In Conversation with Senior Advocate KG Raghavan

KG Raghavan is one of the most well-known Senior Advocates in Karnataka, merging his practice with Dua Associates way back in 1998. In this interview with Bar & Bench, the corporate law expert shares his views on the harsh legal profession, the potential benefits of foreign law firms entering the Indian market, and how individual lawyers can build their own practice.

Bar & Bench: How did you end up in the legal profession?

KG Raghavan: Let me tell you, right from the beginning it was quite clear in my mind that I was going to become a lawyer. My father was a lawyer, he later became a High Court judge and the profession always fascinated me. The kind of discussions that I would have with my father – I always thought that this was a profession for intellectuals.

B&B: So after graduation, you started working with?

KGR: I enrolled in 1976 and was in the chambers of Mr. S Shivaswamy who was a leading lawyer in Bangalore. His father, Justice Somnath Iyer was the Chief Justice of our High Court and later became the Governor of Karnataka for some time. I was with him for about 4 years before starting off on my own.

B&B: Was starting your own chambers an intimidating process?

KGR: I wouldn’t say it was intimidating; it was challenging. And fortunately at that point of time, I had several people who were willing to help me and to support me. And it was good luck (or God’s grace) that I did develop one client after another, especially in the commercial sector.

B&B: How?

KGR: In the legal profession, good word spreads quite fast. We always think that bad opinions spread quickly. But if you do a good job, one client will tell another client. And that is what is required. And in order to do that, one has to have commitment, put in hard work and an anxiety to help your client in every way. There is only one rider – this should be within the limits of law and propriety.

The moment you adopt these principles, a client is going to like you irrespective of the ultimate result. The client should always feel that you have done your best for the client.

B&B: We have been told that you meticulously make notes in a diary about every case you handle. When did you pick up this habit?

KGR: I had seen my father do this. In fact, I still have my father’s notebooks. Both as a lawyer and as a judge, my father would maintain a notebook. I make my own notes for every case, and once a book is complete I make an index.

I started this practice the day I joined the profession and I have preserved all my books since that day. That is the only thing you can preserve in the end. The case files are returned; the fees is spent and after a while the fee paid is forgotten(smiles).

B&B: Any advice for young lawyers?

KGR: Well, this might not be a universal advice, but don’t go after money. The moment you go after money, money will elude you. I am not saying you should ignore the money but that should not be the primary focus of a young lawyer.

B&B: But that is easy to say..

KGR: True! That is why I said this is not a universal rule. I am talking about those people who have spent 4-5 years in their senior’s chambers and have accumulated some money or those whose family can support them. Let me tell you very frankly that this is a very hard profession. However much we may dislike the concept of the hereditary nature of this profession, this profession still has it – a lawyer’s son will find the profession less harsh.

B&B: Why do you say that?

KGR: Well, I wouldn’t say that a lawyer’s son or daughter would become a better lawyer, but they at least have an edge over others. He/she may lose it. You can easily lose all the clients of your father if you are a useless lawyer. But initially, you will have a library, you will have at least some clients, you will have the chance of standing up in court on behalf of your father and this is true even if your father was not practicing at that point of time.

I had the initial advantage of being known as Mr So-and-so’s son. And given the fact that my father was a leading lawyer, a judge – well people did not forget him very soon.

But they tested me very cautiously. They said, “Look, it is alright that he is the son of so-and-so but is he somebody in whom we can have trust?”. They may come to you with their first case because you are someone’s son or daughter, but if you don’t inspire confidence in them, they will quietly stop coming to you again.

So therefore you need to make sure that you build the trust and one of the ways in which you build this trust is when you do not go after money. If the client feels that you are only after money, then it wont work. It just won’t work. However harsh it may sound, or utopian but that is the fact.

B&B: Have you seen a drastic change in the kind of litigation that is taking place in Bangalore?

KGR: Yes, there is a drastic change. There has been a change in the feeder market – you have litigation arising out of share holders’ agreements (SHAs), leave & license agreement, non-compete clauses, etc – these are all post 1990, after liberalization when a number of companies starting doing business in India.

In fact, you will not find too many SHA-related litigation in the first 10 years after liberalization. You see, it is only where the relationship has matured that the parties who were partners in a joint venture say, “Why do I need to share the profits. I now know the business myself.”

B&B: How important is the role of the lawyer in the pre-litigation stage?

KGR: Very, very important. It is extremely important to advise your client as to the Dos and Don’ts in law. Then you leave the commercial decision to the client.

