As a dual-qualified attorney in California and India, what first sparked your interest in the legal profession, and how did you chart your path in this field?
I come from a family of lawyers, so this profession was all I knew growing up. I didn’t realize the impact of my dad’s work at the time but saw how his efforts positively affected his clients. I remember that on many occasions, they wouldn’t have enough money for his full fees but would bring him part of their seasonal harvest. Other than that, it came to me more naturally than most people—it never felt like work, and I was so excited to go to law school and later into litigation. Isn’t it a privilege to be in a position to make a difference in people’s lives and also get paid for it?
For California, I never had plans to move, but I absolutely fell in love with the state and decided to get licensed in the one thing I knew—law!
You recently passed the California Bar Exam on your first attempt. What preparation strategies proved most effective for you, and what advice would you offer to others aspiring to clear it? How has this qualification expanded your professional scope?
As for preparation, I took an online bar prep course called Themis. Going to Berkeley Law for my LLM definitely helped, as it put me among the smartest people who have a reputation for passing this difficult exam on their first attempt. Also, it’s crucial to know one’s learning style. I really appreciate learning from my own handwriting, so I wrote everything down even though my bar prep tool didn’t ask me to. I also know that I panic toward the end, so I developed my own timeline, which was different from what the bar prep suggested. I took a study leave from work and had just one goal for those 12 weeks. I ate, slept, meditated, everything centered around my bar prep. Honestly, I loved the drive of taking on something so challenging and had fun with it. There’s no one-size-fits-all way to go about this, and I’m happy to answer specific questions for whoever wants to take this exam.
As my interest is in litigation-related work, I wouldn’t say it expanded my scope; rather, it created any scope that exists, because one cannot take even a tiny step in litigation without a license to practice.
Moving from legal practice in India to building a career in the United States must have involved navigating many differences. What were the key hurdles you faced in adapting to the U.S. legal system, and how did you overcome them?
Oh, so many! I did not have anyone from my family or extended family who was a U.S. lawyer. From choosing law school to taking the bar, applying for internships, jobs, and visas—every step presented hurdles, or should I say, kept life interesting, as my friends like to put it. The biggest one for me is the visa, with, dare I say, the state of affairs right now. Also, finding a job in the U.S. is so different from India. In India, we don’t network enough, which I had to teach myself after moving here. I want to give credit to Berkeley, as they had a whole program to train international lawyers to get acquainted not just with the U.S. legal system but also with its unique job market. I didn’t expect it, but my Indian work experience was valued by U.S. employers as I think the two things, we have in common with them is that they value the “grind,” which they could supposedly see in my resume, and our common law system—and that’s probably why I was a preferred candidate for many jobs I applied to before joining the Office of the District Attorney, Alameda County.
Work environments in both countries are completely different as well. There are different work ethics, professional relationships, sense of humor, and protocols. However, one funny realization is that lawyers everywhere are more or less the same kind of people so it was still a familiar territory.
You have served as an editorial board member for leading legal publications and also worked as a law clerk. How did these roles deepen your understanding of the U.S. legal system and prepare you for your current role?
U.S. law school journals, and also Indian ones- stimulate a legal mind well. It’s so good to become aware of different ideas, methodologies, and international legal issues, and I think my favorite part of being in a journal was building community with like-minded people. I was in the Ecology Law Quarterly with other environmental law nerds and had some great academic and fun discussions in the process.
My clerkship with the District Attorney’s Office was my first U.S. job, which makes it special to me. I feel fortunate to have worked for a highly reputed government office in the Consumer, Environment, and Special Litigations Department. It was a fast-paced environment, and there couldn’t have been a better way to learn U.S. law and see it in action than that. I worked on civil procedure assignments, evidence code, and criminal code—all at once. One of my first assignments at the DA’s Office involved prosecuting a corporation after a factory fire that significantly affected air quality for people in that vicinity, given California’s high ambient air quality standards. These assignments strengthened my understanding of environmental enforcement and also informed my approach to research, brief-writing, and attention to detail in my current role.
During your LL.M. at UC Berkeley, you specialized in Energy Law and Clean Technology while contributing to journals like the Berkeley Technology Law Journal and Ecology Law Quarterly. How did these academic and editorial experiences influence your perspective on the intersection of law, technology, and environmental sustainability?
A topic that’s very close to my heart is climate change. We treat it as “important” but not “urgent,” which troubles both my personal and legal mind. At Berkeley Law, I enrolled in courses such as Environment and Energy Law, subscribed to technology- and environment-related journals, and participated in clean energy student groups to engage with these issues and understand the work of scholars in the field. Being surrounded by like-minded people strengthened my commitment and deepened my understanding of how cleaner technologies are urgently needed on a global scale. The intersection of use of environmental resources and law is particularly interesting to contrast between the US, Europe and Indian laws. We have many vulnerable communities who get affected first by the impacts of degrading environment and climate crisis, and there is a lot of work that remains to be done to protect them.
In your current role, you work to support mesothelioma victims and their families. What drew you to this area of law, and how do you balance the legal complexities with the human and emotional dimensions of these cases?
I honestly don’t know how to answer this question. From my practice in the Allahabad High court, Lucknow, to here in California, I have struggled with getting too attached to the outcome and client’s problems. I don’t know if that makes me a better or a worse lawyer. But I try to overcome that by something my senior told me early on during my India days that “you play a very small role in the grand scheme of things.” I owe my client to do my best work for their entrustment in me as their lawyer but I sure cannot change their destiny. Very recently, a client of mine passed away from mesothelioma (cancer) before the case went to trial which happens more often than not in this field. I witnessed his struggle through the deposition and eventually he just couldn’t make it to the end of the case. It breaks my heart but if I have done my role well, then it becomes easier to strike that balance. This also keeps me on my toes to put in the hard-work.
What advice would you give to students aiming for an international legal career, and how can they stay ahead of global legal developments?
Just a few simple things. First, one needs to figure out if they want to study here, do an LLM or a JD, or directly take the California Bar (the only U.S. bar open to foreign attorneys without coursework). My advice would be to study here first, as it helps one get acquainted with the culture and decide whether it’s the right fit. Moreover, getting a job is nearly impossible without a strong network, which a renowned university greatly helps with. A warning—it is very expensive. I chose Berkeley over other good colleges that offered me scholarships because it was one of my dream schools, but one should always rank priorities according to their circumstances. Advance research on scholarships and on-campus jobs could help. I had an on-campus job that helped me a lot financially during school. It’s important to work smart—so if the plan is to immigrate to a new country, students should also consider Canada, Singapore, or the UK (the more welcoming ones in today’s environment).
One thing I would have done differently is to have a better long-term plan at least a year in advance of actually applying. I didn’t understand at the time that this decision would completely reshape my life as I know it. But I would love to help anyone who has doubts about the process or wants to learn from my experiences—feel free to reach out to me on LinkedIn.
With the demands of your profession, how do you maintain balance in your personal pursuits, and what is your vision for the future of your practice?
The litigation work culture in the US is similar to India as the work never stops from the inception of the case till the verdict. One can easily preoccupy themselves as there is always so much to do. However, in my experience, that sometimes leads to isolation, and when you are thousands of miles away from family, building a community becomes equally important. When I’m not working, I spend time with my friends, which is my number one priority as rejuvenated weekends significantly boost my motivation through the week. We often travel and hike in nature, as California is truly blessed with pleasant weather throughout the year. Of course, there are weekends that turn into working ones when the need arises like meeting a court deadline on Monday but I don’t mind that because I genuinely love what I do and take pride in showing up for my clients who are unfortunately struggling to live.
I’ve always believed that being a lawyer is nothing less than a superpower- it gives us the tools to understand, question, and change things that most people simply have to accept. Right now, my focus is on mastering California law and becoming as confident in this system as I was in India. The process of adapting to a new legal culture has been challenging but also deeply rewarding—it’s pushed me to grow, think differently, and refine my craft. Whatever I’ve gained intellectually, I’d definitely want to leverage it to contribute to the Indian legal landscape in different ways, for eg. I am working on a research paper on a social legal challenge that India faces; Grow as a multi-jurisdictional professional, and have fun along the way.
Your career trajectory is truly inspiring. Having started your journey in India, what initially motivated you to explore opportunities abroad? Was an international legal career always your goal, or did it evolve with time and experience?
While an international career was always intriguing, I did not really plan for this move. I relocated to Hong Kong for personal reasons and in hindsight, this was the best God gifted turn in my career destiny.
After working at Khaitan & Co for over two years, I was constantly fidgeting with the idea of pursuing an LLM from the UK/US to enhance my skills. In fact, my initial career plan was always aimed at being part of the Indian Judiciary after procuring an LLM. However, I ended up with a real life LLM (something like the real life MBA) upon my move to Hong Kong.
Sorry but nothing riveting about my international legal career albeit a very fulfilling one indeed (whatever be the catalyst).
In the early stages of your career, you worked with several top-tier law firms. What were some of the key takeaways from those experiences that helped shape your foundation in dispute resolution?
Yes, I was fortunate to intern and work with many reputed law firms, legal professionals and even clerks with a High Court Judge before joining Khaitan & Co in Mumbai. Given our Indian legal education system is largely based on rote learning and lacks the practical and critical thinking aspects of the law, it is crucial to explore your interests by way of practical traineeships during your law school breaks. I would say these internships not only built a foundation in dispute resolution (for me personally), they were essential in preparing me for the private practice role I undertook with Khaitan & Co. It is your first tryst as a professional and guides you to (i) figure out where your interests lie (i.e. private practice, corporate in-house, academia and several other fields within the practice of law), (ii) develop interpersonal and communication skills, and (iii) really get a hands on experience on the culture and workings of that specific role (e.g. a law firm or a company).
After spending two years at a leading Indian law firm, you transitioned to international practice. What prompted this shift, and how did you navigate the cultural and professional differences between the Indian and Hong Kong legal environments?
As mentioned earlier, my relocation to Hong Kong was part of God’s plan. When I moved to Hong Kong, my only professional acquaintance in this new jurisdiction was my husband, who is a banker. Basically, I had to start from scratch, reintroducing myself as an Indian disputes lawyer looking for private practice roles. To make things more exciting, shortly after my arrival, the COVID-19 pandemic struck, bringing layoffs and market uncertainties.
Despite these challenges, I reached out to numerous professionals, sent cold messages, and built new connections daily. This journey required humility and grit, as the Hong Kong legal industry is highly competitive. Being a newcomer without Hong Kong qualifications or international law experience, I was rarely a recruiter’s first choice.
Transitioning from a top-tier law firm in India, with an established pedigree, to being completely unrecognized in Hong Kong was a profound experience. However, these initial years in Hong Kong marked my steepest professional growth. I learnt the art of networking and the benefits of a strong follow-up. I knew that positions won’t be created for a junior lawyer such as myself and I needed to keep hunting for the appropriate opening so that when there is one, I get a chance to interview for that role.
I also did not want to wait for the perfect opportunity and I took up an in house role with a leading manufacturing company (Rochdale Spears Group) immediately upon my move to Hong Kong (before transitioning to private practice at Harneys (my current role)). Whilst at Rochdale, I also simultaneously prepared for the Hong Kong qualification exams given my interests always lied in pursuing litigation.
You’re currently focused on cross-border insolvency litigation and restructuring. Having practiced dispute resolution in India as well, how would you compare the Hong Kong legal system with the Indian system? Are there specific procedures or practices from Hong Kong that you believe could be effectively adapted into the Indian context?
While both Hong Kong and India are common law jurisdictions, the practice, procedures and especially case management are fairly distinct. To clarify, whilst I am Hong Kong qualified, I’m currently working at an offshore law firm where we advise clients on BVI, Cayman Islands and Bermuda laws (all systems largely based on UK and common law).
In my experience, litigation in Hong Kong, UK or any of the offshore jurisdictions mentioned above, is more mature and structured.
Firstly, there is an emphasis on early settlement (i.e. out of court resolutions). There are even certain pre action protocols to be followed and pre trial settlement is highly encouraged.
Second, if a matter does go to trial, it won’t last for several decades unlike in India. In fact, the courts will block a week or two for a specific matter to complete the trial (including evidence and final arguments). Adjournments are rare as compared to India (and mostly at the behest of both parties i.e. by consent if they are exploring settlement negotiations for instance)
Having said that, India courts (i.e. higher courts SC/HCs as well as tribunals and lower courts) have a very high workload with judges handling large volumes of cases daily compared with the courts of the other jurisdictions I mentioned earlier. So it’s obviously remarkable how the Indian judges are managing these volumes. However, an intrinsic balance needs to be found, with perhaps higher no. of judicial officers and moving towards a less adversarial approach towards disputes and incentivising pre trial settlement.
Lastly, even alternative dispute mechanisms such as arbitrations are concluded more efficiently, with challenges to the final award considerably lesser as compared to India (where majority of the arbitral awards are challenged in Courts).
Being qualified to practice in both India and Hong Kong, how has this dual qualification enhanced your cross-border legal practice? Could you also share your experience preparing for and clearing the Overseas Lawyers Qualification Examination (OLQE)? What strategies or resources were most helpful to you during the process?
As challenging as it was, I thoroughly enjoyed preparing for the OLQE. To put things in perspective, the pass rate for these exams is as low as 20% so you know the odds are not exactly in your favour.
The exams are highly technical with all questions being completely application based. So you are essentially answering real life legal queries (in a time bound manner). As Indian law school graduates, we are so used to rote learning and exams lacking critical analysis, I was not only preparing for the HK law exams, I was re-learning the study techniques too.
It was a test of disciplined, structured learning and being consistent and completely focused in your preparation leading up to the exams. You also need to keep ample time for revision given the vast breadth of topics that are covered within a single head of an exam. With some luck, and blessing coupled with hard work and finding the right tutors, I was able to clear all heads in my first attempt.
