Super Lawyer

Tag: Public International law

  • Crafting a Cross-Border Legal Career: Lessons from Public Policy and Arbitration – Sudhanshu Roy, Senior Associate at Foley Hoag LLP, United States.

    Crafting a Cross-Border Legal Career: Lessons from Public Policy and Arbitration – Sudhanshu Roy, Senior Associate at Foley Hoag LLP, United States.

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

    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.

    That’s the challenge, I would say.

    Get in touch with Sudhanshu Roy –

  • “Be unreasonable, dream big, take risks, and stay true to what feels right for you. Your journey may not always follow a straight path, but that’s where the real growth happens.” – Surpreet Kaur, Global Impact Strategy & Partnerships Manager at Beiersdorf, Germany.

    “Be unreasonable, dream big, take risks, and stay true to what feels right for you. Your journey may not always follow a straight path, but that’s where the real growth happens.” – Surpreet Kaur, Global Impact Strategy & Partnerships Manager at Beiersdorf, Germany.

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

    After completing your Bachelor of Science at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi University, you chose to pursue a law degree at the Faculty of Law, Delhi University. What inspired you to transition from a science background to law?

    Growing up, I couldn’t help but notice the inequalities that shaped the lives of those around me, especially the women in my family and community. It was clear that opportunities were often more accessible to men, while women struggled to break through societal barriers. I wondered why this was the case, and why these disparities seemed to be reinforced by the very structures that shaped our daily lives. These questions sparked a desire in me to understand and challenge the systems that perpetuated such inequalities igniting a passion for social justice that would go on to define both my academic and professional journey.

    Like many young people, I didn’t initially know what path to take. With limited exposure to different fields, I chose science, as it seemed like the natural route at the time. However, as I progressed in my studies, I began to feel a growing sense that my true calling lay in something that could directly address the inequalities I had observed. My involvement in student activism during my undergraduate years was a turning point. Working with others who shared my drive for change, I saw how collective action, combined with legal frameworks, could lead to real impact. I started to see the power of law—not just as a career, but as a tool for social change. The more I learned, the more I realized how law could be used to challenge injustices, shape policies, and drive societal transformation. This experience solidified my belief that law was the right path for me—not just to build a career, but to actively contribute to advancing justice and creating lasting change.

    You completed your Master’s in Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, specializing in Public International Law with a focus on International Law. What motivated you to choose this particular specialization, and why did you decide to study at LSE?

    My career began as a litigator, and later as theLaw Clerk (Research Assistant) to the then Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice Dr. T.S. Thakur. These formative experiences provided me with invaluable, hands-on exposure to the inner workings of the domestic legal system. I gained a deep, practical understanding of how law operates on the ground—how cases unfold, which strategies are employed, and, most importantly, the profound impact legal decisions have on individuals and communities.

    However, as I spent more time in the field, I began to feel a growing sense of unease. While domestic law certainly plays a pivotal role in shaping society, I found myself drawn to the larger, more complex global issues that transcend borders—issues that require solutions beyond the scope of national legislation. The pressing challenges of our time—climate change, human rights abuses, and systemic inequality—are not confined to one nation or jurisdiction; they demand a global response. It was through this realization that I became captivated by the potential of international law to address these global concerns.

    The more I learned, the more convinced I became that international law was the key to understanding and influencing these global systems. I saw how it shapes the legal frameworks governing the relationships between nations and people, and how it holds the power to tackle some of the world’s most urgent challenges. This growing fascination inspired me to specialize in international law, with the aim of acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to contribute meaningfully to resolving these complex issues and working towards a more just, sustainable, and equitable future.

    To pursue this passion, I sought an academic environment that would challenge me and equip me with the necessary tools to navigate the intricacies of international legal systems. The opportunity to study at the London School of Economics (LSE) felt like a natural next step. Renowned for its interdisciplinary approach to legal education, LSE emphasizes combining rigorous academic analysis with practical, real-world application. This approach resonated deeply with my aspirations and offered exactly what I was looking for—an education that would push me to think critically about global legal challenges and develop holistic solutions by providing me not only quality education but also complementing the same with work experience in the UK, Türkiye and Austria.

    I was humbled and honored to be awarded the prestigious Chevening Scholarship by the British Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office. This scholarship not only provided the financial support I needed to study at one of the world’s leading institutions but also connected me to a network of passionate, like-minded individuals from diverse backgrounds. The exposure to a broad range of perspectives and experiences enriched my academic journey, broadened my worldview, and deepened my commitment to addressing the world’s most pressing challenges.