We have clients who come to us and say, “I am going to violate this agreement. I want your opinion to only tell me what will be the consequences of this violation.” So you tell them and then they will take a call; the benefits of the violation may be more than the damages the client may have to pay. That is the client’s commercial call.

B&B: Do you find companies are more hesitant to go to court or even adopt ADRs such as arbitration?

KGR: In India, yes. You see the problem is manifold. I am not pointing fingers at anyone but let us first understand the reality and then try to see how we can remedy it.

What are the problems that we are facing? First, the delays in the legal system. Second, the lack of awareness with respect to commercial requirements amongst those who are dispensing with justice. These are the two main things that dissuade commercial litigation.

B&B: And how does one resolve this?

KGR: The litigant must be choosy in litigation. He should not embark upon frivolous litigation. That is the responsibility of the lawyer. Once that happens, we will already start filtering the litigation.

And that is where we should have pre-litigation mediation and we should do this in a big way. You see S.89 [of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908] is only with respect to court-referred mediation. That does not really serve the purpose.

You should have pre-litigation mediation so that the evidence can also be placed before the mediator. And the mediator, without pronouncing on the sufficiency of the evidence, can tell each party where there is some weakness in their evidence.

B&B: How do you persuade judges to see your point of view?

KGR: You as a lawyer have been chosen by the client because you are supposed to be an expert in that subject. You see, a client has the liberty of choosing a lawyer, he does not have the liberty of choosing a judge. Therefore when the client chooses you as a lawyer, you have to make sure that you have put your best before the judge, who may not know the law or the entire nuances of the law.

And you know, there are good judges and there are not so good judges. I have always told my colleagues, there is no use blaming a judge.

A client knows his case much better than a lawyer does. So he does not need a lawyer. So then why does a client come to you? He comes to you because he thinks that this is a person who has the skill to rise to the level of a very intelligent judge, debate with him and convince him that I have a case. He has the ability to go down to the level of a not so intelligent judge, put things in a very simple way and make the judge understand and get an order.

There is no use saying, “He is a dull judge he wont understand me.” What are you meant for? So that is the way of looking at the profession. This is the USP of a lawyer.

B&B: Some say that it is hard to get a patient hearing in the Supreme Court unless you hire a Senior Advocate. Do you think this is true?

KGR: Yes and no. Some times before some judges, yes. But you see there is nothing wrong. See the point is this – you must understand that the Senior Advocate has built a reputation for himself. The judge has seen him argue matters day in and day out; he has formed an opinion about the lawyer. The judge may think, if this man puts a point across, there must be something in it.

B&B: But isn’t this unfair?

KGR: It is unfair to deprive somebody else of a hearing. But to give a little more credit to what a Senior Advocate says is not unfair. When a Senior Advocate puts across a point, it is quite alright for a judge to say, “Well it is coming from him. There must be something in it. Let me examine it.” Of course you cannot accept every thing a Senior Advocate says- that would be meaningless.

But the Senior Advocate has been before the same judge for so long, he has argued before the same judge and the judge has formed some opinion. And when you become a senior advocate, you have also distanced yourself from the client. Therefore it is assumed that a senior advocate is a little less involved with a client’s emotion than a briefing counsel.

B&B: What do you think of the collegium system of appointing judges?

KGR: According to me, it has to go and be replaced by a committee comprising of Chief Justice of India or a senior judge of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices of the State, perhaps the Law Minister, and the Opposition leader.

See, the one thing that we should understand is the judges are not to be cocooned in an ivory tower. They also have to be exposed to democratic institutions.

You may think the Law Minster is not an honest man, you may think the Leader of the Opposition is wasting time. These are all different issues. We are not on individuals you see, we are on the institution. However much you may dislike a group of parliamentarians or legislators, can you say I will do away with the Parliament? You can’t. That is part of democracy.

Today, we don’t know why a particular person, who is highly qualified, is not appointed a judge. Why is a particular Chief Justice being ignored for elevation to the Supreme Court? Why? Why shouldn’t I ask questions? I am not asking you what was the discussion between two judges while rendering a judgment. I am not for a single moment, asking any questions with respect to the discharge of their judicial functions. But appointing a judge is not a judicial function.

B&B: How did you start your association with Dua Associates?

KGR: I was probably the first lawyer in Bangalore to do something like that. In 1998, I merged my practice with Dua Associates. At that time, I had 12 juniors so it was not a question of my joining Dua Associates, it was a question of the entire office merging with Dua Associates.