To answer your first question i.e. engaging in different jurisdictions and legal systems, it really allows you to widen your scope of learning, you are not just learning two sets of laws, you are also exploring and servicing different cultures. For me, at Harneys, we deal with several Chinese clients on one hand and common law judicial systems on the other. So that’s balancing a lot of interests at the same time. I think being curious, understanding client’s needs and ensuring efficient service has kept me afloat while working in both jurisdictions
You’ve taken on leadership roles in both diversity initiatives and business development, with BD and networking now being a key part of your responsibilities. Since these skills aren’t typically taught, especially in traditional legal training, how did you cultivate them, and what guidance would you give to legal professionals looking to build confidence in this area?
Yes, I lead the Tone from the Top committee at Women in Law Hong Kong and have been part of WILHK as well as other DEI committees/member groups. I’m also quite actively involved in the BD initiatives at Harneys. Whilst both are distinct and serve differing objectives, it all stems from the art of networking.
As you rightly point out, this is neither taught or even considered as part of your skillset in law school or as junior lawyers. I believe this is a quintessential ability to develop in any profession (not just law).
So how to develop these skills. To me, it happened very organically. I was in a new jurisdiction, completely out of my comfort zone. All regular methods of finding a job had failed (i.e. through recruiters or applications to law firm websites or HR personnel). So, I had to be creative with finding opportunities. I started reaching out to people on LinkedIn (even if I did not know them), asking for 30 mins of their time/ or a coffee chat. At every meeting, I tried to expand the network by asking for introductions to more connections or membership in communities. This really helped build foundations on communication skills and confidence to hold conversations.
The transition to being involved in BD meetings and initiatives at Harneys was easier based on the foundations I built early on. I think it all comes down to being aware of the opportunities available if you can take that first step. It’s important to have a strong legal foundation and technical skills such as writing, analysis and research. However, at the same time, it is equally important to ensure that you’re perceived as a good lawyer, who is capable of being the face of a firm or representing the firm in front of potential clients. As you get elevated (e.g. at partner level), these are the skills that matter more. So it’s always better to build on these from the beginning rather than waiting to be in a leadership position.
As a Hong Kong-qualified lawyer currently advising on various offshore litigation matters (including such as the implementation of schemes/restructuring) in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and BVI, how do you navigate the distinct legal nuances of these jurisdictions? Furthermore, how would you compare the commercial and dispute resolution frameworks Hong Kong and India, and what key differences do you observe in their approaches to cross-border transactions?
A very good question indeed and while I marinate in these challenges daily, not something I discuss often haha. The key is compartmentalising. Given the niche I’m in, its very easy to get muddled up with the laws of different jurisdictions. Given I assist with several cross border matters and a single work day may involve drafting pleadings for a Cayman scheme of arrangement court sanction, assisting in a BVI law advice on insolvency laws and end with a client call exploring litigation in Bermuda.
I ensure that I have separate notes and sections (physically in my room as well as digitally on my desk) for each of the jurisdictions and then each of the matters. You have to be extremely organised with filings, matter segmentation etc. And of course, with some time and experience, you just get more confident in dealing with complex issues by breaking them down into simpler soluble pieces and then attending to each of them separately. And as lawyers, the most important thing is to have a mindset of continuous learning.
For students aspiring to build a career in international dispute resolution, what guidance would you offer? Are there any practical tips, skills, or experiences you believe are especially valuable as they prepare to enter this field?
International dispute resolution is a pretty wide term. I’ll answer it this way, to build a career in law (whether in India or globally) requires consistent learning, hard work, resilience, critical thinking and most importantly patience. Unlike other career paths like AI, bankers (which are fast paced and also highly technical), law requires a lot of patience and experience.
As for practical tips, I’d say apart from the basics (i.e. building a strong foundational knowledge in your chosen niche, working on the succinct legal drafting/writing skills (again something not given enough attention to during law school) …
Find a sponsor within your firm and a mentor outside. It is very important to build trust based networks and have someone back you within the organisation who genuinely is invested in your growth and development and a guide outside the firm, you can confide in and get the required support and learning.
Is there a motto or guiding principle you’ve followed throughout your legal career? In addition, how do you see the future of alternative dispute resolution evolving, especially with technological and global shifts in the legal profession? How do you personally stay updated on the latest developments in dispute resolution?
Failure is not fatal, success is not final, it is the courage that counts~!
This profession especially requires a lot of patience and resilience. In my opinion, there is no scope for instant gratification in law. You need to be thorough and keep learning and updating your knowledge base.
As for the impact of technology, we are definitely going to see some transformations. A lot of the tasks will be automated (are already being automated) which is potentially a good change because this may free up a lot of time spent by lawyers on admin/mechanical tasks and compliment the legal industry. As far as I’m concerned, I did attempt to get AI assistance at times, for presentations etc. I personally feel the problem of hallucinations needs to be solved, especially for legal tech AI – we cannot be citing wrong judgments made up by AI. Hopefully this will change soon.
Lastly, I would part by saying the cliché, you have to be curious and keep upskilling yourself (whether it is knowledge or technology). The world is moving and transforming very fast and one needs to keep pace. Having said that, this doesn’t mean you lose out on life, loved ones or your hobbies/interests. Almost every organisation (in law or elsewhere) values these additional extra curricular skills. For me it’s the water, and related outdoor activities like sailing, kayaking, windsurfing. A weekend in the sea and I feel refreshed to take on the work week!
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!
From graduating top of your class at NALSAR to training with Allen & Overy in London and Prague, how did your early international exposure shape your approach to dispute resolution and arbitration in India?
It was transformational. The vacation scheme (akin to an internship) at Allen & Overy (now A&O Shearman) felt like an introduction to a whole new world back in the day. So naturally, I was very excited when I got selected as a Trainee Solicitor at A&O in 2012, straight out of NALSAR, Hyderabad. As a Trainee Solicitor, you had to work for six months each in different practice areas. I had a great time working with the best legal minds in banking law and corporate law. In particular, I learnt and enjoyed the most while working on international commercial arbitrations under the guidance of Angeline Welsh, (now Kings Counsel) at the London office and investment treaty arbitrations under the guidance of Matthew Hodgson at the Prague office.
Being exposed to such complex disputes, multinational clients and the best solicitors and barristers in the field of arbitration, at the very start of my career, was an amazing learning experience for me. I am grateful to this day for the training that I received at A&O, especially under someone as brilliant as Ms. Welsh. The excellence and professionalism with which we worked at A&O is something that has stayed with me till today. I approach all my matters with the same vigour, professionalism and discipline. It is because of this training that I am confident of advising my clients in India and across the globe independently on international commercial arbitrations. My international arbitration practice in India is built on the early exposure I had at A&O. In later years, with referrals by former colleagues and seniors from A&O, I have been fortunate to assist foreign law firms in some international commercial arbitrations, on matters arising under Indian law.
What inspired you to transition from a global law firm environment to establishing your own chamber practice in Delhi? What were some of the key challenges you faced during that shift?
The transition from A&O to my own chamber practice has been a rather interesting journey with challenges aplenty. I quit A&O due to a combination of personal and professional reasons. I had already qualified as a Solicitor of England & Wales in 2014 and there were various job opportunities offered to me by A&O at their other overseas offices. However, I knew that my heart was in litigation so I decided to take the plunge and come back to India with a vision to someday have my own Chamber.
The challenge with this decision was that I was entirely clueless of what the right way forward was, after coming back to India. I started off with Amritsar District Courts since I belong to Amritsar, Punjab, and later joined a lawyer’s office in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Soon thereafter, I felt compelled to try the final frontier of litigation for me – Delhi. I came to Delhi with no job in hand and applied relentlessly to all the top lawyers and disputes practices I knew. Most of them rejected my application. But I knew I had to make it work and there was no going back. I may have lost confidence by so many rejections, but I never lost hope. I knew I was meant to be in Delhi and I just needed to wait. Within a few days, I found an office that would form the foundation of my future practice. I started working with HMJ Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora in 2015 and I cannot express in words my gratitude to her as she made me the lawyer I am today. In litigation, if you find the right mentor and you have the hunger to succeed, nothing can stop you from growing. With encouragement and support from her and Mr. D. S. Narula, Sr. Adv., I set up my own Chamber in 2018.
I realised that while setting up your own Chamber practice is one challenge, the bigger challenge is maintaining your client base, and the biggest challenge is growing your practice, given the tough competition in Delhi. That is where impatience kicks in because growing your practice happens at a consistent but gradual speed. The remuneration commensurate with your effort, also comes in much later. In the age of instant gratification, that can seem very disheartening especially if one falls prey to comparisons with other colleagues who may be growing at a much faster pace. However, if there is one thing that I steer clear of, it is comparison to others. I have come to realise that everyone is fighting their own battles at their own pace and all one can do is be sincere and diligent in their own efforts without comparing their circumstances to others. No two people will have the same background, or education or opportunities or capability or intelligence or luck even. You can only control your life and your actions. I have seen my cause list / clients grow organically and there is no greater joy in seeing your growth on your own terms, with hard work, sincerity and integrity. This growth would of course not have happened without my team. While different associates have come and gone, I am extremely thankful to my clerk, Naved Khan, who has been with me since Day 1 and who singlehandedly manages all the back-end administrative tasks for the Chamber letting me focus entirely on my legal practice.
I must add here that the support I have got from the Judges and the bar at the Delhi High Court has been phenomenal. This Court has encouraged me and given me room to grow and that is all I could have ever asked for as a first generation lawyer. The Hon’ble Judges have appointed me as a Sole Arbitrator, Amicus Curiae, Local Commissioner / Court Auctioneer in several matters. If the Court where you are practising is entrusting you with matters, that is the biggest encouragement you need as a first generation lawyer with no legal pedigree.
Having said that, there still exist biases in litigation and arbitration, especially towards women. The legal community needs to acknowledge that and take steps to promote more women in this profession, especially as Senior Advocates, Arbitrators and Judges. The profession can also feel exclusionary and elitist at times, and we need to do more to promote diversity and inclusion in our profession.
I have been lucky in as much as I have had great mentors in this profession who have held my hand during my most difficult times, especially when I have doubted myself. Destiny also was kinder to me in Delhi as I met the love of my life, Arshiya, within a few days of moving to Delhi. So all in all, despite the hardships, everything worked out when it had to. All I needed was some patience and faith. I continue to need it, as I work on growing my practice.
You represent PSUs and government organizations on sensitive matters including constitutional issues. What are some challenges unique to working with public sector entities?
Representing PSUs is highly rewarding, but can also get frustrating at times. For instance, for me, I am a panel counsel for Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Since I was not raised in Delhi, this panel provided me with the unique opportunity to learn about land related issues that are peculiar to Delhi, since DDA is one of the largest land owning agencies in Delhi. With this panel, I have had the privilege and opportunity to appear and argue complex arbitration matters, and constitutional matters as well. The biggest challenge in working with public sector entities is getting clear instructions, which sometimes may not come timely. You have to then be ready to bear the wrath of the judges and also work extra hard to make the case yourself from the limited information you have. Notwithstanding these challenges, I would highly recommend working with a Government / PSU panel because of the sheer variety of cases that you get exposed to and the learning and confidence that comes with the said experience.
Through your involvement with the Quarterly Bar Review, Delhi High Court as well as a Research Editor with the Milon K Banerji Arbitration Centre, MKBAC, NALSAR you regularly write and research on issues of legal significance. How do you believe academic writing strengthens legal practice?
Writing brings clarity of thought and conversely, if you have clarity of thought, you will make a good writer. Academic writing in any particular field of law definitely strengthens your legal practice. For one, you will be seen as a sector expert and it will be easier for clients to reach out to you on issues you have regularly written about. Second, to write an academic article, the level of research you do, enhances your knowledge and builds your confidence in that field. Third, it helps build connections with your peers and lastly, it greatly improves your drafting skills. It is very difficult as a practising lawyer, especially given the long hours we work, to find time to write academic articles. But it is certainly something that I aspire to do more often and encourage all young lawyers to as well.
You’ve been a vocal advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and speak on panels addressing the community’s legal concerns. How do you see the legal profession’s role in pushing for more inclusive rights in India?
Being a member of this community, it is my duty to speak and educate people on LGBTQ+ issues and legal concerns in this country. If I cannot fight for my own rights, how will I ever do justice and fight for my clients’ rights! The legal profession, by its very nature, being the upholder of human rights, ought to be inclusive. The majority of legal professionals I interact with, are keen to see the community grow and are keen to take the fight for equality forward. The lawyers who were representing the petitioners in the Supriyo batch matters are continuing to do a phenomenal job in raising awareness on LGBTQ+ issues and working towards legal solutions for the benefit of the community. I am excited to have joined hands with them.
Among the many matters you’ve handled, could you share one particularly challenging case whether due to its legal complexity, or procedural hurdles and how you navigated it?
What I love about litigation is that every day and every case is a new challenge. In my practice, I have worked on some really complex property disputes as well as given legal opinions on a couple of complicated international commercial arbitrations. What I have learnt is that even the most complicated matters, sometimes have their answers in first principles. Therefore, I always start from first principles and then navigate the development of the law in that area. My most challenging case is still ongoing and I will write about it when we have a judgment, hopefully, in our favour.
Being a poet and an avid badminton player, how do these creative and athletic pursuits contribute to your personal and professional growth in a demanding field like law and how do you manage your personal life with the professional pursuits?
Law is demanding and sometimes too serious a profession. There was no work life balance in my initial years in litigation. However, that is because I chose to work long hours, as I was driven by the desire to learn and open my own Chamber practice. I did not find time to either write poetry or play badminton then. It is only after about 8 years of rigorous hard work and long hours that I have finally come to a place where I can balance my personal life with my professional pursuits. However, I do firmly believe one has to find time and ways to destress beyond work else the profession can burn you out early on. Playing a sport helps your mental health and also makes you more disciplined with your physical health. Being both, physically and mentally fit, makes you more efficient and energetic at work. Spending quality time with your family and friends is very important for your mental health. I am blessed to have a partner and two families who have supported me in my journey so far and will, no doubt, support me in the longer journey ahead. It is my priority now to balance work in a way that I get to spend time with my loved ones, including my dog. I also love travelling and litigation gives you ample opportunity to travel and take good breaks during Court vacations.