    Looking back, my journey from a domestic litigator to an international law scholar has been driven by a single, unwavering conviction: to challenge systemic inequalities and create a lasting impact toward a more just and equitable world.

    Having worked with various advocates and judges in different roles and forums, you eventually chose to pursue a career in the judiciary. What motivated you to take this step, and how did you approach preparing for the Delhi Judicial Services (DJS) exam, ultimately securing second rank nationwide?

    My decision to pursue a career in the judiciary was shaped by two deeply personal influences: my family history and my professional journey.

    My father grew up in a small village in Uttar Pradesh, where educational opportunities were nearly nonexistent. He walked miles barefoot to attend school and defied the odds to ensure his children had access to the opportunities he was denied. He often recounts how, in his community, the birth of a daughter was met with pity—a reflection of the deep-rooted gender biases that continue to persist. My mother, too, came from a traditional background where her decision to work full time faced resistance. Despite these challenges, my parents led by example, instilling in me a sense of resilience, perseverance and dedication towards public service. Throughout my career, I made decisions that were unfamiliar and, at times, difficult for my parents to understand. One such decision was my shift from science to law. This was a major transition, and at first, they were unsure about it. However, once they understood my motivations, they fully supported my choice. My parents then encouraged me to pursue the judiciary, seeing it as the perfect blend of public service and my desire to make a meaningful impact on the world.

    Further, as a litigator and later a Law Clerk, I saw firsthand the judiciary’s vital role in society. For many, the courts represent the last hope when all other avenues have failed. Witnessing people place their trust in the system during moments of vulnerability left a profound impact on me. These experiences fueled my desire to contribute to a system that provides fairness and resolution to those in need. Joining the judiciary wasn’t just a career choice; it was an opportunity to serve, learn, and grow while making decisions that had tangible impacts on people’s lives.

    Reflecting back, becoming the first judge from my father’s village remains a proud moment, not just for my family but for the community as well. It symbolized a shift, however small, in a deeply ingrained cultural narrative—the idea that daughters can rise to fulfill their potential and become agents of change. My father’s journey, from being pitied for having a daughter to celebrating her success, serves as a testament to what can happen when one refuses to be defined by societal limitations.

    As far as the preparation of the judiciary goes: it taught me the importance of strategy and focus. Instead of overwhelming myself with an excess of resources, I prioritized the quality of information over quantity. Having clear and solid fundamentals was the key to my preparation. I relied on one or two trusted resources, studying them thoroughly rather than spreading myself thin across multiple materials. This approach not only deepened my understanding but also saved valuable time. When it came to writing the mains, I realized that efficiency mattered more than perfection. Focusing on presenting well-structured, concise answers was far more effective than chasing unattainable flawlessness.

    As a Metropolitan Magistrate, you had a wide range of responsibilities. Could you describe some of your key duties in this role? Afterclose to three years in the judiciary, what factors led you to transition out of this career and move into your current position?

    My journey in the Delhi judiciary began as a Metropolitan Magistrate in the Negotiable Instruments Court, where my primary responsibility was adjudicating cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, like most judicial roles, the work extended beyond just the allotted cases. As a duty magistrate, I handled interim orders, bails, and applications across various laws, including POCSO, IPC, and NDPS. The COVID-19 pandemic further shifted the landscape, introducing new responsibilities like regular prisonvisits to ensure the safety and health of inmates. Alongside this, the shift to digital hearings became a steep learning curve—not just for judges, but for all involved and it was fascinating to witness and be a part of that transformation. Throughout my tenure, I learned not just legal principles, but valuable life lessons. The responsibilities were not just about legal questions; they extended to understanding the deeper ethical and human aspects of justice. It reminded me of the words of the Alexandrian philosopher, Philo: “A judge must bear in mind that when he tries a case, he himself is on trial.”

    After more than two and a half fulfilling years as a judge, I made the difficult decision to leave judiciary. It wasn’t an easy choice, but it was a necessary one for my personal growth stemming from a desire to expand my horizons and contribute on a larger scale. The experiences I had on the bench taught me that justice is not just about the law – it’s about transforming lives, and I wanted to create a broader, systemic change.

    I recall a moment when I went back to my village after clearing the judiciary exam. I was greeted by a group of 30-40 men from my father’s and the surrounding villages – the first time they had ever seen a judge from their community. In a place where women traditionally cover their faces in the presence of men, this was an extraordinary scene. They had no questions for me, just a deep curiosity as to “what does a judge look like?” I found myself responding to them with a question of my own asking “If you had allowed girls to attend school, perhaps we would have had a judge from this village long ago.” There was a deep silence, and I could feel the weight of their realization. They had never considered the connection between education and opportunity.

