the future for generations of lawyers, and that’s a powerful responsibility. With your experience in suggestive work and public policy at Ikigai, could you share key learnings from that journey and how they’ve impacted your practice? Having transitioned from finance and law to technology, then an in-house role, and now back to private practice, how do you think these shifts will influence your career? How can young lawyers chart their own unique paths by learning from your journey?

      In medical practice, unless you understand the human body, you can’t be a heart specialist. Similarly, in law, unless you understand the building blocks, you can’t specialize meaningfully.

      So, for early practitioners, I’d say focus on the basics, reading the law, comprehension, analytical ability, and issue spotting. These only come when you’ve been exposed to a wide variety of laws, from IBC to RERA to the Motor Vehicles Act. The downside of specializing too early is that you miss that exposure. 

      The focus should be on building solid foundational skills, communicating well, writing clearly. Once that’s in place, you can specialize. Then you can apply those general skills to any sector, FinTech, SpaceTech, AgriTech. But if the basics aren’t strong, even in your chosen sector, things won’t work out.

      So in sum, get the basics right. Then go with the flow.

      The future in TMT space is definitely promising. I’m especially excited about AI, which is changing everything around us. And as lawyers, we play an important role. Who help sets the rules for this new world? We do.

      We need more talented lawyers. We need thinkers. Not just people who can read the law, but people who can think about it. If you’re in law school or the early stages of your career, focus on that.

      Wow! What a beautiful way of sharing your learning, it’s truly amazing. You’ve worked extensively as a principal associate advising FinTech startups within the Indian legal and regulatory framework. How do you see these startups overcoming jurisdictional obstacles, and what advice do you give them to navigate the Indian system? Do you notice significant differences between national and international regulatory approaches, and how do these impact startup success or failure globally?

      That’s a good question. I think we, as a country, are doing well. Because see, UPI is a great success. The other parts of our digital public infrastructure, like account aggregator frameworks, which are ramping up, are all Government-owned and Government-promoted.

      So the Government is doing its bit. Regulators are also, I think, trying really hard. For example, for the financial sector, RBI as a regulator not only looks after financial regulations but is also the monetary policymaker. So it has too much to do, but I think despite that, it has done a fair job.

      Also, our industry is vocal enough to fight for its cause. We have the right kind of supporters for the industry, the right kind of advisors for the industry, and the regulator is listening. It’s not like the doors are closed. Regulators also understand the importance of having that dialogue with the industry because the time has passed when you can do law-making in silos.

      So I think we are doing okay as a country. I’m not too concerned about the future. Now when I compare it to other jurisdictions, well, I would say that some practices are good in every jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions are more forward-looking in their approach. And India can borrow and learn from them.

      Thank you so much for being absolutely clear about how the government has supported FinTech growth while also acknowledging its fallbacks. You’ve worked extensively in this space, but transitioning from traditional legal work to technology and law isn’t easy. You’ve mentioned COVID played a role, but what effort did that shift actually take? How did you successfully manage this transition and excel in a new domain?

      Switching practice areas can be one of the hardest things to do. So I’ll take a step back and talk about why I made the switch.

      I started my career, as I mentioned earlier, with a general corporate practice. I had the privilege of working with some of the most brilliant lawyers in the country at JSA, which was incredibly motivating.

      While at JSA’s Gurgaon office, I got the opportunity to go on secondment with PepsiCo. At the time, PepsiCo was transferring all its major plants in India to Varun Beverages Limited – a massive business transfer. And being part of that was exhilarating. For the first time, I experienced what it means to run a business and impact of my advice on it. I was interacting with the communications team, the supply chain folks, plant managers – essentially everyone. My job was to orchestrate and help bring this entire transaction to a close. That experience made me seriously consider going in-house – it just seemed exciting and so much more connected to the business. That’s what led me to join IndiGo after four years at JSA.

      IndiGo was just as exciting as I had imagined. I was working on aircraft leases, technology contracts, software that went into aircraft systems. That was my first hands-on experience of how law interacts with technology. And that really piqued my interest in tech. I felt like it was something I could understand and contribute to.

      Then the pandemic hit. Around that time, I was already in touch with Ikigai, and stars just aligned. 

      So, some of the transition happened organically, some of it was by design and I think that’s how most careers unfold.

      If I had to leave you with two takeaways from this journey, they’d be these:

      First, don’t shy away from change and follow your instinct. Second, when an opportunity presents itself, grab it with both hands. Because chances are, it may not come again.