With your experience across jurisdictions and forums, what advice would you offer to young lawyers who wish to build a meaningful career in arbitration and civil litigation?
I certainly feel that young lawyers today (although I do not consider myself too old to be giving this advice!) need to work harder because there is way more competition today than there was 10 years ago. While there may be more technology to assist them, at its core, civil litigation and arbitration require conceptual clarity. You have to understand what you are doing, why you are doing it, read bare acts, and not mindlessly follow formats or read only one line in a judgment and be happy with it. There are no shortcuts in this profession. Also, it is very easy to get swayed these days by social media profiles of legal influencers or the glamour reported at the top tier in the profession, especially in international arbitrations. That is not the reality. Reality is in the daily grind, in turning up day after day without fail, in being prepared for a matter even if it is the last matter on the list, in never giving up, despite the odds being stacked against you. Rewards will follow, but you have to put in the hard work. You have to be committed to your own growth on your own terms while never losing sight of the fact that you hold great power and responsibility as a lawyer. So be passionate, be diligent, be smart and run your litigation marathon with sincerity, humility and integrity. Surround yourself with people who will be happy with your growth. Most importantly, always be your biggest cheerleader.
To start with, why and how did you choose law as your career? And if there was any specific inspiration or anything that you feel made the change in your mindset to choose law, being in India, having those kinds of challenges, we would request you to share those insights with us.
In response to your specific question, I do recognize—having grown up in India, having spent almost the first 28, 29 years of my life in India—that, at least when I was growing up, law and the study of law were not seen as a very attractive career option.
Let me put it very simply: people were more interested, as I recall, in studying the sciences, engineering, medicine, and architecture. Those kinds of professions were seen as more lucrative and more rewarding, from what I recall growing up.
So, law was definitely not an attractive career option. Having said that, I was someone who was always interested in the study of social sciences, in the study of politics. You could say that that’s something that was bestowed upon me by my father, who is a professor of history. He is basically a social sciences academician himself. I was always surrounded by these books that were in the house—about world history, about ancient history, Greek history, Roman history, Indian history obviously. So, I used to be very fascinated by reading those books. Those used to be like coffee table books, from what I remember.
My father used to bring them a lot. There used to be encyclopedias, so I was always interested in politics and history. And although I was a good student in science and maths as well, I always wanted to do something more related to how our society works, how our social systems work, how our political institutions work.
And by the time I entered high school, I realized that studying law was probably the best way to understand it, because the law governs most of our political and social institutions. That was my motivation. I did not have any specific role models growing up, although I knew very well as a student of history that most of our leaders during the freedom movement—not only in India but almost all around the world—were lawyers. I realized that there must be something about the study of law that makes good leaders, that makes these leaders, these very cherished leaders of not just our freedom movement, as I said, but if you take the history of any country.
You will see that most of the people who have risen to the top have studied law in some form or the other. So that was my interest, and that’s why I ended up being a lawyer. I did not have any specific branches or any specific disciplines in law in mind when I entered the legal profession. I just wanted to understand how, as I said, our society and our political institutions were.
And that’s how I ended up being a lawyer.
You were also equally interested in politics and that made the way towards law career because yes, all over the world, most of the politicians and leaders are lawyers also, and really in every country they have brought in a lot of changes. So was that the reason that you started your career from a leading Indian law firm which was specially focused on trade policies and government affairs. And later you also served as legal advisor to the Department of Economic Affairs, government of India.
How did you end up there? First, my curiosity is that, and another thing, how did that form your perspective towards moving ahead and getting into international practice?
That’s obviously a very relevant question that your listeners might be interested in hearing about.
So, as I said, I did not have a specific practice of law in mind—whether it’s international law or arbitration, or litigation or transactions—when I started my life as a law student, because, from what I recall, in those days we did not even have this kind of information about the various disciplines and branches of law and the various types of legal practices or law firms. I started studying law in 2003, and the internet and the information age at that time were very much in its infancy.
I was just fascinated, as I said, by the concept of law and how we make laws, how the Parliament makes laws, how our Council of Ministers works, how the Cabinet works, from what sources they derive their powers—things like that. I did not have anything in mind, but as I started my student journey, there were a couple of events that shaped my career towards a more international practice.
The first was that, you know, at that time—and I think even now—as law students, we do a lot of moot courts. So I was given an opportunity to do a moot court that was an international moot court on WTO Law. And this was organized by the European Students’ Law Association, ELSA, and our team at that time qualified for the world finals that were held in Geneva. I think this was in 2006. So I went to Geneva and argued before a tribunal a case that was related to the WTO, or the World Trade Organization, and the various laws that constitute that organization.
I think that was a very prominent factor in shaping my career because I realized that law doesn’t just govern our national institutions but also governs international institutions—how countries trade with each other. There are defined, specific rules about how you trade, how much subsidies you can grant, what kinds of duties you can impose, what kinds of anti-dumping and countervailing measures a country can undertake against another country. I realized that law as a discipline is far broader than I thought, and I was just fascinated by the international aspect of it.
And then, I think we had a professor at some point in my university career who was a professor from the University of Vienna. He was a professor in international law and a visiting professor for a semester. I developed a very close relationship with that professor who came to our university and taught us public international law, and he basically served as a mentor at that time in shaping, again, my career and my understanding of public international law.
Again, public international law governs how states interact with each other on the international sphere. So that was again a very big motivating factor. So I think those two factors shaped my understanding of this international practice that I developed. And then we had specializations at that time.
In our university, they used to have honors courses, so I chose an honors course in international law and trade. And that is how I specialized in what I do right now. And that is also how I ended up joining Amarchand in 2009. Amarchand had a very small practice of trade policy and government affairs, which was focused towards, again, working with the Government of India—obviously in Delhi—but also with other governments around the world on how they negotiate trade agreements, how they negotiate bilateral investment treaties.
I joined that practice, and I can answer more, but that’s how I ended up at Amarchand. And one thing led to the other, and I’ve been doing this for almost 15, 16 years.
Wow, that’s an amazing journey. You later pursued your LLM at the prestigious NYU School of Law and received notable scholarships like Vanderbilt and Inlaks. What do you think helped you secure these, was it your work, your clarity of purpose, or your passion for international law? How did these recognitions shape your professional path? And how have they contributed to establishing you as a prominent international law practitioner today?
Again, a very relevant question. I did my stint with Amarchand & Mangaldas in New Delhi. Then, as I said, I moved on to the Government of India, where I worked as an in-house lawyer in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, helping the government again negotiate bilateral investment treaties, free trade agreements, as well as manage disputes with foreign investors.
So I had that kind of experience, and when you’re in the government, the government works with all kinds of people—whether they’re lawyers, policymakers, or people in international institutions. So I interacted with people from all around the world when I was working as an in-house legal counsel in the Ministry of Finance. And that shaped my thinking in terms of taking up advanced study of international law, because I realized that international law is a very academic discipline—perhaps more academic than other disciplines—because you need to write a lot.
There’s a lot of critical research and critical thinking. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen in other branches of law, but in international law, perhaps it happens a lot more. So I realized that I needed an advanced degree because it was a very academic discipline, based on my interactions with the people that I met at that time.
So yeah, I applied to a lot of universities. I was accepted into many universities—Harvard, Columbia, and Berkeley. But I ended up choosing NYU because I think New York is the hub, the center, probably the global center of international arbitration as a practice. And that is what I was interested in.
And I also received this very prestigious scholarship, which you just mentioned—the Vanderbilt Scholarship at NYU—which covered a lot of my tuition and expenses. And I received that scholarship because I think I had a very clear sense of purpose about what I wanted to do. I think these kinds of scholarships are awarded by universities to people who are keen to learn, who absolutely show in their applications that they’re going to be at the university—it’s a very short time, the LLM is only for a year—so in that one year, they’re there to actually learn something new, and then utilize the instruction that they received or the education they received to do something more meaningful. So I think I was able to very clearly explain in my application what I wanted to do—not just with my time at NYU for a year, but beyond that.
I was also awarded another scholarship in India, which is called the Inlaks Scholarship, I think, which is also very prominent. And from what I recall, I was able to bring forth to the selection committee for that scholarship as well how my career in law had been up until that point, what were the kinds of things that I hadn’t done, and what it was that I wanted to do beyond my LLM at NYU. And I think they were also very, very impressed by the fact that I had worked in the government for about two and a half, three years, because that’s not something very common—especially if you are working in a big Indian law firm.
Most people generally move to another law firm or do something else—they don’t generally go to work for the government or take a pay cut. So I think I was able to explain that I went to the government because I think in international arbitration, if you see, one of the biggest defendants—one of the entities that is sued the most—I mean, it’s obviously common in domestic litigation as well, but in the international sphere too, governments are sued and also sue very often. The government is a huge, huge stakeholder in the international arbitration system—not just the Government of India, but governments around the world. I again wanted to understand from the institutional perspective: what are the priorities, what are the policy interests that governments have in these kinds of disputes?
And I also knew that there are lots of law practices, especially in the West—in the United States and in Europe—that are focused on the defense of sovereign governments in these kinds of disputes. I knew that if I worked in-house as a government lawyer, that experience could help me find a career at an international law firm or an international institution which values that kind of experience. Again, all of this was brought forth, probably in my application, which is why I was lucky enough to be selected for these scholarships.
And then I had a great time at NYU, and after that I joined Foley Hoag, which—as I think was explained in the introduction—is an international law firm which specializes in the defense of sovereign states and state-owned entities in international arbitration and international litigation. So that is the kind of work I do. When I was in India, I obviously did a lot of work for the Government of India, but now I’ve done work for governments all around the world.
I can name a few—I’ve defended Croatia, Ecuador, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, Nepal, Mauritius. There are so many countries around the world that I’ve been fortunate enough to work for and defend.
So I think I am still very much a student and a learner, but what I’ve been able to do is utilize my experience that I obtained while I was in India—working in a law firm and in the government—and now I’m applying and using that experience to further and broaden my legal career and legal perspectives beyond just India.
After listening to you, I cannot stop myself, but ask, as I understand learners will also be very much interested, that how did you make move from one of the top law firm private practice to the government of India work because it’s not easy transition and you do not get such kind of work or as a legal counsel, you do not get appointed without having certain amount of experience, the kind of portrayal of your practice, what was the process that you followed maybe that will help our learners?
And next, like you explained that I wanted to get into international arbitration and international law, by then you had already decided. How helpful was being with the government of India? Not only to get the scholarships, but also get the right kind of subjects being chosen?
Because as far as I understand, LLMs, you choose as many subjects as possible in the US, and you are allowed to have a lot of interactive subjects also. So how did you do that? How helpful was your stint with the government of India in doing all of this?
It was very, very helpful to put it mildly.
I don’t think I’d be where I am today if not for my experience with the Government of India. Now, as I said, it’s not a common transition from private law firm practice to the government, and it’s not an easy transition. But as I explained a while ago, at Amarchand we were already working with the government and various government institutions on things like negotiation of free trade agreements, negotiation of bilateral investment treaties.
We were also working on various law reform initiatives. I remember, at that time, we were working, for example, with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on the redrafting of the legislation called the Societies Registration Act 1860. From what I remember—I don’t know if that’s been done—but those are the kinds of things we were working on.
I was already very familiar with government institutions in my work as a private lawyer with Amarchand. And that also was not a very common practice. But we had set this up in Amarchand with a very small team, just three people, and we were doing this kind of government public policy work.
I was already very familiar with government institutions, and what happened was that the government at that time was facing a lot of these international disputes. It was receiving notices from a lot of multinational companies, which had grievances and disputes with regard to various measures that the government—not just the Government of India, but also various state governments and local governments—had undertaken.
The people, the relevant powers that be in the government, were very familiar with our firm and very familiar with me and my work. They liked what they saw, and they felt that they needed someone not as an external—I mean, of course they would hire external lawyers—but they also needed someone in-house to manage these disputes and manage these treaty negotiations for them.
And they really liked my profile because at that time I was quite new, relatively new. And they needed someone who was a doer, who was a worker, who could actually sit and draft things. And they probably liked my passion for international law and international arbitration.
It’s not something that I actively sought, but it was something that I was offered—a chance. And this was, again, not very common even for the government, because as you know, in the government they don’t generally hire people from outside. I know there are some initiatives that have been taken in the last four or five years where they have hired people, but in 2013, there were virtually no people from outside being hired.
There were a few people hired as consultants. But I think those were people who were retired or had a very significant amount of experience—which in my case, there was not, because I had barely three or four years of experience. It was a very significant and groundbreaking initiative undertaken by the ministry at that time to hire an external, young professional, which was me at that time.
And they offered me the opportunity. I did not actively seek it. And that’s how I ended up there—because they were very familiar with my work, and I think they saw me as the right person who was going to be managing these cases for the government. And I managed all kinds of disputes with foreign investors generally, because the Ministry of Finance at that time—there was a body which has been abolished by now—but it was called the Foreign Investment Promotion Board.
And the Foreign Investment Promotion Board was responsible at that time for the entry and admission of all foreign investors in India. So I used to work with that cell, managing disputes with foreign investors—whether it was before domestic courts or whether it was an international dispute. And so that’s how I ended up there.
And again, I think that was a very relevant experience because, as I already said, in international arbitration—especially when you’re talking about investor-state arbitration—it’s literally called “investor-state.” One party is the investor; the other party is the state. Working for the state is a very, very relevant experience that any young professional can have, and I would encourage people to get that experience, especially if you’re keen in this field, because 50% of the dispute is about the state, and 50% is about the investor. You get a wide perspective about how state institutions work, what the policy priorities are—things like that. I gained that relevant experience and then used it to advance my career in the ways that I could at that time.