    It was a moment that profoundly impacted my perspective on the societal barriers we often overlook. It made me realize that systemic issues are deeply interconnected and cannot be solved in isolation. I saw firsthand how societal change requires addressing multiple levels—be it education, social equity, or gender norms. If I wanted to create lasting true societal and systematic change, it had to go beyond the courtroom. My parents’ own struggles to, against all odds, ensure my educationtaught me the power of challenging conventions and pushing boundaries. It became clear to me that the change I sought wasn’t just about interpreting laws; it was about creating environments where every person, regardless of their background, could thrive. This was not just about personal achievement—it was about changing the narrative for future generations.

    How did your legal background and experience in the judiciary and litigation influence your shift into the field of corporate sustainability and social impact? What skills and insights from your previous roles have proven most valuable in your current position?

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said, “Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” For me, this wisdom became a guiding principle. During my second masters, I saw corporate sustainability as a way to channel my passion for justice into a broader, more integrated approach that not only held businesses accountable but also empowered them to make a positive impact. I knew that by shaping corporate practices to be more socially responsible, I could help create a future where both people and the planet were prioritized—not as an afterthought, but as a core part of business operations.

    This transition wasn’t something I planned, but in many ways, it felt like a natural evolution. My time in the judiciary had always been about questioning the status quo—about examining how systems could be more just, inclusive, and equitable. The move into corporate sustainability felt like the next step in challenging conventional narratives. I wanted to challenge the notion that justice is confined to the courtroom, or that sustainability is just a buzzword used in boardrooms to appease shareholders. I believed it was time to reshape these narratives and make them more inclusive, impactful, and aligned with the needs of society and the planet. The skills I honed as both a judge and a lawyer have proven invaluable in my current position. As a judge, I learned how to critically analyze complex situations, weigh diverse perspectives, and make reasoned decisions with fairness and equity at the forefront. These skills are essential in navigating the complexities of corporate responsibility, where the stakes are high, and solutions require a delicate balance of stakeholder interests. As a lawyer, I gained a deep understanding of legal frameworks, negotiation tactics, and advocacy—tools that are indispensable when driving systemic change within corporate structures. My experience in the law and judiciary has shaped the way I think about systems and change. And now, through my present position at Beiersdorf, I believe I have the opportunity to drive that change in ways that are both impactful and lasting.

    Looking back, I strongly believe that my journey from judiciary to corporate sustainability was rooted in my deep belief that meaningful change requires us to look beyond traditional roles and systems. More than the skills, it is my core values that have driven this transition. I’ve always believed in challenging conventional narratives, pushing boundaries, and seeking innovative, holistic solutions. In the end, this shift was about embracing a bigger vision of justice—one that extended beyond the courtroom and into the communities, and global marketplaces that shape our future.

    During your time at the UNODC, you worked on the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. How did this experience shape your understanding of global governance, and how does it inform your current approach to driving social impact at Beiersdorf?

    My experience with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), in the field of organized crime, significantly shaped my approach towards my future endeavors including the present one in corporate sustainability. At the UNODC, I gained insight into the complex, global nature of transnational crime and its profound social, economic, and environmental effects. I learned how systemic issues—such as poverty, corruption, and inequality—are interconnected, and addressing them requires coordinated, multi-dimensional solutions across borders, sectors, and institutions. I realized that social impact, whether through law enforcement or corporate responsibility, is not about solving isolated issues but addressing them holistically.

    Furthermore, working at the UNODC taught me how to navigate complex international frameworks and collaborate with diverse stakeholders. This experience has been invaluable in my present position, where cross-sector collaboration is essential. Whether working with governments, NGOs, or businesses, I understand the power of collaboration in driving systemic change—just as international organizations do in addressing global challenges.

    In summary, my time at the UNODC taught me the importance of a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach and a commitment to ethical practices. In my current role as Global Impact Strategy & Partnerships Manager at Beiersdorf, I draw heavily on these experiences. I leverage my understanding of interconnected challenges to design and implement strategies that integrate social impact into the corporate framework.The comprehensive perspective I gained at the UNODC ensures that the initiatives I work upon are rooted in a deep understanding of systemic challenges and guided by a commitment to ethical collaboration. By leveraging strategic partnerships, data-driven insights, and a focus on long-term change, I aim to contribute meaningfully to building a more just and inclusive society through corporate social impact.