      What a candid way of explaining things, where you had to put in that hard work, and you did. Congratulations to you for making that seemingly impossible transition from one aspect of law to another and making it big. On that particular note, we would request you to share some personal checklists or personal ways of dealing with these kinds of transitions because such broad area transitions are not easy, and many people are unable to do them.

      What kind of suggestions do you have for these young lawyers who may start with one area but eventually want to transition? How do you do it, and how can one do it as smoothly as you have, without experiencing that stress of moving from one area to another while fearing the loss of something? Since you’ve done it, you’ll be the right person to suggest this to students and learners.

      In addition to what I’ve already said, I’ve just one thing to add. In my experience, anyone going through a good law school, who has joined a good law firm or is working with sharp lawyers is smart and intelligent. That’s why they are where they are. So that is table stakes. What really makes a real difference is persistence, patience and resilience.

      So, by the kind of understanding you’ve given us, resilience is absolutely important. Along with that, overcoming challenges is another key aspect. All of this you manage within the same 24 hours we all have. How do you maintain your mental, physical, professional, and personal health while juggling so much? What strategies do you follow, basic or advanced, to keep your sanity intact? As lawyers, we don’t talk enough about the stress we go through, whether in-house, in practice, or elsewhere. So how do you deal with it?

      That’s one question I get asked a lot. And honestly, there’s no simple answer. Like most young professionals, work-life balance wasn’t really a priority for me early in my career. There was no fixed schedule – you worked as per the demands of your clients. And I think that’s okay. You’re younger, your energy levels are different, and if you start chasing balance too early, you may find yourself struggling for relevance later. I read that somewhere, and it really stuck with me.

      Though, as I’ve grown older, I’ve found different ways to balance my life. And let me just say – I completely disagree with the idea that stress is something you should just get used to or live with because ‘it’s inevitable’. It’s not. Stress management, like lawyering or contract drafting, is a skill. And like any other skill, it can be learned.

      You have to self-train. You have to find the right mentors, speak to the right people, and actively work towards it. I’ve done a lot of that over the years.

      You also need a strong support system – people who are emotionally present and available for you. My family has been incredible, and I owe them everything. But friends matter just as much – both within and outside the profession. That’s been a huge source of strength for me. And most importantly, my husband is my biggest cheerleader and support system. Having that makes all the difference. Without it, it’s hard.

      Another big learning has been understanding the link between stress and physical health. Over the last four or five years, I’ve realised it’s not just a mindset issue – your physical health plays a huge role. And I know this might sound like standard social media advice, but it’s true: you need to move your body. You need to eat and sleep well. That’s what made a real difference for me. In fact, staying fit has now become one of my core interests.

      The third piece is having interests outside of work. That’s so important. We actively encourage this at Ikigai. 

      And finally, reading good books has helped. There’s so much you can self-learn today. As a generation, we’re incredibly lucky to have access to so much information. If we’re intentional about how we use it, we can teach ourselves almost anything.

      Thank you so much for your beautiful answers. Just to quickly respond to one of the aspects you mentioned, yes, we are our own leaders, and while we agree we should take command and understand things, it’s not always that easy. Sometimes organizations are supportive, sometimes they’re not. What we take away from this conversation is the importance of understanding what you’re doing, how you’re working, and who you’re working for. If you’re in the right environment, you’ll not only thrive professionally but also personally.

      I just wanted to share a few closing thoughts. I completely agree that the environment you work in, especially early in your career, can make all the difference.

      I also want to take a moment to talk about what we’re building at Ikigai. At the senior and mid-management level, we’re very intentional about creating a space that gives even our younger associates a lot of independence. There’s a strong emphasis on thinking independently, and we’re a flat and non-hierarchical setup. You can speak directly with the equity partners, the founding partner, with me, or with anyone else on the team.

      In many ways, we function like a new-age startup. Just like many of the clients we advise. And that’s something I’m genuinely proud of. 

      One of the most meaningful aspects of our culture, and something I hope more organizations adopt, is our deep focus on training and mentorship. It’s actually what drew me to Ikigai as a new lawyer. And now that I get to mentor others, it’s incredibly fulfilling. Personally, one of the ways I measure my own success is by how well I support and guide the associates and senior associates I work with.

      My hope is that this approach becomes the norm across the industry. I’m excited about what that future could look like.