You have represented, as you said, many, many sovereign and private clients across the globe within arbitral work. In your view, what kind of procedures do you look forward to, or what kind of strategic restrictions have you seen while working with these kinds of forums in different jurisdictions? How do you see those differences and how your study in India and your study as an LLM student in the US has shaped your understanding and has helped you build such procedures, such strategic points to develop those drafts?
Because they are the only ones which we are privy to and we learn from those. So how have you worked towards these concepts and aspects to make sure that it is understandable by the layman I would say? Also how do you make sure that governments make it easier for the society, in any jurisdiction whatsoever you have worked with?
Each case, each country, as you said, it’s very different. I mean, obviously there are certain common international law rules and standards which all states have to abide by.
There are certain normative standards in any international treaty—whether it’s a bilateral treaty or a multilateral treaty—there are common standards that have to be followed, whether it’s by the state or by a foreign investor, whether it’s by an international institution or individuals.
That is there. But I think what I’ve learned is that each case and each dispute, in your capacity as a practitioner—probably if you practice dispute resolution in any form—you would’ve realized and understood that each case is different.
I think it’s about understanding and applying the specific facts of each case, because these are complex disputes. The moment a state is involved in a dispute, it gets more complicated than any other private dispute, because when you’re talking about a state—and let’s take the example of India, or we could take the example of any state, honestly, in my view—even a small state, like a small country, relatively small like Mauritius, because I’ve done a lot of cases for the Government of Mauritius, it’s an island. But the government in any country is a very large machinery. It’s probably one of the largest employers. It has many organs, it has many departments, ministries, and the government under international law is not just the central government, the federal government. Under international law, state responsibility arises not just for the actions of the government at the central level, but also at the state level, also at the municipal level. Any actor, any person who’s acting on behalf of the state or exercising governmental authority—the actions of such a person or entity—can give rise to state responsibility under international law.
So what you’re dealing with is a very large and complicated institutional mechanism. You have to understand how it works, and it works in different ways in each system, each country. Now, there are certain common threads. For example, one common thread that I’ve learned in all of these cases is that each government has an interest in protecting its policy space, protecting its regulatory space.
So, for example, one of the earliest cases that I did while I was here in Foley Hoag was a case for the government of— I mean, I was not directly involved in that case, but I know of that case. We did a case for the Government of Uruguay. And this case was a challenge by a very big international tobacco company called Philip Morris against the laws that were passed by the Government of Uruguay mandating that all cigarette packets should only have plain packaging—like you cannot have any advertisements or logos or any form of branding on a cigarette package that is out for sale in a supermarket or in a shop. And I think, for example, India also has some kind of similar laws, because you need to display on a very wide and big scale on any cigarette pack that it’s injurious for health. And you have all these kinds of gross photos and everything that show what cigarette smoking can lead to.
So foreign investors—not just in Uruguay, but I’m aware that in other countries around the world—also challenge those kinds of actions because they said that it is an attack on their intellectual property, because as manufacturers, they have a right to advertise and to display their brand on cigarette packets.
But the government’s position was that no, this is something that is undertaken in public interest. This is something that is undertaken to protect public health, because the government has an interest in protecting the health and environment of a wider degree of population. So the argument is that the public interest of the state in promoting health and promoting the non-use of cigarettes takes precedence over the intellectual property rights of a foreign investor. So that’s the tension. That was the tension in that dispute.
So, as I said, all governments have some sort of policy interest and regulatory interest that they want to protect. And whenever that clashes with the interest of the commercial—mostly commercial—interest of the foreign investor, that gives rise to disputes.
And that is the challenge that you have to understand in each case. Each case has different facts, and you have to first understand the facts—what are you dealing with? And then obviously, there are certain common standards and norms that you have to apply to those facts.I think that’s the challenge that I faced in every case or every dispute that I handled.
You are also admitted to the bar of Washington DC, New York, and New Delhi as well, which is in itself an achievement. How has this multi-jurisdictional licensing for yourself helped your legal practice? And how do you see that managing all of these demanding practices across different legal systems has helped you not only understand as a person how much you can influence public policy making, especially keeping in mind your strength in India and the way you are working internationally as well. We would request you to share some nuggets about those so that we can understand how one can plan their future the way you have done?
Firstly, let me take a step back. If you want to practice as a lawyer in the United States, you have to be admitted to the bar. So I don’t think it’s something very revolutionary. I mean, you have to pass an exam, which I think is a very tricky exam. I’m not gonna say that it’s a tough or a difficult exam—it’s quite tricky because it’s quite unlike what students of India must be used to taking in the form of exams.
It’s a very practically oriented exam, and it’s an exam that is focused more on your legal writing and your practical skills—bringing out your practical skills as a lawyer. So you have to pass that exam to be able to practice as a lawyer in the United States, like it is the case in India.
I passed that exam, which, as I said, was a very tricky and different kind of exam. And then, when you practice as an international arbitration lawyer, you practice in various jurisdictions—because it’s literally international. The dispute or the parties or the elements of the case could be from anywhere around the world, which is why I am also admitted in DC, because Washington, DC is a very relevant jurisdiction. We have the World Bank here, we have the DC Circuit Court and the DC District Court where a lot of these lawsuits by foreign investors are filed—whether it’s for the enforcement of awards or whether it’s for set-aside.
I think, as an international arbitration lawyer, you have to have a very international profile, and it always makes sense to be admitted and recognized in these various jurisdictions so that people know about your profile. That also helps with attracting more work, and people again know about you.
And so that’s why I’m not just admitted in DC, but for example, I’m also—I think it was mentioned in the introduction I’m a fellow of the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators. So again, what I try to do is cast a very wide net, because in terms of building my international profile, it’s very important that I am visible and present in various jurisdictions—and which is why I’m admitted.
Thank you so much. I know it’s very important to be admitted to the bar just to practice, but as you’ve said, it’s very tricky in the US unlike to what we are accustomed in India, there is a huge difference between the way we take this here and how it is there, so definitely it’s a super achievement. I want to say. Although it’s mandatory, it’s still a big achievement.
But I just wanted to add one more thing for people who may listen to this interview. I don’t know how many people would, but if you want to practice and come here in the US, one very, very important thing—as lawyers in India, at least from the time that I was studying—is that there’s a significant amount of difference in legal writing. I mean, the US is also a very common law-based system. Although it’s developed in a very unique way, India is still very rooted and very similar to how the English legal system has traditionally been. But the US is also a common law system.
So, understanding the laws here and understanding how institutions work is not an issue, but the practice of law—the practical aspect of practicing law—is very, very different. I do not think, and I do not recall from my time in India, whether it was as a student or a practitioner, devoting enough attention to and developing my skills as a writer.
But as opposed to that, in the US, writing is probably the most important skillset you will have as a lawyer. Of course, oral advocacy is important, and in India, I think we are very good oral advocates. We are brilliant orators, and we are good debaters. That is something that comes naturally.
But I don’t think there’s enough attention paid to legal writing. I think even the bar exam is a test of your legal writing skills, because I think there’s one day—from what I recall now, this is 10 years ago—but one day is devoted specifically to writing essays. And in India, I remember when I used to write essays in exams, it was all about filling the number of pages. You just write as many pages as you can in the shortest time possible and cite as many cases as you can. If you do that in the US, you’re most certainly going to fail. There is absolutely no doubt. The professor or the evaluator is not even going to read your paper.
They’re going to throw it away in the bin. So it’s not about filling the pages—it’s really about being succinct. Being precise and being concise is very, very important. There’s a famous quote that “brevity is the soul of writing.” I don’t know who this quote is attributed to, but this is very, very important.
Brevity is very important. In the US, you have to be able to write and convey things in a very simple, in a very layman sort of way. Unlike India, where we sometimes use these heavy proses, complex words, and very long paragraphs. That doesn’t sell. Even if you look at the judgments of the courts in India—sometimes we have Supreme Court judgments—I remember reading some of these constitutional law judgments of 500, 600 pages. I remember there was a case, a famous case called Indira Sawhney versus Union of India. This was a case on reservation. This was like some thousand pages. It was a very landmark case. But if you take a landmark case here in the US, written by the Supreme Court, it would no longer be more than 30, 40, 50 pages.
So, if you want to come here and practice as a lawyer, think about developing your writing skills. Think about being concise. Think about being precise. And do not think about just filling in the number of pages, because then you’re going to not just do poorly in your master’s or whatever other legal studies you pursue, but also not do well on your bar exam.
I think that’s a very important lesson that I learned—and I’m still learning—because it takes time to adapt between different legal systems.
Thank you for honestly highlighting the need to unlearn and relearn, especially around precision in legal writing. As we near the end of this conversation, I’d like to ask, how have you managed your work-life balance while engaging in high-intensity arbitration, academic writing, and speaking at global forums? What practices have helped you maintain your mental, physical, and professional well-being? Could you share your checklist with our learners?
That’s again a very relevant question. I think, especially in this age where there’s so much intense competition and there are obviously work pressures everywhere.
I think that’s something I don’t think I’ve mastered, but I’m happy to share what I do. I’m still a learner, and I think most of us are learners. So, one thing that I certainly have is the capacity—the mental capacity—I’ve developed to be able to switch off and on. When I’m working, I’m fully focused on working, but I do know that at some point during the day or during the week, I’m not going to be working. So I have the capacity to switch off and focus on my personal life. I have a family, I have kids—I have two young boys—which I think helps. I’m not saying it’s going to be the same for everyone, but people could have different motivations and things to do in their personal lives.
It could be a hobby, it could be anything, but I think it’s important to recognize that your life extends not just to your profession or your practice—it extends beyond that. There are important things beyond that. So I have the mental capacity to switch on and off, and it doesn’t take me a long time to do that.
I’m very, very flexible, and fortunately, I mean, work is very intense, but my colleagues and my employers are very flexible in the sense that I can switch off at any time. For example, on a day when I do not have a lot of work and I have sufficient downtime, I can completely switch off and focus on my family—take my kids out to play soccer or football, as you call it in India—or do something with them, or just read a book or watch a movie.
So I think I do that. The second thing I’ve very much learned—and I think this comes with age; for very young people, this may be difficult because you’re still trying to develop and establish yourself—but I think it’s very important to focus on your physical health, because we ignore that.
I certainly have learned in the last, I would say, three, four, five years to focus on my physical health. I at least take out like 30 to 40 minutes in the day—not much, because you don’t get more than that—to just focus on my physical health. I get up early in the morning, do some sort of physical activity, eat the right kind of food. I think it’s very important, because sometimes as lawyers—I remember, especially when I started my career—we used to eat all kinds of junk food. I have realized, I think these are very small things, may sound insignificant, but again, all of it is connected and affects your mental health and your physical health.
I think eating the right kind of food, getting enough sleep is very important. You will have days and you will have zones where you will not be able to do these kinds of things. For example, when I’m in a hearing—in arbitration, especially in international arbitration—hearings are held in a block.
It’s not like in India where you have a court date, and then you get another date two months later, and then you come back. Our hearings are like 5- or 10-day hearings, and they’re held in a block, in a consecutive period. So, for example, when I’m in a hearing or preparing for a hearing, there would be two or three weeks when I’m not able to do any of this.
When I’m not able to do any exercise, when I’m not focusing on eating the right kind of food, when I do not have any personal downtime. But that’s something that you have to accept, because it’s a very intense and demanding practice. And at the end of it, there is a reward.
When you finish your hearing, when you finish these intense periods, then you know that you will get a downtime. So, you focus on that downtime, you work hard during that period, and then you switch off once that is over. I think switching on and off, eating the right kind of food, physical activity, and recognizing that there is a life and there are important things to do beyond the law and beyond your practice—
I think these are the three or four things that I have recognized as important. That said, again, as I said, I’m still learning, and it’s not like I’m in peak physical health or anything, but mentally—I think also mentally—it’s very important. Sometimes mental health is ignored—I would say more in India than in the US.
It’s very important that if you have an issue or if you have a challenge, you speak to your peers, you speak to your colleagues. You don’t hesitate to speak out. If you’re facing a particular issue in your workplace, you speak to your family. Don’t keep it within yourself.
Don’t be lonely. I think go out and make friends, make acquaintances, and recognize that law is just—ultimately—it’s just a career, right? You know it’s going to get over at some point, and then you’re going to do something different. So find something different.
What inspired your decision to pursue law, especially coming from an Army background? Was there a particular experience or influence that sparked your interest in the legal profession and if not how did it develop?
Being from a Defence family, I grew up observing my father’s unwavering commitment to discipline, integrity, and justice—not just for himself, but for those around him. When I was in Class 12, he was posted in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, where he was entrusted with handling discipline and vigilance matters, including the oversight of legal cases. I often saw him engage with lawyers and Central Government Standing Counsels, and listening to those discussions sparked my initial interest in the legal field.
Another significant source of inspiration came from our family legacy. My great-grandfather was a barrister trained in England and was considered one of the most affluent and sought-after lawyers of his time. Stories of his work, often narrated by my father, filled me with pride and deepened my fascination with the legal profession. My father’s own experience in the Defence Forces had shown him the transformative power of law in shaping society. His belief in its impact and his encouragement played a crucial role in motivating me to consider a career in law.
Once in law school, I made it a point to seek practical exposure early on. I interned at various law firms across both corporate and litigation domains to gain a hands-on understanding of the profession. These experiences were eye-opening and shifted my perception of law from a purely academic subject to a dynamic and impactful vocation. I found particular excitement in applying legal principles to real-life situations and was deeply inspired by watching seasoned advocates present arguments in court.
This exposure transformed my attitude toward the field. I began to genuinely enjoy my studies and took part in moot court competitions, debates, and academic research with renewed enthusiasm. What started as a reluctant compromise gradually evolved into a meaningful and fulfilling calling.