    Reflecting on your career so far, what has been the most rewarding project or initiative you’ve been a part of, and what made it particularly meaningful to you?

    My career journey has been shaped by a range of diverse experiences that have both challenged and inspired me such as supporting landmark rulings during my time as a Law Clerk (Research Assistant) to then Chief Justice of India and supporting refugees, particularly women, with their integration process during my internship with the Afghanistan and Central Asian Association in London. These experiences, among others, have been both professionally rewarding and personally transformative for me.

    However, when thinking about the most rewarding initiatives of my career, two specific projects stand out—both of which have impacted me and reaffirmed my passion for meaningful work.

    The first initiative is a deeply personal experience I had while serving as a judge. I was tasked with adjudicating a more than six-years-old negotiable instrument (NI) case involving a senior citizen complainant, who was over 80 years old. This case had been delayed through the tenure of three judges, including myself, and was delayed further due to the COVID-19 lockdown. Throughout the trial, I witnessed the deep emotional toll that the long wait for justice had on the complainant. When the judgment was finally announced, it took him several moments to grasp that the case had come to a close in that court. He stared at me from a distance for several minutes; with tears and disbelief in his eyes. The case highlighted how complex legal processes, while necessary, can often obscure the truth, leaving the common person to struggle through a maze of procedural stages. For me, this case was a poignant reminder of the judiciary’s role in untangling these complexities and ensuring that true justice is served. The profound impact this experience had on me gave me a deeper understanding of the power the law holds in changing lives, particularly for those who need it most.

    The second initiative that has had a deep and lasting impact on me is the Empowering Girls program I’ve worked on for the past two years at Beiersdorf. Focused on providing girls and young women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America with the resources and opportunities to unlock their potential, this initiative resonates deeply with me. Over the course of this initiative, I’ve seen firsthand how corporations can contribute to positive change by applying their resources, expertise, and networks in ways that support long-term development. Despite the challenges, the lessons my team and I have learned about the transformative power of this work have been invaluable. What makes this initiative so rewarding is not just the direct impact on our project participants, but the ripple effect it has had on their families and communities.

    While these two projects may seem to come from different worlds—one from my role in the judiciary and the other from my work in the corporate sector—they both embody the same underlying principle: that meaningful impact doesn’t always follow a conventional path. Both experiences have reaffirmed my commitment to creating change and providing opportunities for others, no matter the sphere of influence. These initiatives have been incredibly rewarding, not only because they allowed me to make a difference but because they have been formative in shaping my understanding of how true impact is made: through persistence, compassion, and a commitment to justice.

    With your unconventional career trajectory, what advice would you give to young professionals just starting out in their careers, particularly those interested in blending law, international relations, and corporate sustainability?

    Like my career, my advice to young professionals—especially young lawyers—is a bit unconventional. Instead of focusing on exams or internships, I want to emphasize something more fundamental: your approach to your career as a whole.

    Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living“. This idea has always resonated with me because I believe real growth happens when we question our paths, reflect on our choices, and dare to push beyond the limits that others set for us.

    When I started my career, I faced a constant stream of advice telling me to take the “safe” and “secure” route—a government job, something stable and predictable. Coming from a middle-class family, the pressure to follow this path was immense. My family, like many others, also believed that a government job would guarantee security, respect, and a clear future. The idea of a secure, stable career was so ingrained in my surroundings that for the longest time I simply didn’t know there was any other way. But as I progressed in my career, I wanted to push the boundaries of what was possible. I wanted to step beyond the confines of what people around me thought I could achieve and challenge the very notion of what was “expected.” My ambition was to make an impact not just within a local or national framework, but on a global scale—something that would allow me to contribute to change at a broader, more meaningful level. I didn’t just want to follow the traditional path laid out for me—it was about following the one that aligned with my own passions and values.

    This led to a significant turning point. I made the bold decision to leave my position as a judge, a role that many saw as secure and prestigious, and chose to pursue something far less conventional: corporate sustainability. This decision come with its challenges—leaving behind a stable, respected career to start anew in a foreign country was a huge leap. There were moments of doubt. I faced resistance from those who believed I was throwing away a secure future. But it has also been one of the most fulfilling decisions of my life. Every step of this journey has been an opportunity to learn, to grow, and to discover a deeper sense of purpose. It’s shown me that sometimes, the path less traveled holds the most rewarding experiences.

