Dear Editor,
I perused the feature titled Calling the shots in your December/January issue and I found it to be most interesting and succinct, reflecting the realities in India today.
Most relevant is the trend towards the secondment of law firm personnel to client enterprises, which is gaining ground and further integrating the warp and weft between in-house counsel and law firms. Further, the feature highlights the metamorphosis in-house counsel have undergone as they have risen to become key decision makers, rather than mere postmen who pass on matters as per the mandates of their CEOs, especially in family owned and run companies.
It has always been my view that an in-house counsel with requisite exposure and experience in business has a superior overview of a proposed transaction or dispute and should not look at a law firm in the way an inebriated man looks at a lamppost (i.e. for support rather than illumination).
[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]
Further, the term “in-house counsel” should not only refer to lawyers who are part of the top management, but also to chartered accountants and company secretaries who routinely argue complex taxation matters themselves up to tribunal levels, since they know the complexities of their matters far better than any external representatives. I feel that the term “in-house counsel” must also cover these stalwarts, who have been rendering yeoman representation services to their employers in this capacity for years. I hope that India Business Law Journal will also consider this perspective in similar features in future.
Overall India Business Law Journal deserves encomiums for a great feature on this complex issue of the powers and responsibilities of in-house counsel.
Freddy Daruwala
Partner
Nasikwala Law Office
Mumbai
[/ihc-hide-content]