Looking back, choosing law has been one of the most rewarding decisions of my life. If given the chance to choose again, I wouldn’t hesitate to take the same path.
You pursued your LL.M. in International Commercial and Corporate Laws at Queen Mary University of London, one of the leading programs in commercial laws and arbitration. How did that academic experience sharpen your legal reasoning, and how do you integrate that international perspective when handling domestic disputes in India?
Before pursuing an LL.M., I spent four years working in the dispute resolution team at Wadia Ghandy & Co., Delhi. During my tenure, I handled a diverse range of commercial and corporate matters, albeit from a dispute resolution perspective. Working on high-stake and complex cases made me acutely aware of a gap in my understanding of commercial and corporate law—my knowledge, while broad based, lacked the depth I aspired to achieve. This realization prompted my decision to pursue an LL.M., with the aim of gaining a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of this domain.
My longstanding interest in commercial and corporate law stems from a deep-rooted passion for commerce and business which further motivated me to pursue an LL.M. where I could experience the intersection of law and business, taught by some of the most respected professors in the field. In addition to enhancing my legal understanding, I was also drawn by the opportunity for international exposure and the chance to engage with a truly global legal perspective.
Undoubtedly, the LL.M. expanded my intellectual horizons and significantly deepened my understanding of international commercial laws. Exposure to an international legal framework offered a broader context and allowed for a more well-rounded grasp of the subject matter. My coursework included modules such as Mergers (a court-approved process in India), Acquisitions and Takeovers, International Commercial Law, Trial Advocacy, Regulation of Financial Markets, Conflict of Laws, and International Commercial Arbitration, among others. I had the privilege of learning from world-renowned professors like Mr. Stavros Brekoulakis and Ms. Rosa Lastra, both recognized authorities in their respective fields, as well as attending guest lectures delivered by distinguished legal luminaries.
What particularly stood out to me was the pedagogical approach of the LL.M. program. The teaching was rooted in exploring the “why” behind laws—their purpose, evolution, and the jurisprudential rationale—rather than simply focusing on the “what,” which tends to be the predominant style in Indian legal education. This method fosters greater intellectual flexibility and clarity, which I find immensely valuable, even when working on domestic legal matters, as the foundational legal principles often remain consistent.
To illustrate, consider the field of international arbitration, which has gained significant prominence in recent years and is now considered a cornerstone for lawyers dealing with cross-border disputes. The procedural frameworks of leading arbitral institutions as well as our own Arbitration Act are grounded in the UNCITRAL Model Law. Being taught by professors with direct experience in shaping and applying these frameworks offers invaluable insight—something that an LL.M. program uniquely provides and therefore applying this knowledge in the arbitrations which I am involved in proves to be highly beneficial.
With 9 years of post-qualification experience in dispute resolution and arbitration, what originally drew you to this field? What have been the most defining moments or lessons that shaped your professional approach within high-stakes litigation environments?
During law school, I explored a broad spectrum of internships across both corporate and litigation domains. These included stints under senior counsels, litigation lawyers, and prominent law firms. By the end of my academic journey, I found myself increasingly inclined towards litigation. However, I remained cautious about fully committing, having been advised by several mentors about the profession’s slow initial progression and modest early rewards.
In pursuit of clarity, I joined ASP Advocates—a full-service law firm led by my mentor, Mr. Abhishek Seth. He graciously offered me a legal position where I engaged in a balanced mix of litigation and corporate transactional work. My time at ASP proved instrumental in shaping my professional outlook. I found myself especially drawn to courtroom proceedings, legal drafting, and the application of legal principles to complex factual scenarios. These experiences sharpened my analytical thinking and compelled me to approach problems creatively and critically. After more than a year at ASP, I was certain that litigation was the path I wanted to pursue.
With a clearer sense of direction, I joined the Delhi office of Wadia Ghandy & Co., where I was exposed to a more demanding and dynamic litigation environment. I worked on a wide range of matters—from high-stakes disputes to those with relatively lower stakes. Interestingly, I came to appreciate that it is often the smaller matters that truly shape a lawyer’s core skills. While high-stake cases typically involve a team of lawyers—where one’s role may be limited—smaller matters offer greater responsibility, hands-on experience, and opportunities to build courtroom confidence. I strongly believe in regularly taking up such cases, along with engaging in pro bono work, both of which are essential for holistic professional growth.
That said, the value of working in high-stakes litigation cannot be overstated. At Wadia, I was fortunate to be involved in a landmark constitutional matter referred to a nine-judge bench. The case presented intricate questions of constitutional law and involved collaboration with some of the most respected senior advocates before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It demanded intense preparation—multiple strategy conferences, long hours of research, and detailed analysis of extensive judicial precedents. The experience, while intellectually demanding, was equally enriching. I learned through observation—how senior counsels structured their arguments, interpreted precedents, and framed issues strategically to serve the client’s interests. Beyond the legal learning, such work cultivates discipline, resilience, and a deep respect for the value of time—all vital qualities for a successful litigator.
As my tenure at Wadia progressed, I came to appreciate that every matter—regardless of its perceived importance—requires diligence, precision, and intellectual agility. Growth in litigation is rarely linear; it is the product of sustained effort, patience, and humility. The profession teaches you that it is better to take deliberate steps than to chase quick wins. Success lies in consistent performance, staying focused, and not being swayed by external comparisons. Ultimately, perseverance and commitment—not shortcuts—are the true markers of progress in this field.
Being dual-qualified as a Solicitor in England & Wales and an Advocate in India is a rare accomplishment. What motivated you to pursue this path, and how has it enhanced your ability to handle cross-border disputes or advise international clients? Preparing for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) significantly deepened my understanding of the law. The SQE not only enhances one’s grasp of Indian law but also equips practitioners with nuanced legal principles that, although rarely argued in Indian courts, are often favourably applied when effectively presented.
Following the completion of my LL.M., I was driven by a strong desire to further strengthen my legal acumen, especially in the context of local and general laws of England and Wales—such as criminal, property, and civil law—which have profoundly influenced the Indian legal system. These laws, having been extensively borrowed and embedded into our legal framework, are best understood through a comparative lens.
After conducting thorough research and engaging with qualified Solicitors, I was convinced that studying for the SQE would provide me with the foundational understanding of English law necessary to gain a richer, more structured comprehension of Indian law. While an LL.M. offers a broad, often international, legal perspective, the SQE is grounded in the practical and substantive law of England and Wales, which a Solicitor is expected to advise on across a wide range of practice areas. This distinction made the SQE particularly appealing as a rigorous yet rewarding route to legal excellence.
My SQE preparation has already had a tangible impact on my practice. At Economic Laws Practice, where I was involved in a variety of criminal and property cases, my enhanced understanding of legal principles has proven invaluable. Moreover, the knowledge gained has played a significant role in navigating a complex arbitration involving mortgage disputes, stamp duty issues, and interest-related legal principles.
You’ve advised clients across a wide spectrum, from defamation and regulatory enforcement to complex partnership disputes. Can you share an example of a particularly challenging or meaningful case and how you navigated it?
One matter I fondly recall – which was handled by me entirely independently – involves an engaging dispute in the realm of Intellectual Property Law, where I had the opportunity to defend a business conglomerate which was sued for alleged trademark infringement relating to the name of a restaurant it had established in India. The opposing party, a restaurant chain based in the United States, had engaged one of India’s leading IP law firms to represent them.
The crux of the dispute revolved around the use of the restaurant’s name. The opposing party not only sought its immediate discontinuation but also demanded an exorbitant amount in damages and compensation. However, once I presented our defense, it became evident that their claims were unfounded. My argument drew upon a range of statutory and common law principles, including the absence of cross-border reputation, lack of trademark advertisement or market penetration in India, the generic and descriptive nature of the name, and the failure to establish continuous use. These factors collectively undermined the credibility of their claims and formed a strong foundation for our defense.
Rather than escalating the matter further, the opposing party recognized the weakness of their position and initiated settlement discussions. What followed were protracted negotiations under the aegis of the Delhi High Court. In a rather unexpected outcome, the settlement concluded with my client receiving compensation—rather than paying it. In exchange, my client agreed to slightly modify the restaurant’s name, though the establishment eventually closed due to limited footfall.
As someone qualified in two legal systems, what are the biggest differences you’ve observed in dispute resolution culture between India and the UK?
While the Indian and UK legal systems share a common foundation rooted in common law principles, the administration of justice in the two countries differs significantly. In my experience, litigation in the UK is far more streamlined and structured to promote early resolution. Protracted legal battles, which are relatively common in India, are a rarity in the UK.
UK courts often actively encourage—and in some instances, require—parties to explore settlement options before proceeding to trial. This emphasis on alternative dispute resolution and various pre-action protocols helps to reduce the burden on the judiciary and results in more efficient case management. Even though pre-litigation mediation in India is mandatory for commercial matters, it is not strictly followed before proceeding for litigation on one ground or the other.
To put this into perspective, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom hears and decides approximately 80 to 120 cases per year. In contrast, the Supreme Court of India handles nearly 600 matters in a single day. Similarly, the lower courts in the UK typically list only two to three cases for hearing each day, allowing for focused and in-depth deliberation. In India, however, the dockets of lower courts are often overcrowded, with judges expected to handle a substantially higher volume of cases daily.
What guidance would you offer to young lawyers interested in building a career in dispute resolution and arbitration, particularly those exploring international qualifications or LL.M. programs abroad? What key skills or experiences should they prioritize?
This question has vexed many students in the past and therefore I will strive to answer this in a clear and concise manner. I firmly believe that pursuing an LL.M. can provide invaluable exposure, especially in fields with an international focus. However, it’s essential to approach this decision with clear and realistic expectations. An LL.M. should not be pursued solely as a pathway to employment abroad, as many students may face a harsh reality—the job market in foreign jurisdictions is often limited and highly competitive. The decision to pursue an LL.M. should be guided by a range of considerations—academic interests, professional goals, financial feasibility, and personal fulfilment. There’s no universal path, and what works for one may not suit another. Therefore, it’s important to evaluate all these factors carefully before taking the plunge.
An LL.M. can be especially beneficial in fields with a strong international focus such as international arbitration, cross-border commercial litigation, international trade law, transnational mergers and acquisitions, and similar areas. In such domains, the specialized knowledge and global perspective offered by an LL.M. can significantly enhance your career prospects.
In my experience, gaining some work experience before pursuing an LL.M. is highly advisable. There are two key reasons for this: first, with practical experience, you’re better positioned to understand and appreciate the academic content of the program. Second, if you intend to leverage your LL.M. for international job opportunities, prior work experience may place you in a stronger position. That said, I’m not suggesting waiting too long—after all, the energy, enthusiasm, and flexibility you have at 26 may not quite be the same at 36.
An LL.M. also offers an excellent platform for building a global professional network. It brings together individuals from diverse jurisdictions, offering the chance to forge meaningful connections and broaden your international legal perspective—both of which are valuable assets in today’s interconnected legal landscape.
While the LL.M. certainly plays a pivotal role in supplementing legal knowledge and providing a strong academic foundation, it is not a substitute for the essential traits of a successful lawyer—hard work, resilience, and sharp analytical skills. Rather, it serves as a powerful catalyst that enhances these qualities and prepares one for the evolving demands of modern legal practice.
Sir, you have extensive experience advising and representing clients across diverse legal domains. Looking back, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law? How did your integrated B.S.W., LL.B. degree from Gujarat National Law University shape your early understanding of the legal system and its role in society?
Firstly, thank you for inviting me to your platform to share my journey. From a young age, I took a keen interest in public affairs. I religiously read the newspapers and followed the news on television. The dynamics of politics, society and international affairs fascinated me. To me, the study of law seemed like the perfect pathway to enter public life. I felt, and was also advised, that the subjects one would study in law school would hold me in good stead in achieving my goals at that point in time. So, that is how I found myself in law school. It is a different matter that at present, I’m doing something slightly removed from public affairs in the way I understood it as a teenager. But then again, litigation also intersects with public affairs, so I am content doing it.
As far as choosing BSW as my stream in law school goes, it was entirely by happenstance. I was allotted GNLU after the third round of CLAT counselling, by which time seats in my preferred Bachelor of Arts stream were unavailable. Given that BSW also aligned with my career objectives at that point of time, I decided to take the plunge. There was some trepidation, given that we were the first batch that was being offered this course. However, looking back, I have no regrets, given that it exposed me to a range of experiences, especially in the course of field work in rural areas, that I would otherwise not have had.
In the early stages of your legal career, what were some of the key formative experiences or challenges that deepened your understanding of the law and helped shape the direction of your professional journey?
Before I joined law school, I had a vague idea that the practice of law is demanding. It was during my internships while in law school that I got my first glimpse of what it actually meant. I had the privilege of doing most of my internships in Delhi at the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. At first, I was star struck, seeing stalwarts of the legal profession in such close proximity. Over time, I saw them in action and gradually, began to recognise the mastery in their craft. Often, the fees charged by top lawyers get the spotlight, but what people do not see is the years of effort, hard-work, dedication and sacrifice that precedes that. Being exposed to that environment gave me a sense of what it takes to succeed in the profession. I, very reluctantly, came to terms with the fact that the conventional notions of work life balance would have to be foregone. After all, one has to work seven days a week for most of the year. Professional life is often fast paced and dynamic. It is certainly not for every personality type. At the same time, the profession also offers a sense of fulfilment and reward, provided the right effort is put in. Therefore, if one is able to accept the trade-offs, the profession can be deeply rewarding.
It was also during my internship phase and subsequent professional life that my understanding of the law truly started taking shape. It’s still an ongoing process. For me, it was essential to move beyond books and see the law in action to truly internalise it.
What was your motivation behind taking the England & Wales Solicitor Qualification Exam (“SQE”)? How has your dual qualification influenced your approach to your practice area?