    My advice to young professionals—especially young women—is simple, though it might not always be easy: trust your own journey. Growing up, there’s often pressure to follow the “safe” path—specific jobs, predictable roles, and stability. But the truth is, those paths don’t define your worth or your potential. I know many of us feel boxed in by societal expectations.

    But here’s something I’ve learned from my journey: many of the limitation’s society places on us—especially on women—are simply the consequence of restrictive viewpoints. We are told which careers are “appropriate,” which dreams are “too big,” and which ambitions are “unrealistic”. But your potential is yours to define. The journey might not always be straightforward—there might be struggles, financial challenges, or familial expectations—but there’s immense value in questioning, reflecting, and finding your own way, no matter how unconventional it may seem. Yes, stability is important, but success isn’t just about job security. It’s about finding a path that aligns with your values, passions, and strengths. And if that path feels risky, even unreasonable, then so be it.

    As George Bernard Shaw famously said, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.” I’ve always believed that the world needs the “unreasonable ones”—the ones who persist in trying to shape the world to their vision rather than simply conforming to what’s expected.

    So, be unreasonable. Dream big, take risks, and stay true to what feels right for you. Your journey may not always follow a straight path, but that’s where the real growth happens. Embrace the unknown and let it shape you into the person you’re meant to become.

    Get in touch with Surpreet Kaur –

  • Young women arbitration practitioners need to know that there are others like them, and that everyone is in the same boat, dealing with similar challenges- Manini Brar, Independent Practitioner at Arbridge Chambers

    Young women arbitration practitioners need to know that there are others like them, and that everyone is in the same boat, dealing with similar challenges- Manini Brar, Independent Practitioner at Arbridge Chambers

    This interview has been published by  Priyanka Karwa and The SuperLawyer Team

    Ma’am, please tell us about your journey and how you ended up pursuing a career in law, particularly in the field of international law and arbitration?

    In school, I was head of the debating society and also part of the dramatics club. Obviously, I was fond of being the front and centre of anything to do with expressing and discussing ideas. I wanted to take that forward in my life. For a very long time, I was torn between journalism and law. But then I got to law school, and I just knew from the get go that this is where I wanted to be. Never looked back. 

    I don’t think it makes sense to jump right into international law or arbitration at the start of one’s career. You have to ground yourself in the practice of law in your home jurisdiction first, get your hands dirty, figure out what area of law you want to practice in, and how you want to practice. Are you into commercial disputes, or criminal law, or corporate transactions, or intellectual property? Do you want to work for a small firm, big firm, senior counsel? This is what I did. I worked with a law firm, then with a practicing advocate in the Delhi High Court. It took me a few years to identify with certainty that I was interested in commercial disputes, and I wanted to be where the hearing was, inside or outside of court. That’s when I went to Cambridge and studied public international law with a focus on international dispute settlement. After that, I worked at the Hong Kong office of the International Chamber of Commerce- Court of Arbitration, and later as a Tribunal Secretary in international commercial arbitrations / SIAC. I spent more than a decade slowly evolving into my chosen area of practice, which was international law and arbitration. In 2021, I felt I had the wherewithal to strike out on my own and set up my own practice. So I did. 

    You have an impressive academic background, including an LL.M. from the University of Cambridge. How did your time at Cambridge shape your career and interests in public international law?

    More than anything, Cambridge taught me that intelligence is inter-personal. If you are truly intelligent, you will have the humility to accept that what you know is not everything, and knowledge comes from everywhere. From your classmates on a Sunday-morning-punting escapade on the Queens’ river, from discussions over coffee, from sport, from music. You must have the versatility to absorb knowledge from any source, and engage in discussions with anyone. That learning gave me immense perspective, and allowed me to look at the practice of law from an objective distance. I began to enjoy the discussion and study of public international law and dispute settlement without the trappings of competition and survival which are so ingrained in traditional systems of education. It helped me become a well-balanced professional, engaged in practice but also entertained by it, and gave me the tenacity to walk away from a bad day in court but keep coming back. More and more, I think the trick to succeeding as a professional is just being patient and consistent, which you can’t be if you don’t enjoy what you’re doing. 

    You have experience as both an advocate in India and a solicitor in England & Wales. How has this dual qualification benefited your practice, and what unique perspectives do you bring to the table?

    Commercial disputes are becoming more and more trans-national, cross-border as the world is becoming more and more economically integrated. Being qualified to practice in more than one jurisdiction brings with it a comparative understanding of fundamental legal principles, for example, of contract, property law, constitutional law, etc. That enables a lawyer to provide more holistic advice in a dispute involving cross-border transactions. I think for a young lawyer looking to get into international commercial arbitration, a dual qualification is increasingly indispensable. 