Honestly, I did not do it for personal gain. By that time I had a good practice, a number of juniors etc. But there were two reasons why I thought I should do it namely that all of us should have an exposure to litigation across India and that my colleagues should rub shoulders with lawyers across the country. I had a full discussion about this with the juniors in my office. I had told them quite clearly that I am not going to join Dua Associates without them. “If you all as a team, say we will become part of a national law firm, I will agree.” I told them that I wanted them to be able to rub shoulders with a national law firm. The economy had liberalized, we were going to have a number of trans-national transactions, so there was no use of being the frog in the well.

B&B: What is your opinion about the entry of foreign law firms?

KGR: I think it is a good thing. The only reason why there is so much opposition is because of this whole reciprocity business. That is the problem. We are willing to allow them but they are not willing to recognize that we are competent to practice in their country. What is the problem? We will not appear in courts, and neither are they planning to appear in our courts. But what is the problem with my starting an office there with an Indian lawyer? I won’t advise on foreign law. After all I am an Indian lawyer.

B&B: Any potential benefits of foreign law firms entering?

KGR: The benefits are that the threshold of your performance has to increase if you have to survive. You look at any industry anywhere in the world; if an Indian enterprise has to succeed on an international canvas, it has to up the threshold of performance.

Let me tell you very frankly. I have worked with several foreign lawyers; I have worked with foreign law firms on arbitration matters all over the world. I can tell you confidently, I was as smart or better than many of them. I could understand a point in half the time they required and I could take it forward.

But what is holding us back? [It is the] lack of discipline and management skills.

Take it from me, if a foreign lawyer tells you, “You will receive my opinion before 12 o’clock tomorrow”, you can be a hundred percent certain that there will be a mail from him by 12 the next day.

Does this happen in India?

B&B: What do you think about the recent boycotting of courts by lawyers in Karnataka?

KGR: It is unfortunate. Extremely unfortunate. We have the same problem of too much politics. You see, whether it is good or bad, let us understand the reality. Ten per cent of the practice is distributed amongst ninety per cent of the lawyers while ninety per cent of the practice is in the hands of ten per cent of the lawyers. So it is only a handful of lawyers who are busy. The majority are not busy; they don’t value their own time.

That is why, when you have all these lawyers agitations, who do you think participates in them? Not the busy lawyers, it is those who are not busy, who waste their time in such activities. And these are the majority. Now we have had instances in bar associations where you go and speak to them, you will be booed. And to add to this, the political colour….

B&B: But as a Senior Advocates, can’t lawyers of your standing step in –

KGR: We do. We do. You are absolutely right. But for the fact that Senior Advocates intervened in Bangalore, there would have been half a dozen more boycott of courts. In fact when there was a boycott of courts, all of us Senior Advocates with one voice said, “We are attending courts, do what you want.” And we did.

There are legal ways in which you can address issues. If lawyers have been brutally attacked by the police, if lawyers have been unjustifiably criticized by the Press and the electronic media, there are ways of tackling this. Not going on the streets, throwing stones and burning buses and boycotting courts. After all, boycotting courts is like committing suicide.

And what happens to your reputation? There is a difference between profession and a trade. Is this a trade? Of course not! I feel very strongly about this. We lost our name, we lost our reputation. We lost everything.

B&B: Other than law, is there anything that interests you?

KGR: Being associated with social and cultural organizations is my passion. I am the Honorary Secretary of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan in Bangalore. I am the Chairman of a school that is being run in the slum areas of Bangalore in Shrirampuram. We have 250 children coming from the slum areas of Srirampuram. Sometimes I go to the school in the morning and then have to force myself to leave.

Reading English literature has also been another passion from my college days. I have read all the works of Shakespeare; works of Charles Dickens; poems of Keats, Shelly and the like. Now I have developed an avid interest in reading Kannada literature and poetry.

From the beginning, I have been keenly interested in developing the art of public speaking. I have been an active member and office bearer at the Toastmasters club at YMCA. I have participated in mock parliaments, model UNO and the like in several occasions during my student days.

Another thing that I enjoy is being associated with temples, ashrams and the like. I spend a lot of time there whenever I get the time. So these are my passions outside of law.

This interview was conducted in Bangalore in April, 2013 and is the second in the Bangalore lawyers series. The previous interview was that of Senior Advocate Udaya Holla.