My decision to prepare for the SQE was guided by multiple factors. Primarily, I believed that since the Indian legal system is largely derived from English law and is relevant to some extent in shaping Indian jurisprudence, pursuing it would be a good idea. The area of English law that I was keenest on learning was civil commercial law, which is especially relevant to my practice area. It has a rich jurisprudence dating back almost three centuries and continues to be the preferred legal system to govern a range of commercial contracts. A hallmark of English law is that it has adapted itself over time to facilitate commerce by balancing predictability and flexibility. That is why it continues to be referred to for guidance across the Common Law world. I was eager to learn about its development in greater detail.
Preparing for the exam was a unique experience, offering its share of excitement and overwhelm. It felt like going through law school again with the advantage of some professional experience, which made grasping concepts easier. The fact that Indian law aligns with English law in many aspects also helped. For me, being exposed to facets of civil commercial law and civil procedure were deeply enriching. It was remarkable to see the level of detail with which the Civil Procedure Rules along with the practice directions dealt with. Another subject which fascinated me was Equity and Trusts. It did not occupy a prominent position in Indian law school syllabi at our time. However, once I entered the profession, I understood the importance of this body of law, especially to my practice area.
On the whole, studying for the SQE certainly broadened my perspective on my legal practice, which I try to bring to bear in my work. One example that comes to mind is the guidance on steps to be taken and best practices at different stages of a litigation (from pre-claim to execution) are pieces which I have sought to incorporate into my practice.
You’ve represented and advised clients in and relating to both, domestic and international arbitrations. What are your thoughts on the evolution of the arbitration landscape in India and where it stands in the international landscape?
One of the most important considerations while incorporating arbitration clauses in contracts is the choice of seat, given its ramifications on the conduct of the arbitration and enforceability of the award. While choosing a seat, parties would essentially look at whether the legal framework, predisposition of courts and the general structure of the legal system is favourable to aiding arbitration, from the interim measures stage to enforcement of the award. In the last 15 years, there has been a concerted effort in India to encourage arbitration, be it through judicial decisions or legislative change. Pain points have sought to be resolved. The general trend has been positive. After all, it must be recognised that to attract and encourage trade and commerce, India needs to provide an effective and efficient dispute resolution mechanism to businesses. Arbitration provides a potential answer to this. However, one hurdle that is yet to be overcome entirely are the delays in courts processes, right from appointment of arbitrators to hearing challenges to awards. This is primarily a consequence of the heavy roster of Indian judges. This structural bottleneck would have to be addressed if India is to compete as a hub of international arbitration. Here again, the general trajectory has been in the right direction. We must also recognise that the effect of changes sought to be made will not appear overnight. We can certainly be hopeful that in the coming decade, India will occupy a more prominent role in the international arbitration landscape.
As a Principal Associate in Khaitan & Co’s dispute resolution practice, you’ve dealt with complex matters across insolvency, arbitration, and constitutional litigation. Can you please talk about some of the key strategic and legal insights from your experience?
Without going into the specifics of matters, one of the significant learnings from my professional life is that no matter how good or bad a client’s case might appear to be, its ultimate outcome is far from certain. Therefore, while humility is the order of the day in all situations, it assumes even more importance when your client appears to be on a strong footing. One must never let their guards down.
On the other hand, even when your client does not appear to have the best of cases, earnest effort can get your client a result favourable to it in the circumstances. Essentially, the outcome of a case is not always black and white in terms of winning or losing. There are a range of outcomes in between which can be of tremendous help to clients. It is, therefore, important to understand the Client’s needs and devise strategy accordingly. While the Client should be given an accurate account of the merits of their case, it should not influence how you defend the case.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, lawyers must remember that they are officers of the court and they have a responsibility to assist the court in arriving at the right decision. Therefore, it is important to strike a balance between the responsibilities towards your client and the court.
Also, while litigation strategy is essential, it has to be balanced with thinking on the feet. We operate in a dynamic environment, where evolving circumstances might require a complete reorientation of strategy. Therefore, it is important to develop the muscle to deal with such changes.
With your interest in public policy and sports governance, what institutional or regulatory reforms do you believe are most needed in India’s sports ecosystem? Are there specific areas where legal intervention could drive meaningful change?
The need of the hour is to ensure good governance of sports governing bodies (“SGBs”) so that the interest of athletes is at the forefront. A report by the Indian Express earlier this year highlighted that 770 sports-related litigations pending in courts across India, out of which more than 200 related to governance of the SGBs. This means that valuable energy and finances that could have been used to support athletes is being diverted towards other causes. Ensuring that SGBs get their houses in order is essential so that athletes can receive the support they need and deserve. There are numerous accounts of athletes having to fight against the system to achieve their goals. If we are to become a sporting nation, reform of SGBs is fundamental.
The Union Government has taken several steps in the right direction. The Draft National Sports Governance Bill, 2024 which was published for public comments in October 2024, offers some hope. The Minister for Youth and Sports Affairs recently announced measures to foster more accountability from National Sports Federations. However, it must be remembered that sport is a State List subject under the Constitution. Therefore, the onus is on states to ensure good governance of SGBs at the State and District level. Orissa has shown the way in this regard. Moreover, it is critical to understand that to build India’s sporting credentials, we cannot look at the government for all our solutions. Private sector involvement and investment has to be facilitated across sports. For that to happen, a favourable sporting ecosystem conducive to investment has to be created, which takes us back to reform of SGBs. Private players will be wary of supporting sports which are not well administered. On the other hand, if the sport is being administered well, it will naturally attract private sector support. Rugby India is a case in point. Despite not being a major sport in India, it has managed to secure private sector funding because it is well governed and is more likely to achieve its targets, however modest they may be, than a sport which is more prominent but ill-administered.
What advice would you offer to young lawyers aspiring to work in the dispute resolution practice in a law firm? Were there any particular habits, values, or resources that played a significant role in your own professional development?
In a law firm, you don two hats- one of a lawyer and the other of a businessman. The latter does not get highlighted enough. As a junior, you are so engrossed in the minutiae of the legal side that the business side gets neglected. Before you know it, you are eligible for partnership and to stake your claim, you must show your business building credentials. It is then that you truly start focusing on it. While it is certainly true that the initial phase of your career should be spent honing your craft, some time should also be devoted to learning the business of law. As you move up the ladder, the amount of time you devote to it would necessarily need to go up. So, my advice to those aspiring to work in law firms would be to start learning the business of law early in your career so that you don’t have to endure baptism by fire.
As far as values go, the ones that have served me best are responsiveness and reliability, be it with colleagues, clients or even the Bench. These are fundamental to success in a service industry like ours.
To develop professionally, I have tried to push myself out of my comfort zone by embarking on educational endeavours frequently. Time is always a constraint but I have never let that be an excuse.
Finally, as lawyers, it is important to remain updated about developments in my practice area. It is also essential to anticipate areas where I could bring my professional skills to bear in the future, so that I can position myself accordingly. To this end, I try and read about developments and trends within and outside the law on a daily basis. I immensely enjoy reading and learning new things. I love that I’m able to do that in this profession.
Given the high-pressure nature of litigation and arbitration, how do you maintain a healthy work-life balance? Are there specific practices, routines, or philosophies that help you stay grounded, focused, and resilient in your career?
As I said before, to work in the law, you have to forego conventional notions of work-life balance. However, that does not need to come at the cost of spending time with your family and yourself. In fact, both are basic human needs. Even within this system, one can find a way to give them the time they deserve. All it requires is conscious effort and awareness. Being particular with your schedule helps. It goes without saying that support from family is also necessary in adjusting to this way of life.
It is important to underline the importance of taking care of one’s physical and mental health so that you are able to be the best version of yourself every day. It is very easy to go off the rails, given the demanding work environment. I try and fit in 3-4 days of physical activity every week. To regulate my emotions and nervous system, I have incorporated breath work into my routine. The third area which I try to focus on is the food I eat. I love eating but to operate optimally, I avoid eating foods that inhibit my mental functioning. I do indulge myself from time to time but not on a regular basis.
Having a background in Business Economics, what inspired you to pursue a career in law? How was your experience during law school, and how did it shape your professional journey?
Law was not my first choice, nor was it the obvious path after studying Economics and Finance. My initial academic inclination was towards Finance, and I pursued it earnestly, even completing a Master’s degree. However, during my undergraduate years, I was introduced to Business Law and Company Law, subjects that I unexpectedly found both engaging and intellectually stimulating. I excelled in them, even receiving an award for my performance, which planted the first seed of curiosity about the law. That curiosity remained dormant until a friend encouraged me to attempt the Delhi University LLB entrance exam. Securing admission to the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law felt like an opportunity worth exploring, and once immersed in the study of law, I realized it was where I truly belonged.
Campus Law Centre was an eye-opening experience. Unlike my previous academic settings, it was a melting pot of individuals from different backgrounds, each with unique motivations – some preparing for civil services, others drawn to political or judicial service roles. Few, like me, were focused on litigation and active practice. Studying law in this environment expanded my perspective, making me more attuned to the socio-political landscape and the practical realities of the legal profession. It wasn’t just about learning the law from textbooks; some of the most insightful debates happened informally, in the ‘Bamboo Garden’ next to the canteen.
Beyond academics, law school imparted valuable lessons that have remained with me. It taught me the importance of being approachable to people from diverse backgrounds and recognizing that intelligence is not determined by fluency in English, especially in courts across the country where different languages are used for argument. It also deepened my understanding of the intricate relationship between law and the broader socio-political landscape. Above all, it reinforced the importance of perseverance, a quality that continues to guide me in my legal career.
You completed your Masters at Columbia Law School, New York. What motivated you to choose Columbia Law over other institutions, and how has your experience there influenced your career? How has this degree been advantageous in your legal practice?
I chose Columbia Law School for its strong focus on international arbitration and commercial law, fields I was keen to specialize in. Columbia’s arbitration faculty is among the best in the world, led by Professor George A. Bermann, Director of the Centre for International Commercial & Investment Arbitration, alongside Professors Kabir Duggal and Robert Smit. Their presence attracts leading professionals and practitioners to engage with students through guest lectures and lunchtime seminars, making Columbia a hub for arbitration discourse. The fact that Columbia is located in New York was an added advantage. The city’s vibrant legal ecosystem offers unparalleled exposure, from regular events at top-tier law firms to seminars and workshops organized by the NY City Bar and State Bar associations. Columbia Arbitration Day is another standout event, bringing together global stalwarts in arbitration to discuss the latest developments in the field.
Studying at Columbia reshaped how I approached the law. The learning environment encouraged critical thinking, collaboration, and exposure to global perspectives. With classmates from over 50 countries, discussions went beyond textbooks, offering insights into different legal systems and approaches. The faculty also made a lasting impact. For example, Professor Paul Shechtman, who taught Evidence and Criminal Adjudication, often used courtroom scenes from movies like ‘A Few Good Men’ and ‘12 Angry Men’ to explain legal principles, making learning engaging and memorable.
A key highlight was working as a Research Assistant to Professor Bermann, contributing to his book ‘Twilight Issues in International Arbitration’. This experience deepened my understanding of arbitration and reinforced the advantage of pursuing an LLM after gaining work experience. Unlike traditional academic programs, an LLM at Columbia is not about competition but personal and professional growth.
The degree has been invaluable in my legal practice, particularly in refining my approach to complex disputes and arbitration. It has also given me access to leading legal professionals across the globe. With cross-border transactions and disputes becoming increasingly common, it is essential to have access to legal knowledge that transcends jurisdictions. Having friends and colleagues working across different legal systems has been incredibly beneficial. For instance, very recently, in an international arbitration involving U.S. laws and a Delaware corporation, a corporate lawyer and dear friend from Columbia, well-versed in those laws, helped me strategize my approach to the dispute. This is just one of many such instances. Additionally, referral work from friends abroad has been an added bonus. I often serve as their point of contact in India, which has been mutually beneficial.
Most importantly, the degree has given me credibility, which is invaluable in my profession. With so many lawyers in the country offering, on paper, similar skillsets, the LLM and a foreign-bar qualification has helped me differentiate myself. It has ensured that clients view me in a different light, recognizing the value I bring to the table. In a competitive market, that distinction is crucial.
At J. Sagar Associates, you worked on a diverse range of matters, including constitutional law, corporate governance, insolvency etc. How did working across such varied legal domains shape your understanding as a lawyer? What were the experiences that have stuck by you?
JSA was my first job, and like any young lawyer, I was just learning the ropes. What made the experience truly enriching was the diversity of matters I was exposed to across various forums, including the Supreme Court of India. Unlike many large firms where junior associates rarely see the inside of a courtroom, JSA had a strong culture of ensuring its lawyers attended court regularly. This early exposure to court craft played a significant role in shaping my understanding of litigation.
Working on high-stakes, complex disputes meant that research was at the heart of everything we did. As juniors, we were expected to delve deep into legal principles, dissect arguments, and anticipate counterpoints. This process instilled in me the discipline of extensive reading, a habit that continues to serve me well. Another key advantage of being at a top-tier firm was the opportunity to interact with some of the finest Senior Advocates in the country. Sitting in case conferences with them, observing how they analysed a brief, structured their arguments, and approached strategy was an invaluable learning experience.
I was also fortunate to work under a mentor who was exceptional in corporate and contract law. His insistence on first-principles thinking kept me on my toes. I had to be thoroughly prepared before even approaching him for a discussion. This ensured that I developed a strong foundation in legal reasoning and analytical skills early on.
JSA’s marquee clients in the construction and banking sectors further honed my expertise in arbitration and financial law. Many of these cases laid the groundwork for my later specialization in insolvency and arbitration. The firm’s rigorous environment, 100+ hour weeks, working weekends, and months without a holiday was undeniably demanding. But it taught me the value of perseverance, attention to detail, and consistency – qualities that are indispensable for success in the legal profession.
As a Research Assistant at Columbia Law School, you contributed to drafting chapters for the book Twilight Issues in International Arbitration. How did this research experience deepen your understanding of international arbitration, and how have you applied these insights in your own practice?