      Get in touch with Astha Srivastava –

    2. From NLIU to the World Stage: Women in Tech Leading the Next Frontier of Technology Law and Data Privacy – Kriti Sharma, Director, Head of Regulatory Legal and Compliance (India and Southeast Asia) at Dun & Bradstreet, and Data Protection Officer (India and Singapore).

      From NLIU to the World Stage: Women in Tech Leading the Next Frontier of Technology Law and Data Privacy – Kriti Sharma, Director, Head of Regulatory Legal and Compliance (India and Southeast Asia) at Dun & Bradstreet, and Data Protection Officer (India and Singapore).

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

      Starting from your first role in 2008 at Khaitan & Co., you’ve built a legal career that bridges traditional law and cutting-edge technology. What mindset shaped this journey?
      My journey has been one of deliberate growth — from shadowing senior counsel during internships to advising boards on privacy and AI. At NLIU, I learned discipline and legal craftsmanship. Assisting senior counsel before the Supreme Court taught me the value of precision in advocacy.

      Joining Khaitan & Co. in 2008 gave me exposure to private equity and M&A, where I realized law can enable growth, not just mitigate risk. These experiences shaped my approach to law as a living system — not merely a set of rules.

      “Every deal, every court brief was a rehearsal for the lawyer I was becoming.”

      You pursued an MSc in Law & Finance at the University of Oxford in 2015. How did this experience reshape your perspective on law, business, and technology?
      Oxford was transformational. The program pushed me to think like a policymaker and strategist, marrying systems thinking with economic foresight. The admissions process itself forces you to ask: Who are you, and what will you change?

      At Oxford, I realized law is not just about resolving disputes — it’s about designing fairer futures. Today, whether drafting cross-border data policies or shaping ethical AI frameworks, I rely on those lessons — precision, foresight, and human-centered thinking.

      “Oxford didn’t just open doors. It reshaped how I walk through them.”

      After Oxford, you joined Baker & McKenzie, London, in 2016, working on complex cross-border deals. How did this prepare you for tech law challenges?

      Baker & McKenzie exposed me to multi-jurisdictional transactions involving data, competition law, and tech-driven businesses. It refined my ability to integrate legal advice with commercial strategy — a skill that remains critical in regulatory leadership.

      “Global deals teach you that law is not just local compliance — it’s about harmonizing rules with vision.”

      With the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) reshaping privacy frameworks, what should businesses focus on?

      DPDPA 2023 introduces a consent-first, rights-driven approach. Businesses must embed privacy into their DNA. The Business Requirement Document on Consent Management becomes crucial — translating legal obligations into features like granular consent, revocation, and audit logs.

      For SaaS companies, compliance means building privacy into product architecture from the start — not bolting it on later.

      “Under DPDPA, privacy is no longer a checkbox. It’s a design principle.”

      AI regulation is evolving fast. How should SaaS companies approach permitted AI usage?

      Permitted AI usage means innovating responsibly — ensuring data processing aligns with consent, purpose limitations, and ethical safeguards. For SaaS, it requires documenting use cases, maintaining risk registers, and conducting ethical reviews before rollouts.

      “Permitted AI usage is about proving that innovation respects rights, not just scaling technology.”

      You transitioned from law firms to leading compliance and privacy in-house. How did this shape your leadership style?

      Law firms were my training ground, but moving in-house allowed me to build rather than just fix. At CoinSwitch and later at Dun & Bradstreet, I became a translator between risk and vision — operationalizing DPDPA and IT Act obligations into workflows teams could implement.

      Leading cross-border teams taught me that leadership isn’t about authority; it’s about making people feel safe, seen, and inspired.

      “You can’t lead well if you’re afraid of being disliked. Courage creates clarity.”

      Aligning compliance across India, Singapore, and European markets is challenging. What worked for you?

      The key is balancing speed with regulation. At Dun & Bradstreet, we operationalize DPDPA alongside Singapore’s PDPA while maintaining agility. The secret lies in simplifying complex regulations into actionable steps and keeping regulatory reporting both consistent and efficient.

      “Regulatory leadership is about keeping law human.”

      You’ve faced curveballs in high-stakes environments. How have they shaped you?

      I’ve seen strategies falter and negotiations stall — not because of effort, but because the environment changed faster than expected. Each curveball wasn’t a setback; it was a reset that made me sharper.