    As the Founder & Head of Arbridge Chambers, could you share some of the highlights and challenges of establishing and managing your independent chamber practice?

    I think the challenges are two fold, first, to find the conviction in what you know and what you can do despite what other people may think or say, and, second, to back up that conviction with all your resources. Your time, savings, energy. You have to put the cart before the horse and invest in research tools, human resources, networking etc. even before you can see the next big matter coming. If you are going to be scampering for these when the matter actually comes, it is already too late. 

    You have been involved in several international arbitrations as both an arbitrator and counsel. What drew you to specialize in this area, and what do you find most fulfilling about your work in arbitration?

    In essence arbitration is just another method of resolving disputes. If one is interested in litigation and dispute resolution in general, then interest in arbitration follows as a natural corollary. What I enjoy the most is that arbitration has a clear structure, with enough time and flexibility to really get into details of the claims, evidence, matters of procedure. The outcome can genuinely be influenced by the manner in which claims are drafted, presented and argued. I find that very satisfying as a professional. 

    You have been involved in investor-state disputes on behalf of the Government of India. Can you share some insights into the complexities and nuances of handling such cases on a national level?

    This is really the most enriching and glamorous part of my practice. Every piece of advice or representation for the GOI comes with the immense satisfaction of knowing that you are doing something which has an impact on a larger scale. But it also comes with immense responsibility. You have to be aware of the practicalities in the conduct of business and the sensitivities involved in government work when you present positions in an international context, and you have to be damn sure of what you are doing. I think being thorough and measured is very important when acting on behalf of a government entity in general. 

    One of your areas of expertise is infrastructure disputes. What unique legal considerations and challenges are involved in resolving disputes related to infrastructure projects?

    It would be safe to say that infrastructure disputes are often bread and butter for an arbitration practice. They are big, complex disputes running into pages and pages of documents, and the trick is always to simplify. I usually start with a pen and paper and spend time chalking out the life of the project. Once that is done, the rest of the effort is to fit pieces of information in the overall story / flow of the transaction. 

    Over the years, you’ve been actively involved in various international arbitration organizations and committees. Can you tell us about the significance of such engagements and how they contribute to the development of the field?

    Like I said, knowledge is inter-personal. It is important to engage with like-minded practitioners in the field, to learn from their experiences and strengthen networks. I don’t believe in being involved in everything all at once. It has always worked for me to find an organisation or committee that genuinely reflects my interests and my professional profile, and then figure out ways of being more involved in it. 

    As a member of the Global Steering Committee for Young Arbitral Women Practitioners and an Advisory Board Member of Indian Women in International Arbitration, what efforts do you think are crucial to promoting gender parity and diversity in the field of international arbitration?

    The most important thing to do right now is to develop the network. Particularly in India, the community of arbitration practitioners itself is very nascent and upcoming, and the women practitioners are an even smaller grouping. Young women arbitration practitioners need to know that there are others like them, and that everyone is in the same boat, dealing with similar challenges. That in itself is likely to be a big source of strength and support for everybody involved. If we can also enhance visibility and work opportunities for members as we go along, that is a bonus.  YAWP Steering Committee and the IWIA Advisory Board both have an amazing team of very dedicated and trail-blazing practitioners heavily committed to creating better networks and opportunities for women in arbitration. We are bound to succeed. 

    You’ve been a guest faculty at National Law University, Delhi, and have conducted courses on investment treaty arbitration. How important is it to impart specialized knowledge to young law students in this field?

    I see teaching as a two-way street, having always walked away from a lecture with a question I never thought of, or a perspective I didn’t see. Plus, you have to stay abreast of new ideas. You can’t do that if you are only interacting with people at your level professionally. You see, I learn so much from students, it is hard to say I am the one imparting knowledge to them! 

    Lastly, what advice would you give to fresh graduates or young professionals aspiring to succeed in the legal industry, particularly in the field of international law and arbitration?

    My advice to those looking to pursue arbitration is to start somewhere, anywhere, in a practice focussed on disputes, whether or not it is focussed on arbitration. You need to acquire the skills to be a disputes practitioner. You will get to arbitration eventually, even if you are not there today. Just keep at it. And while you are at it, value your colleagues, even people junior to you. These are the people who will be with you for the ride, and who are likely to help you when you really need it.