Working with Professor George A. Bermann on ‘Twilight Issues in International Arbitration’ was an incredible learning experience. Every year, Professor Bermann takes on several research assistants, but only a select few get the opportunity to contribute to major projects like this book. I was fortunate to be among those chosen. The book was a four-year project, and during my time at Columbia, I had the privilege of assisting for a year alongside five other students.
Before this, I had read about international commercial arbitration but had little exposure to twilight issues. These are matters that lack clear legal authority, leaving tribunals to rely on ‘soft law’, general principles, or comparative approaches. Researching topics such as corruption, res judicata, iura novit curia, collateral estoppel, lis pendens, costs, and ethics helped me understand how arbitration functions beyond codified law. This experience also gave me a nuanced perspective on how different jurisdictions approach these unsettled issues and whether international standards are emerging.
One of the most unique aspects of the research was our access (albeit limited access), granted with Professor Bermann’s approval, to hundreds of confidential arbitral awards from the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Studying these awards provided rare insight into how tribunals across different legal traditions navigate twilight issues. It also deepened my understanding of international arbitration from a common law perspective, particularly the reasoning processes of U.S. based tribunals.
In my practice, this exposure has been invaluable. Many complex arbitrations involve legal grey areas, and my research experience has helped me anticipate how tribunals might handle such issues. Additionally, the ability to analyse arbitration decisions critically, especially in the absence of binding precedent, has shaped the way I strategize arguments.
While at IndusLaw, you represented clients in ad-hoc and institutional arbitrations, both domestic and international. How do you view the Indian arbitration framework in comparison to international arbitration mechanisms, and what do you think the future holds for arbitration in India?
At IndusLaw, I had the opportunity to work on a range of high-stakes arbitrations, including leading a major SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore. Collaborating with top global legal professionals and law firms reinforced my understanding of international arbitration frameworks and best practices.
While India has made strides in arbitration, it remains far from being a global hub. Judicial intervention, procedural rigidity, and the tendency to appoint retired judges often make arbitration as slow and expensive as court litigation. The frequent challenge of arbitral decisions in courts undermines the efficiency arbitration is meant to provide. Alarmingly, some public sector entities are even moving away from arbitration in their contracts.
The outlook is not entirely bleak. Both the government and the private sector are advocating for institutional arbitration, businesses are increasingly prioritizing settlements, and the rise in foreign investments is leading to adoption of more institutional arbitration clauses. For arbitration to progress meaningfully, young practitioners must refine their expertise through advanced education, specialized training, and practical experience. Additionally, India needs to foster a pool of specialist arbitrators with a deep understanding of modern commercial disputes, rather than relying predominantly on retired judges. With increasing cross-border transactions, Indian arbitration cannot function in isolation. It must align with international best practices to remain competitive and truly serve its intended purpose of efficient and effective dispute resolution.
What inspired you to establish Vidvat Legal? Leading complex litigation and arbitration matters across various forums, could you share some of the most challenging and impactful cases you’ve handled since founding your firm? What strategies do you adopt to manage high-stakes disputes and ensure a successful outcome for your clients?
Starting Vidvat Legal was a conscious decision driven by the need to push my boundaries as a lawyer. After years in top-tier firms, I had gained extensive experience handling high-stakes matters, honing research and drafting skills, and learning to navigate complex disputes. But I wanted to go beyond just being a skilled practitioner. I needed to understand the business side of law i.e., how to generate and retain clients, build long-term relationships, and create tangible value for those I represent. Equally important was the challenge of operating independently, without the built-in support systems of a large firm. Independence has also allowed me to explore areas I had never ventured into before, such as trust law, employment law, land law and constitutional matters.
One of the more challenging cases I handled after founding Vidvat Legal was representing a Sequoia-funded startup (operating in over 60 countries) in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore. The dispute, against a London-based customer, centred on claims for service fees, resource costs, and setup charges under the company’s master services agreement. The case’s multi-jurisdictional nature required navigating international arbitration frameworks and foreign contract laws. Midway through the proceedings, I led settlement negotiations and secured a favourable resolution of over USD 200,000. After the matter was resolved, I worked closely with the client to strengthen their master services agreement and localize employment contracts, ensuring they were more robust and better equipped to prevent similar disputes in the future.
Another impactful matter was representing (pro-bono) a batch of Delhi University students whose first-year examination results, conducted during COVID, had not been declared even as they approached their final year. The delay had severe consequences, preventing them from applying for higher studies and job opportunities. With college officials unable to resolve the issue, I studied university byelaws, and education guidelines to build a strong case. After petitioning the university, the matter gained traction, and during the pendency of the case, DU finally released the students’ grades, providing them the relief they had been waiting for.
Success in high-stakes disputes is not just about winning but about managing client expectations and mitigating risks. My approach is simple. Master the facts, conduct rigorous research to ensure well-founded arguments, and draft pleadings that are clear, concise, and structured for ease of comprehension. Keeping clients engaged with timely updates and feedback is crucial. In hearings, I focus on being articulate, respectful to the bench and opposing counsel, and ensuring that every argument serves a strategic purpose.
With your admission to practice in both India and New York, and now serving as an Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court of India, how do you navigate the differences between the legal systems of these two jurisdictions? How has practicing in both countries shaped your approach to legal matters, and what challenges or advantages have you experienced in doing so?
I do not actively practice New York law, but my understanding of it plays a crucial role in international disputes, especially those governed by common law principles. While the procedural aspects of different jurisdictions vary, at its core, law is about logical reasoning. Beyond the specific wording of statutes, common law principles remain largely consistent and are applied in similar ways by courts in India and abroad. Rather than navigating stark differences, my experience in both systems complements my practice and allows me to approach disputes with a broader perspective, particularly in cross-border matters.
Your legal expertise spans a broad array of fields, which is commendable. What advice would you offer young lawyers who aspire to build a diverse and successful legal career like yours? What skills, qualities, and mindset do you think are essential to thrive in today’s competitive and multifaceted legal environment?
Building a diverse and successful legal career begins with a strong foundation. While specialization has its advantages, early exposure to different practice areas provides a broader understanding of the legal landscape and equips you to handle complex, multi-faceted matters. The ability to think critically and apply legal principles across domains is invaluable, allowing you to refine your focus over time based on your strengths and interests. Success in law goes beyond knowledge of statutes and precedents. It requires a problem-solving mindset, adaptability, and a commitment to continuous learning. In a field shaped by evolving regulations and judicial trends, those who stand out are not just those who work hard but those who work smart by seeking mentors, building strong professional relationships, and finding ways to distinguish themselves in a competitive environment.
The reality of the profession is that it is not always a level playing field. Opportunities do not come equally to everyone, whether in securing internships, landing jobs, receiving promotions, or even in the way clients and courts perceive you. Merit is important, but it is not always enough on its own. Recognizing this early and focusing on positioning yourself strategically will help you navigate these challenges more effectively.
Commitment to the profession often comes at the expense of personal time, with long hours and urgent matters disrupting plans. Flexibility and resilience are necessary to thrive in this demanding environment. Despite the challenges, the intellectual stimulation, career growth, and the impact you can create make the sacrifices worthwhile. If you remain dedicated, disciplined, and focused, the legal profession will offer immense rewards in the long run.
Managing a demanding legal career while maintaining personal well-being is undoubtedly a challenge. How do you manage to strike a balance between your professional responsibilities and personal life, and what strategies do you use to ensure both aspects are in harmony?
Balancing a demanding legal career with personal well-being is an ongoing challenge, and I would not say I have mastered it yet. It is a constant effort, with some days feeling overwhelming and others more manageable. There is no perfect formula, but I have learned to prioritize based on impact. When it comes to case preparation or any matter that directly affects a client, I ensure that I dedicate the necessary time and focus. However, when it is about networking or attending outreach events, I make a conscious effort to prioritize my personal life, spending time with family and friends.
Time with family is something I deeply value, and I make it a point to take breaks whenever possible to step away from work and be with those who matter most. Even during busy periods, I find small ways to stay connected. For instance, while driving, I use the time to catch up with friends and family over calls, making the most of the uninterrupted hours in traffic. Striking a balance is not easy, but being intentional about how I spend my time helps ensure that both my professional commitments and personal well-being receive the attention they deserve.
Was there any particular experience or realization that solidified your commitment to pursue a legal career?
Let’s just say that there have been moments in my life as well as in the lives of the people I hold closest to me where we could have benefited from having someone advocate for us.
After completing your law degree, you went on to pursue a Master’s at The University of Edinburgh, a highly respected institution. Could you share some insights from your time there and elaborate on why you chose this particular university over others? Additionally, being a recipient of both the University of Edinburgh’s International Masters Scholarship and the R.D. Sethna Memorial Trust Scholarship is an impressive achievement. How did these scholarships impact your academic journey?
I was considering two schools, Columbia and the University of Edinburgh. Both their LLM programs in IPR were being run by people who I thought were at the forefront of Copyright law, Jane Ginsburg and Charlotte Walde respectively.
I opted for the Edinburgh LLM program because I was granted the University’s scholarship for India which together with the RD Sethna scholarship covered tuition. At the time my father who is a veteran of the Armed Forces had just retired from service and honestly without the assistance from these scholarships further studies would not have been possible at all.
You were a law clerk in the Bombay High Court. What are your takeaways from your clerkship at the Bombay High Court?
My clerkship period taught me how important it is to have good people in high office. Ultimately, the justice delivery system is a human agency and as a law clerk in a High Court you will see how immense and immediate an impact it has on the lives of people.
After your Masters, you joined the chambers of Senior Advocate Dinyar D. Madon. Describe chamber life and how that period influenced your practice?
I remember as if it were yesterday walking into Mr. Madon’s Chambers with just my C.V. in hand – no appointment and no references. It was a few days before Courts were to resume after the Diwali vacations and in Mr. Madon walked with his assistant Sanjay bhai carrying his freshly dry cleaned monkey jacket and gown. While I waited for an opportunity to speak with him, I had my first interaction with Cyrus Ardeshir (now himself a Sr. Advocate), his most senior junior at that time. I recall Cyrus stopping the dictation of a draft and speaking to me for a good five to ten minutes. I didn’t know it at the time but I think now that was ‘the interview’. When I finally had a meeting with Mr. Madon, it was less than a minute and Mr. Madon told me he couldn’t take me in because chambers was full, he told me he had just taken on two more juniors just days before. I asked him to keep my C.V. but resigned myself to this being another rejection. In all, I was probably rejected by 20 chambers across the city most refusing to even see me.
A couple of days later, however, I got a call from Mr. Madon asking me to join from coming Monday. I couldn’t believe it, I later learned it was Cyrus putting in a good word for me that convinced Mr. Madon. I treat that moment as the first door that had been opened for me in the profession, every opportunity that I have had thereafter could only have been possible because Mr. Madon and Cyrus took a chance on a young stranger. There was no reason for Mr. Madon to call me back, I was a nobody and had no references to speak on my behalf. But this is who he is at his core, someone who helps. I wish more people knew this about him he is immensely charitable.
I know a lot of people probably think Mr. Madon’s chamber is too strict or old fashioned. Chambers had a strictly ‘no stubble’ policy. Interns have been sent away from work for breaking this rule. If we were leaving court for chambers it was bands off and ties on. Ties were mandatory in chambers. I wish I could tell you this was difficult for me, but I come from a very disciplined background, my father is a veteran, his brothers are veterans and his father was a veteran. My grandfather on my mother’s side was also a veteran. I loved it! In a lighter vein being clean shaven came easy for someone who till this day can’t grow a proper beard, so I may have gotten away with just shaving every other day.
I think I was very fortunate to join Mr. Madon at that particular phase of his career. He was absolutely flooded with work and would have anywhere between 20 to 40 matters on board on any given day. It was not unusual for evenings to have as many as 10 briefings. Then there was also Cyrus’s work. The juniors in Mr. Madon’s chamber shared a common work area and I think I learned how to draft just by listening to Cyrus dictate his drafts. I probably found my regular briefing attorneys through Cyrus as well who would ask me to fill in if he couldn’t it make it for a matter. All in all the exposure was immense. Chambers had a great library managed by Jairam a savant at whom you could literally throw any random proposition and within minutes he would just magically show up with the citation or source you needed.
If you haven’t worked with Mr. Madon, let me tell you he reads vertically and not horizontally and he does this super-fast. Most people think he is just flicking pages until he corrects them about the contents of an Affidavit or pleading. Working with him caused you to develop “coping” or “keep up” abilities that benefit me till this day. For me initially, this meant working very long hours and so I was entrusted with the keys for chambers. I locked up almost every night I was at his chambers. I think my key takeaway however from my period in Chambers was how important it was to develop your first principles. These principles if readily at your disposal are definitive of the fate of a proceeding and obviously also your career.
The immense exposure at chambers helped me realise my own strengths, weaknesses and interests. Just being associated with chambers gave me my first opportunities as an arbitrator. Judges knew that I was from his chamber and that everyone from his chambers had both ability and integrity the most important attributes of an arbitrator.
With over 50 trials and a breadth of experience across multiple legal domains, what advice would you offer to young lawyers aspiring to develop a diverse practice similar to yours? Which specific skills or qualities do you believe are essential for success in such a competitive and multifaceted field?
Trial advocacy is story telling. It is the skill of bringing out what really happened. This principle is true no matter the nature of the dispute. Once you understand this things start falling in place. The skills required are actually fairly achievable, I do not personally subscribe to the belief that this is any form of mysterious craft or skill. The ideal trial lawyer builds an understanding of how things should have been or were intended to be and works out the anomalies in the case before them from this understanding. A good trial lawyer should also work on building their intuitive powers, because understanding who they are examining and how those persons think and behave is vital. They will accordingly do well to learn to identify ‘tells’, traits and patters in people as this will help them in any trial.
