In May this year, three of the four Partners at MNK Legal joined Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. The fourth, Probal Bhaduri, opted for PDS Legal..In this interview with Bar & Bench’s Pallavi Saluja, Probal Bhaduri talks about his decision to not move to CAM and instead join PDS Legal, the impact of the Amarchand Mangaldas split, the complaint filed by SILF against the Big four, liberalisation of legal market and much more..Pallavi Saluja: Why didn’t you move to CAM? .Probal Bhaduri: The opportunities presented by both the organisations were quite different. I don’t think I need to spend time telling you about the strength of brand Amarchand. PDS Legal, on the other hand, in many ways afforded me the chance to once again focus on the development of an institution. Growing the practice in this market will pose an exciting personal and professional challenge..Pallavi Saluja: Would you have thought of leaving MNK if there was no CAM offer?.Probal Bhaduri: The teams from MNK which have joined Cyril Amarchand and PDS Legal carry with them value systems which were inculcated in MNK, so to that extent I believe no one has ‘left’ MNK. Not only the partners, but also each member of MNK was deeply and personally invested in creating a firm with a specific ethos which extended well beyond some of the more conventional reasons why law firms are set up and disbanded..I will always be extremely proud to have been part of a team that succeeded in setting up and running a firm, which consistently punched above its weight in terms of quality, while maintaining a positive work environment. At the risk of sounding somewhat immodest, very few law firms have been able to strike this balance..Our decisions vis-a-vis the paths we have followed post-MNK – where someone has chosen to set up independent practice, others have joined law firms – were decisions made in tandem. Our goal was to ensure that everyone at MNK is able to access the platform most suited to accomplish our individual professional goals and not to simply choose between X or Y law firm..Pallavi Saluja: There is a huge churn in the law firm market with the Amarchand Mangaldas split. Your thoughts?.Probal Bhaduri: Whenever there is a new firm, it will try and attract the best talent, since clients will choose talent over relationships in complex matters. The split obviously has created opportunities for both lawyers and clients and hopefully everyone will win..In terms of commenting on the recent movements, in my opinion it would not be appropriate for anyone to try and come up with a single reason which drives people to leave one law firm for another. While money would make a convenient answer, it may not be true for all cases. I think a lawyer (working in a law firm) goes through two very distinct stages. In the first stage, the focus is towards individual growth. During this stage, (usually in the early part of one’s career or in firms where management structures have not evolved to professional levels to devolve ownership) the focus is on the ‘brand’ one is working for and the ‘stepping stone effect’..Money or (promised) career paths usually play an important role here. I think that movements during this stage happen for the good since both the individual and the firm is probably not willing to make the investment in each other. These movements will keep happening and I do not think firms will be able to control them unless they create systems which reflect the ‘trusteeship principle’. Luckily there seems to be enough to go around..These movements will keep happening and I do not think firms will be able to control them unless they create systems which reflect the ‘trusteeship principle’..A few firms allow lawyers to move to the second stage, where the lawyer’s focus is towards striking a balance between the individual growth and the firm’s growth. This is a where the firm judges (or should judge) the lawyer against his or her technical skills, but more importantly on whether the lawyer will act as a trustee of the value systems of the firm. The rare firm, which allows its lawyers to move to the second stage, will usually lose far lesser people and (more importantly) attract far more people from other firms..If you look at the moves in the market recently and access each individual against these two stages, you will have the answers..Pallavi Saluja: SILF has filed a complaint with Bar Council of Delhi against the Big 4 for unauthorised practice of law. PDS legal is considered to be the legal arm of EnY India. What are your views?.Probal Bhaduri: I am aware of it and have read portions of the complaint. I am assuming that the Big 4 have engaged appropriate legal representation who are advising them. PDS Legal has not been engaged by any of the Big 4..In so far as PDS Legal being considered to be the ‘legal arm’ of EY India, I think it is the product of perceived imagination rather than facts. Partners of a majority of the ranked firms (including me) have over the years built up relationships with partners of accounting firms, foreign firms, and consulting firms etc., which have resulted in client referrals on both sides. This does not mean that the law firm becomes the ‘legal arm’. If this was the yardstick, a lot more firms would become ‘legal arms’..Pallavi Saluja: What are your views on liberalisation of legal market?.Probal Bhaduri: I think the expression ‘legal market’ in the Indian context tries to straddle two entirely different worlds consisting of litigation (individual advocacy) and law firms. In the context of individual advocacy, I am not qualified or experienced to comment on whether liberalisation is required or not..In so far as the law firms are concerned, there have been sweeping changes in the way law firms work today compared to how they operated in the 90s. To me, these changes represent a far greater attempt towards liberalisation rather than the most popular perception of ‘foreign firms’ setting up offices in India..However, what cannot be denied is the benefits of exposing the Indian legal sector to the standards of quality, sophistication and professionalism demonstrated by more developed markets..Pallavi Saluja: At a recent SILF meeting, Rohit Kochhar said that Indian firms lack the deep pockets of foreign firms – do you agree?.Probal Bhaduri: While it is true that some of the larger foreign law firms, for example UK Magic Circle, may have access to greater resources (both financial and in terms