      Examples:

      • In a cross-border M&A deal, cultural misalignment nearly derailed progress. Listening and adapting saved the deal.
      • During a privacy review, spotting gaps in vendor contracts early prevented regulatory risk.
      • When developing a consent framework, simplifying it through user-centric design improved adoption across teams.

      “Curveballs teach you to anticipate change, stay agile, and turn challenges into frameworks that drive long-term success.”

      What do recognitions like being featured in prominent legal rankings or industry awards mean to you in terms of your professional journey and leadership?

      These awards reflect consistency and relevance. They’re not destinations; they’re mirrors reminding me to stay adaptive, curious, and innovative while empowering the teams I work with.

      “Careers aren’t built in boardrooms. They’re built in quiet moments of reflection, persistence, and refusal to be ordinary.”

      You lead Regulatory, Legal & Compliance across India and Southeast Asia. How can a lawyer carve their path to becoming a DPO while managing these broader responsibilities?

      Being an effective DPO while leading regulatory, legal, and compliance functions means more than knowing laws — it’s about embedding privacy into the company’s growth strategy.

      At Dun & Bradstreet, where analytics power decisions for enterprises worldwide, the DPO role is integral to building trust while enabling innovation.

      What works:

      • Deepen expertise in privacy (DPDPA, sectoral laws, cybersecurity).
      • Embed privacy into processes, not just policies.
      • Work across teams — legal, product, engineering — to align compliance with agility.
      • Learn from real challenges, such as mitigating risks in cross-border data flows.
      • Keep learning and stay visible through certifications and thought leadership.

      “A great DPO doesn’t just enforce compliance; they design trust that drives the business forward.”

      What’s your advice for young lawyers entering privacy and tech law?
      Pick a niche — privacy, SaaS, fintech — and go deep. Master laws like DPDPA 2023, the IT Act, AI frameworks, and client-facing SEBI regulations. Pair this with an understanding of how technology works, and share your insights through writing and forums.

      “Expertise is built when curiosity meets consistency.”

      You’ve handled billion-dollar deals and privacy decisions impacting millions. How do you stay grounded?

      Balance is intentional. Strong mentors and high-performing teams keep me centered. High-stakes work demands clarity that comes from preparation and purpose.

      “Balance isn’t slowing down. It’s designing rhythms that let you accelerate without burning out.”

      Final Words to the SuperLawyer Community

      Law is evolving at the speed of technology. Even in an age of AI and SaaS, three things remain timeless: trust, clarity, and courage.

      My journey — from NLIU Bhopal to Oxford (2015), Baker & McKenzie London (2016), and leading privacy across India & Southeast Asia, to being recognised in the Forbes India Top 100 Lawyers 2023 and Business World Legal 40 Under 40 — is proof that deliberate choices shaped by curiosity and resilience can redefine what’s possible.

      “You don’t have to be fearless. You just have to move forward despite the fear — and build a brand that speaks for itself.”

      Get in touch with Kriti Sharma –

    3. “Growth is inevitable and so is learning, any point of saturation leads you to level up.” – Ritu Agwekar, Founder of JURISEYE, Partners.

      “Growth is inevitable and so is learning, any point of saturation leads you to level up.” – Ritu Agwekar, Founder of JURISEYE, Partners.

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

      With a career spanning over two decades and expertise in Real Estate, General Corporate, and Commercial Transactions, what were some of the early experiences or influences that drew you to these specific areas of law?

      Early years in Practice are experimental, one has to be open to everything, each work adds value to your knowledge, it is like experimenting with your own skill set, it is only with years that your client decides what you are good at, so I guess the choice is more about getting your skills to explore everything rather than being selective in the early years. And as you go through handling transactions, each being its own type, over the years, you realise that every transaction has that one element which is different, and there lies the experience, which gradually grows through such handling and conclusions of transactions, it’s a process and there’s no short cut to it.

      You began your academic journey with a degree in B.Com. What led you to pursue law afterward and was it a deliberate choice or something that evolved over time?

      My career chose me, I guess. I was always meant to be here. In fact, I also cleared my ICWA, Group III and CS, Group I, but ultimately my passion for Law was stronger. I was inclined to do something which had an element of variety in its execution and detailing and Law, has a wide range of skill sets to choose from, here there is no limit to the learning or stopping from being variant and practicing the streams that one intends to, one can be practicing various domains simultaneously, too.

      Having worked with prominent law firms and institutions, what inspired your transition to establishing an independent practice? What were some of the turning points that shaped this decision?