In handling intricate trademark infringement and passing-off cases, you demonstrated remarkable expertise. Can you walk us through your approach in addressing complex issues like packaging similarity, particularly in the context of pharmaceutical products?
In these kind of cases, one is really presenting to the Court the likely perceptions of an imperfect and average human being as grounds for granting or refusing relief. Understanding this standard is definitive of success in this area of law.
Tell us something about the journey involved in setting up your own chambers and your decision to specialise in ADR?
I think setting up one’s independent chambers is fairly universal in the city of Mumbai. The more difficult question is probably the decision to specialise. This requires both introspection and courage. For me mediation and arbitrations fit well into my core skill sets. I think I am a good listener, I actually enjoy listening to people more than I do speaking. I love writing and it is something I think I do well. Over time I think I have developed a very distinct identity in my writing style as well. Writing is the most core ability an arbitrator can possess. Ultimately the entire arbitration is about the arbitrator’s award/order and if this output is lacking the process is meaningless. The fact that the Supreme Court has a constitutional bench mulling over the need for adapting an award is testimony to the importance of a well written award.
Balancing a successful legal career with personal life is undoubtedly challenging. How do you maintain this equilibrium? What strategies or routines do you employ to ensure both your professional commitments and personal well-being are well-managed, especially considering the demanding nature of your career?
I wish I could tell you I have the perfect life. But that would be a lie. I have always wanted to be a “sports and extracurricular dad”. My most recurring dream is me teaching or watching my child learn the sport of their choice. But that dream hasn’t worked out for me.
That failing aside, I do have very many interests outside of law and I have no hesitation or shame in saying I am not a slave to the profession. I do not believe law is a jealous mistress. Because I know lawyers benefit from knowing things outside of law! I actively engage with a network of friends outside of the profession. I am always curious to know from them how their businesses’ work and how they deal with variable situations as and when those may arise in their respective fields. This network of friends has given me unimaginable insight into varied areas of commerce and trade. One I could never have obtained from just reading briefs or limiting my interactions to just other lawyers.
I am an avid mountaineer and have done several expeditions and treks both solo and through organised treks. My earliest memories are of camping in the Himalayas with my father of learning to pitch a tent probably at the age most kids learn to tie their shoes. I am extremely fond of landscape and architectural photography and have had my photographs featured in exhibitions around the world.
Over the last 7 years I have actively invested in learning and becoming proficient in Olympic weightlifting and powerlifting. I have done two accreditation courses as well, though I have no intention of teaching anyone other than myself. This activity in particular is what keeps my health both mental and physical well managed. I wish more lawyers understood the benefits of strength training. It is literally a lifesaving and life enhancing activity. I think most of the stresses lawyers encounter and even the insecurities lawyers have about themselves would disappear if they explored a more healthy life. I have also studied nutrition and follow a good sustainable diet and have a very healthy relation with food.
But the number one thing that brings me peace and happiness is spending the weekend with my parents. Every night before I sleep I thank god for my parents, they are truly remarkable people who have overcome such tremendous odds to become extremely well respected and loved people within their community. My father is a renowned oncologist and my mother is an adored educator. Trust me if you knew the circumstances they came from this shouldn’t have been possible. There is pure magic in their spirit. It is such a fortuitous conspiracy that they are my guides in this world. They gave me every opportunity they did not themselves have.
As a sole arbitrator in more than 100 arbitral proceedings and a member of several prestigious panels, including those of HKIAC, SIAC, and ADGM, how do you envision the future of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in India, particularly in relation to complex commercial disputes? How do you see the evolution of ADR in comparison to global institutions?
I see ADR as the only hope for private dispute resolution in India. The court system is incapable of meeting India’s needs to resolve private disputes efficiently. The court system should in my opinion be limited to a scrutiny of citizen-state actions. The proposed introduction of arbitration appellate tribunals and recognition of emergency arbitrators is a great step towards developing an appropriate eco-system for private dispute resolution. What also needs to be done is to provide a separate execution mechanism and robust measures such as contempt and criminal prosecution against bad actors, both users, lawyers and arbitrators functioning within this private dispute eco-system.
Having successfully navigated the Bar Standards Board application process in the U.K. and being granted exemptions based on your experience, how has this international qualification enhanced your legal practice both in India and the U.K.? Furthermore, how has your accreditation as a mediator influenced your dispute resolution strategies and the way you approach conflict in your legal career?
Becoming a barrister was an ambition I had to put aside for a while as I had to return home after my Masters for personal reasons. For fate to conspire and to later be made a barrister through the accelerated process with full exemptions from all academic and vocational training components was a miracle. Being called to bar at Lincoln’s Inn by none other than the Master of the Rolls was a surreal moment one that is etched in my memory and one I will cherish forever. Being dual qualified now allows me to not only receive instructions as counsel in multiple jurisdictions but to also act as arbitrator in disputes where English law applies.
My decision to undergo formal mediation training was born out of past experiences. I have seen far too many likely settlements fail both as counsel and arbitrator to not recognise an underlying failing within me as cause thereof. I am not one to let such failings persist.
The mediator training course at the Royal Society of Mediators taught me path breaking techniques that I apply subtly all the time as counsel and arbitrator. I think I am now always silently working away at a likely mediated settlement. When I function as a neutral the pure joy of using these techniques to bring people to a principled dialogue is by far the most satisfying part of my legal practice. To be honest, it has helped me immensely in my personal life as well. It is finely tuned my instincts and improved my communication abilities. An earlier version of me listened to respond and the new me listens to understand.
Reflecting on your extensive experience of over a decade, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law, and what was your journey like during law school at NLU Jodhpur?
I’ve always been fascinated by how the law shapes societies and protects individual rights. Growing up, dinner conversations always revolved around legal and political issues. My father’s stories about his day at Court or a case often left an impression on me. However, it was not until Class 12, that I finally decided to pursue law. Preparing for the Common Entrance Test with Mrs. Sheela Reddy, who trained a handful of students pro bono, cemented my interest in law. She followed a Socratic method of teaching which I came to appreciate even more when I was at UC Berkeley. She would often quip that training with her, we had already covered all the subjects that would be covered till the third year of law school. She was not entirely wrong.
Choosing NLU Jodhpur was a turning point—it was challenging, exciting, and rewarding in equal measure. The curriculum was rigorous, and opportunities like mooting and journal editing pushed me to think critically and hone my legal acumen. Brief Writing for Moot Court Competitions gave me an opportunity to really experiment not just with legal writing but also with legal research. Although, when I look at those Briefs now, they seem silly, they have played a huge role in exposing me to various facets of advocacy. I was always clear that I wanted to pursue Litigation, probably because that is all that I had seen growing up.
Having completed your LL.M. at UC Berkeley, California, what led you to choose this institution and specialize in areas such as Constitutional Law and International Commercial Arbitration? How did the teaching methodology at Berkeley differ from what you experienced in India?
Berkeley popularly is known for its IP program. However, I wanted to study with Professors like Erwin Chemrinsky and Neil Popovich who are well known in the fields of Constitutional Law and International Commercial Arbitration respectively. During my time at Berkeley I also opted for some IP course which focused on Federal Litigation which helped me a great deal when I later worked in the US. One Senior Advocate I worked with used to refer to Constitutional Law as the divine law. I agree with him. For me the genesis of any legal system flows from its constitution and constitutional theory. Even during law school, constitutional philosophy appealed to me a lot. The socratic approach of dissecting seminal Constitutional Law cases at Berkeley, gave me new insights into constitutional philosophy and the critical approach to reading any case law. I also had the opposite to explore the field of Administrative Law, an offshoot of Constitutional law during my time at Berkeley. Comparing the evolution of Administrative Law in India and the US gave me a new perspective about how Indian Courts dealt with this subject. The compare and contrast approach along with the socratic approach, I believe has a lasting impact on anyone who studies as such institutions. The exposure the Institution offered is unparalleled. The multi national perspective you get to experience aids one in thinking from different perspectives as well.
As a dual-qualified lawyer in both India and California, how has this qualification shaped your practice? How do you handle multi-jurisdictional disputes, particularly those involving private international law?
Being qualified in both jurisdictions allows me to work seamlessly on matters in both jurisdictions and also cross-border matters, especially in cases involving overlapping jurisdictions. Like Courts in India, most Courts in the US have also gone digital during the COVID-19 pandemic. That change has further helped me appear virtually in matters in the US. Doing cases in both jurisdictions simultaneously offers me a unique way to compare both the systems, the laws, the manner of interpretation, and the approach. This has helped me in doing multi-jurisdictional matters as well. I am able to anticipate how different aspects could play out in the two jurisdictions.
Managing each multi-jurisdictional dispute is unique. For instance, in a corruption case involving Indian and foreign entities, understanding the nuances of both legal systems was crucial. Managing such disputes often involves coordinating with subject experts, local counsel, and understanding the differing legal frameworks. One has to anticipate how any stance taken in one jurisdiction may impact the other jurisdictions.
In your litigation practice in India, you’ve worked on intricate cases in Administrative Law, Company Law, and Constitutional Law. Could you share an example of a particularly challenging case and how you navigated it?
I was fortunate to work on a few white collar offences and was successful in defending the independent directors of the Company. However, as an offshoot of the main offence, the SFIO had initiated proceedings before the NCLT against all the directors. Ultimately, it took us close to 14 years to have the matter resolved. All through this period, the case was heard by different benches of NCLT – some time in New Delhi and then in Hyderabad. Navigating the voluminous record running into several thousand pages each time we had to argue the matter and then to have the matter placed before a different bench was initially disheartening. Several other directors, considering the time it was taking, admitted their guilt and agreed for the punishment. However, we advised our client not to take such a plea and to fight it out. Ultimately, our client was the only one who was successful in defending the charges and the case was dismissed against him. The case was a learning experience not just on the skill of advocacy but also on the overlapping legal issues between criminal law and Company law.
Transitioning from the Indian legal system to the U.S. must have presented its challenges. What were the key differences in litigation practices between the two systems, and what were the most difficult aspects of passing the California Bar exam?
While I noticed a lot of similarities between the two systems, the biggest difference I noticed is the approach to Litigation. All the stake holders in a dispute, including the Lawyers and Judges always try to settle the matter either before going to court or before trial begins. The attempt to settle disputes is not limited to civil matters but extends to criminal matters as well in the form of plea bargains. The other aspect that I noticed is the time it takes to get a dispute / case heard. There have been occasions where we would complete a trial in half a day and the judgement is also delivered immediately.
The most difficult part about the Bar exam, especially for foreign lawyers, is to be able to study for 14-16 hours a day for at least 50-60 days. That is the amount of time it takes to go over the 14 odd subjects that you get tested on. Most courses for the preparation are designed keeping in view this requirement. If one were to put in the long hours without giving into exhaustion, then clearing the exam is not that difficult. I think lawyers with some amount of practical training fare better in the exam because they are able to compare and contrast the systems to make it easier to remember a large amount of information.
In both the corruption case and shareholder dispute you handled, you faced complex, multi-jurisdictional issues. How do you manage the intersection of domestic and international law in such cases?
These cases require a fine balance between understanding the specifics of domestic law and the broader implications of international treaties or foreign regulations. In one of those instances, we had to attend court proceedings in three different jurisdictions carefully monitoring the stand being presented to avoid adverse results in any other jurisdiction. Trying to coordinate with lawyers from two other jurisdictions was very enriching in the sense that it gave us an opportunity to understand how they viewed and dealt with such disputes. Sometimes, the discussions would see no end as we differed on the strategy to be adopted in each jurisdiction. Thankfully those were very few instances.
Can you elaborate on your role and the specific challenges you face while representing institutions like the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court?
While representing institutions like TTD a nuanced approach is required that takes into account the complexities of the case and the specific context of religious institutions. One of the primary challenges is balancing the legal aspects of the case with the deep religious sentiments of the millions of devotees associated with TTD.
When addressing legal issues, it’s crucial to be sensitive to the cultural and spiritual importance of TTD, as any decisions made can significantly impact the faith and emotions of the community. This requires not only legal expertise but also an understanding of the social and religious dynamics at play.
Additionally, I focus on looking at the larger picture. This means considering the long-term implications of legal decisions, not just for TTD, but for the broader community and the heritage it represents. It’s important to advocate for solutions that not only resolve immediate legal challenges but also promote the greater good and ensure the continued functioning of the institution in a way that respects and upholds the values of the devotees.
Overall, navigating these challenges requires a careful balance of legal strategy, cultural sensitivity, and a commitment to the wider implications of our work.
What advice would you give to law students and professionals who aspire to build a career like yours, with a focus on international practice and successfully clearing the California Bar Exam?
I believe that going forward there would be a globalisation of the legal industry. Lawyers with training in other jurisdictions are needed in all fields of law. For instance, when we represent Indian origin clients in the US, the client and the lawyers there prefer to have an Indian lawyer on the team. This would ensure a more robust representation for the client. I think multi-jurisdictional careers are going to be the norm. It is very doable and in fact some jurisdictions in the US enable foreign trained lawyers to apply to the Bar without further education. California is one such jurisdiction.
For those preparing for the California Bar, practice is key—focus on understanding patterns and writing concise, analytical answers. Legal writing is what most candidates find difficult.
With your numerous professional commitments, how do you manage to maintain a balance between your personal life and your demanding legal practice?
Balancing a demanding legal practice with personal life is indeed very difficult. One of the key strategies I employ is setting clear boundaries. This means making a conscious effort to separate work from personal time, ensuring that I dedicate specific hours to my legal practice while also carving out time for my personal life and family.
Additionally, I maximize my time in court. Court appearances can be time-consuming, but I use that time efficiently. By preparing thoroughly and organizing my schedule around court dates, I can minimize the amount of time spent on related tasks outside of court, which helps free up more time for my personal commitments.
Overall, while the challenge of maintaining this balance is significant, being disciplined about boundaries and strategic about my court-related time helps me manage both my professional responsibilities and personal life more effectively.