of man power) than Indian firms, assuming that the established Indian firms do not have adequate resources may not be true in all cases..I think that the profit margins of some of the Indian firms would make managing partners of foreign firms quite envious. Any professionally run firm will make an analytical decision to fund new markets and practice areas. Indian firms have a far better understanding of what makes India and its businesses tick. This advantage will level the playing field against pure financial strength in the long run..Indian firms have a far better understanding of what makes India and its businesses tick. This advantage will level the playing field against pure financial strength in the long run..Pallavi Saluja: How is working in a big law firm like AZB different from working in a smaller firm?.Probal Bhaduri: I don’t believe ‘big firm’ or ‘small firm’ by itself create distinctions. In the end, the impact and reach of an organization is a function of the people who work there and not based on size alone. The experience I gained when I joined Ajay Bahl & Co., and saw it become AZB, is what I carried over to Mukherjee & Khandelwal (now MNK)..My experience at MNK made me much more appreciative of the efforts which have been taken by the leaders of firms which went on to become big. It is extremely challenging to build a brand and my experience in MNK has been invaluable in this regard. I’ve encountered formidable talent in large firms, smaller outfits, as well as ad hoc one-man operations and have had the good fortune of having worked with some of the best and brightest minds in the world of law firms..Pallavi Saluja: How do you compare working in law firm in India versus working outside?.Probal Bhaduri: It’s not easy to judge Indian firms in relation to firms abroad and vice versa because it’s difficult to identify comparable firms. There is limited value in trying to compare a firm which employs more than 2,500 associates worldwide with a 250 lawyer Indian firm..I think the essential difference is that of ‘trusteeship’. In foreign law firms, there is an ingrained culture of the firm’s vision and a lot of effort is put in to inculcate the values. Each member of the firm acts as a trustee of that vision and does his or her best in carrying it forward. There is a great sense of ownership and pride of the value system..In India, the sense of trusteeship is usually missing. The focus is more on what an individual has achieved rather than what the firm has gained. While this keeps the bells ringing, in the long run, retention becomes an issue and there is a real risk of the firm’s value system getting lost..In India, the sense of trusteeship is usually missing. The focus is more on what an individual has achieved rather than what the firm has gained. While this keeps the bells ringing, in the long run, retention becomes an issue and there is a real risk of the firm’s value system getting lost..I see this trend changing with the newer firms entering the fray with more egalitarian structures. With the Indian market maturing and impending liberalization, I expect this culture of professionalism and transparency to become more firmly embedded in Indian law firms and their operations.
In May this year, three of the four Partners at MNK Legal joined Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. The fourth, Probal Bhaduri, opted for PDS Legal..In this interview with Bar & Bench’s Pallavi Saluja, Probal Bhaduri talks about his decision to not move to CAM and instead join PDS Legal, the impact of the Amarchand Mangaldas split, the complaint filed by SILF against the Big four, liberalisation of legal market and much more..Pallavi Saluja: Why didn’t you move to CAM? .Probal Bhaduri: The opportunities presented by both the organisations were quite different. I don’t think I need to spend time telling you about the strength of brand Amarchand. PDS Legal, on the other hand, in many ways afforded me the chance to once again focus on the development of an institution. Growing the practice in this market will pose an exciting personal and professional challenge..Pallavi Saluja: Would you have thought of leaving MNK if there was no CAM offer?.Probal Bhaduri: The teams from MNK which have joined Cyril Amarchand and PDS Legal carry with them value systems which were inculcated in MNK, so to that extent I believe no one has ‘left’ MNK. Not only the partners, but also each member of MNK was deeply and personally invested in creating a firm with a specific ethos which extended well beyond some of the more conventional reasons why law firms are set up and disbanded..I will always be extremely proud to have been part of a team that succeeded in setting up and running a firm, which consistently punched above its weight in terms of quality, while maintaining a positive work environment. At the risk of sounding somewhat immodest, very few law firms have been able to strike this balance..Our decisions vis-a-vis the paths we have followed post-MNK – where someone has chosen to set up independent practice, others have joined law firms – were decisions made in tandem. Our goal was to ensure that everyone at MNK is able to access the platform most suited to accomplish our individual professional goals and not to simply choose between X or Y law firm..Pallavi Saluja: There is a huge churn in the law firm market with the Amarchand Mangaldas split. Your thoughts?.Probal Bhaduri: Whenever there is a new firm, it will try and attract the best talent, since clients will choose talent over relationships in complex matters. The split obviously has created opportunities for both lawyers and clients and hopefully everyone will win..In terms of commenting on the recent movements, in my opinion it would not be appropriate for anyone to try and come up with a single reason which drives people to leave one law firm for another. While money would make a convenient answer, it may not be true for all cases. I think a lawyer (working in a law firm) goes through two very distinct stages. In the first stage, the focus is towards individual growth. During this stage, (usually in the early part of one’s career or in firms where management structures have not evolved to professional levels to devolve ownership) the focus is on the ‘brand’ one is working for and the ‘stepping stone effect’..Money or (promised) career paths usually play an important role here. I think that movements during this stage happen for the good