      Growth is inevitable and so is learning, any point of saturation leads you to level up. That is the only constant. One always wishes to have an independent set up, not for enjoying freedom but also for being able to take up newer areas of expertise, grow. The Covid times, made start up advisory and POSH Practice my added areas of legal services, that was the time that I started rendering legal services and complete legal handholding to start-ups, MSMEs and handled their entire contract cycle. I guess it’s always about learning and as a Professional that should be one’s priority.

      You’ve handled a wide range of real estate transactions. In your experience, what are some of the major legal challenges that often arise during due diligence in the real estate sector?

      Real Estate Practice is one of the most challenging practice areas, because of the wide range of enactments in force, gazettes and regulations, with plethora of enactments, due diligence for specific land types, tenures as also proximity to certain sensitive areas and coastal areas, personal laws, etc makes it an extensive area of practice. Out of the many transactions that I have been a part of and handled, one such was while being a part of a 50acre acquisition, it had multiple enactment permissions, sanctions and permissions, under various Acts, prior to my client being able to buy it, it was for a German Company. One of the most exciting acquisitions.

      Your work with startups, SEZ developers, and major infrastructure companies. When dealing with SEZs in particular, how do you adapt your legal strategy? What makes the legal landscape involving SEZs distinct from others?

      Start up and SEZ are two distinct set ups, calling for totally different approach. While for a start-up it is important to understand their vision statement to be able to legally handhold them, for a SEZ it’s the scale of acquisition, permissions involved. A start up may still be naïve to hiring a Lawyer yesterday, a SEZ has it all along. While SEZ is about scale, a Start up is about measure. Law remains the bottom line for both, the scale differs. As I mentioned practicing law means gauging the requirement, while start up may just require contracts, IP to be its first choice of legal expertise SEZ calls for enumerable sanctions, due diligence, permissions, contracts, Definitive documents and may more to even begin with. 

      You’ve played an active role in promoting POSH compliance and workplace inclusion. In your view, how is the legal framework in India evolving to support safer, more equitable work environments?

      Yes, as I mentioned I started my POSH practice in the year 2019 and it was a turning point in understanding how an organisation can be ignorant about an employee being mentally harassed (sexually). It has been 2013 since the enactment came in force, but the way things have evolved in view of the present workplace and the diversity of the workforce, calls for a different perception of how we would now interpret the enactment, more gender neutral. But by and large it’s the women who need to be safeguarded against the harassment and we have to focus and emphasize more on gender sensitization and education. The practice in POSH is a challenging area of practice, which calls for proper interpretation of law, policies of an organisation and understanding the human aspect of the practice, too. There still needs to be a lot of work to be done in the domain and I personally feel, the real achievement lies in not requiring any Law to tell people how to behave/act with one another. It’s about being able to strike a chord between a healthy and mutually dependable, respectful and growth oriented work environment for all.

      With the Data Protection and Digital Privacy Act (DPDPD) gaining prominence, how ready do you believe Indian businesses are to meet compliance requirements? What specific impact does this have in sectors like real estate?

      Absolutely ignorant is how I would view it as, as of now. With we still awaiting the Rules to be framed, I guess it’s still a wait and watch scenario with most. Though there is awareness about something, it’s not clear as to how much detrimental it can be, if non-complied with, and that’s a huge gap that we as Professionals, working in this domain, have to fill.

      You’ve received several accolades for your work. What key advice would you offer to aspiring legal professionals particularly those looking to build a corporate practice?

      Law is the profession for the patient players, you cannot rush to success in this field, it’s about Perseverance and constant Learning, here it is about knowledge first. One important thing is never compare your success with any measuring tape, accolades, awards, included. Success means to each its own and thus does not have any set yardstick of measurement. Focus on your journey, upgrading, learning and do everything with a lot of passion and involvement, nothing is Magic, it takes time to shape up and show results. Patience is the key. There are wide choices in todays times and one can pick and choose that one intends to and stay focussed on building that. But, levelling and upgrading is a must. Law is an ever growing field and a need for all, so learning is absolutely inevitable, I know it all attitude, may not work.

       With such a diverse and dynamic legal portfolio, what drives your passion for the law each day? What has sustained this motivation and commitment over the years?

      Your question has the answer- PASSION and I would value Discipline more than Motivation, Consistency above Perfection, its ones constant effort and dedication that keeps you going, every day.

      Get in touch with Ritu Agwekar –