Dear Editor,
I have been a frequent reader of your journal. I find the articles in your journal well developed, thoroughly researched and abreast with recent developments and initiatives under Indian law and the Indian legal profession. I compliment you on your publication.
I read with interest the Vantage point article titled Corporate counsel checklist in the July/August edition of India Business Law Journal. While the stated objective of the article was to provide critical tips for lawyers on striking successful partnerships with in-house counsel, I unfortunately found that the content of the article did not serve its desired purpose. Instead, to my mind, the article was – in general – highly critical of Indian law firms, without offering any definitive tips or advice on the steps Indian law firms could take to reduce their deficiencies.
I also felt that the article was perhaps based on the misunderstanding of the practise of the profession of law, and the culture of the Indian legal profession. For example, while I agree that it is important for lawyers to respond to a client request, I feel it would be challenging for most law firms to “draw up a long-term revenue plan (usually three years)” for long-standing clients and more so for new clients. The author also fails to appreciate that a lawyer’s practice is not straight-jacketed and the volume of a lawyer’s work is driven by contingencies that are frequently within the realm of the unknown.
[ihc-hide-content ihc_mb_type=”show” ihc_mb_who=”3″ ihc_mb_template=”2″ ]
Further, the captioned article errs in its over-emphasis of the need for industry specialization by Indian law firms, since good lawyers always have been and will be reputed for their knowledge of law and not that of the industry. While it is important for lawyers to specialize in defined legal practice areas, it may be an exaggeration to state that the legal profession hinges on investing in industry expertise.
I also disagree with the author’s statements that “firms that pitch on the basis of being ‘full-function’ instead of highlighting provable industry specializations, inspire little confidence”. A law firm is comprised of several partners and associates and whilst individual lawyers within a law firm may specialize in certain practice areas, the law firm as a whole may be full-service.
Lastly, I do not agree with the author’s statement that “the tendency of litigation firms to dovetail into corporate legal advisory services … suggests a comparison with international law firms would be premature and unfair”. I cannot think of a single leading international law firm that does not provide corporate advisory services as well as litigation services. Further, the author ought to be aware that like chartered accountancies and tax advisory firms that assist clients with tax disputes, it is also important for Indian law firms that specialize in client advisory work to assist with resolving any disputes that may arise from the advice, agreement or transaction with which the firm is involved. In fact, the author ought to appreciate that it is those firms that stop being dynamic and do not grow to fulfil the diverse and varied requirements of their clients that face the very real risk of extinction.
The Indian legal profession does have its pitfalls and there is still much to be done for its enhancement, however, I feel that the captioned article reads more like a list of complaints and could have instead provided some much needed advice for Indian law firms to strike better partnerships with in-house lawyers.
Aaron Solomon
Managing Partner
Solomon & Co
Mumbai
[/ihc-hide-content]