since both the individual and the firm is probably not willing to make the investment in each other. These movements will keep happening and I do not think firms will be able to control them unless they create systems which reflect the ‘trusteeship principle’. Luckily there seems to be enough to go around..These movements will keep happening and I do not think firms will be able to control them unless they create systems which reflect the ‘trusteeship principle’..A few firms allow lawyers to move to the second stage, where the lawyer’s focus is towards striking a balance between the individual growth and the firm’s growth. This is a where the firm judges (or should judge) the lawyer against his or her technical skills, but more importantly on whether the lawyer will act as a trustee of the value systems of the firm. The rare firm, which allows its lawyers to move to the second stage, will usually lose far lesser people and (more importantly) attract far more people from other firms..If you look at the moves in the market recently and access each individual against these two stages, you will have the answers..Pallavi Saluja: SILF has filed a complaint with Bar Council of Delhi against the Big 4 for unauthorised practice of law. PDS legal is considered to be the legal arm of EnY India. What are your views?.Probal Bhaduri: I am aware of it and have read portions of the complaint. I am assuming that the Big 4 have engaged appropriate legal representation who are advising them. PDS Legal has not been engaged by any of the Big 4..In so far as PDS Legal being considered to be the ‘legal arm’ of EY India, I think it is the product of perceived imagination rather than facts. Partners of a majority of the ranked firms (including me) have over the years built up relationships with partners of accounting firms, foreign firms, and consulting firms etc., which have resulted in client referrals on both sides. This does not mean that the law firm becomes the ‘legal arm’. If this was the yardstick, a lot more firms would become ‘legal arms’..Pallavi Saluja: What are your views on liberalisation of legal market?.Probal Bhaduri: I think the expression ‘legal market’ in the Indian context tries to straddle two entirely different worlds consisting of litigation (individual advocacy) and law firms. In the context of individual advocacy, I am not qualified or experienced to comment on whether liberalisation is required or not..In so far as the law firms are concerned, there have been sweeping changes in the way law firms work today compared to how they operated in the 90s. To me, these changes represent a far greater attempt towards liberalisation rather than the most popular perception of ‘foreign firms’ setting up offices in India..However, what cannot be denied is the benefits of exposing the Indian legal sector to the standards of quality, sophistication and professionalism demonstrated by more developed markets..Pallavi Saluja: At a recent SILF meeting, Rohit Kochhar said that Indian firms lack the deep pockets of foreign firms – do you agree?.Probal Bhaduri: While it is true that some of the larger foreign law firms, for example UK Magic Circle, may have access to greater resources (both financial and in terms of man power) than Indian firms, assuming that the established Indian firms do not have adequate resources may not be true in all cases..I think that the profit margins of some of the Indian firms would make managing partners of foreign firms quite envious. Any professionally run firm will make an analytical decision to fund new markets and practice areas. Indian firms have a far better understanding of what makes India and its businesses tick. This advantage will level the playing field against pure financial strength in the long run..Indian firms have a far better understanding of what makes India and its businesses tick. This advantage will level the playing field against pure financial strength in the long run..Pallavi Saluja: How is working in a big law firm like AZB different from working in a smaller firm?.Probal Bhaduri: I don’t believe ‘big firm’ or ‘small firm’ by itself create distinctions. In the end, the impact and reach of an organization is a function of the people who work there and not based on size alone. The experience I gained when I joined Ajay Bahl & Co., and saw it become AZB, is what I carried over to Mukherjee & Khandelwal (now MNK)..My experience at MNK made me much more appreciative of the efforts which have been taken by the leaders of firms which went on to become big. It is extremely challenging to build a brand and my experience in MNK has been invaluable in this regard. I’ve encountered formidable talent in large firms, smaller outfits, as well as ad hoc one-man operations and have had the good fortune of having worked with some of the best and brightest minds in the world of law firms..Pallavi Saluja: How do you compare working in law firm in India versus working outside?.Probal Bhaduri: It’s not easy to judge Indian firms in relation to firms abroad and vice versa because it’s difficult to identify comparable firms. There is limited value in trying to compare a firm which employs more than 2,500 associates worldwide with a 250 lawyer Indian firm..I think the essential difference is that of ‘trusteeship’. In foreign law firms, there is an ingrained culture of the firm’s vision and a lot of effort is put in to inculcate the values. Each member of the firm acts as a trustee of that vision and does his or her best in carrying it forward. There is a great sense of ownership and pride of the value system..In India, the sense of trusteeship is usually missing. The focus is more on what an individual has achieved rather than what the firm has gained. While this keeps the bells ringing, in the long run, retention becomes an issue and there is a real risk of the firm’s value system getting lost..In India, the sense of trusteeship is usually missing. The focus is more on what an individual has achieved rather than what the firm has gained. While this keeps the bells ringing, in the long run, retention becomes an issue and there is a real risk of the firm’s value system getting lost..I see this trend changing with the newer firms entering the fray with more egalitarian structures. With the Indian market maturing and impending liberalization, I expect this culture of professionalism and transparency to become more firmly embedded in Indian law firms and their operations.
