{youtube}i4yX-MoWbFw{/youtube}
Video and below interview summary reproduced with permission of Rainmaker. Interview conducted by Aju John.
Attorney General G E Vahanvati said that while it is quite attractive to work at a big firm like Amarchand or AZB, doing litigation first will help young lawyers with their first principles. You must have knowledge of the civil procedure code and the criminal procedure code and thus know the ropes of the law.
“Jean Paul Satre said that some people become adults without ever having been children. Some lawyers become very successful without ever having dirt in their nails. You have to know how the registry and filing works. After that you can branch off into transactional work if you want, but first principles of law must be absolutely all right.”
The Attorney General was speaking to Rainmaker about the the three things a young lawyer had to keep in mind.
“First of all you must be prepared to work very hard. Unfortunately, today with word processors, it is a cut-and-paste job. Everything is very easy with search engines and all sorts of finders.”
The second is integrity. This is required in everything that is done in the legal profession. “If you are appearing in court, you must exude the aura that the judge will believe what you say”, he said. That is the most important thing - one should never mislead the court.
Even if one is doing non-litigation work, one should never mislead opposing counsel because then “he will never trust you again”. You have to do the best for your client but don’t resort to sharp practices. “Once your reputation is gone, it is gone forever.”
“The third is don’t run after money. Money comes.” He recalled what Atul Setalvad had told him in 1976. “Fees are like water in a reservoir. They will build up over a period of time because solicitors don’t pay immediately, but after some time the water will flow regularly.” In today’s profession, people have to resist the lure of money, he said.
To youngsters who feel that litigation is the poorest of the options that they are faced with, he said that there is nothing more satisfying than a good argument in court. “It is a high. There is nothing like facing a judge who does not agree with you, and then you turn him.”
He also said that it was high time the seniors in the legal profession realised that junior lawyers need to be paid. “I pay my juniors”, he said. “There was a young junior who came to me when I was Advocate General of Maharashtra”, he recalled. “He couldn’t afford to stay in Bombay. He was from Orissa and wanted to practice in Delhi. I called Ryan Karanjawala and asked him whether he could help him. Ryan took him up and paid him fifteen thousand rupees a month. Today he is doing very well.” He said that seniors in the legal profession had to learn that whatever they have is a gift that must be shared with young lawyers.
“If you give young lawyers some money and see that they are doing well, their enthusiasm is at a different level. An unhappy junior will never be able to assist you. A happy junior will give you the best he’s got.”
Describing aspects of his relationship with his juniors, he said that he would give his juniors x amount of money every month, and also try to see that they get associated with certain matters so that they can earn some additional income. Once they get the exposure, they go ahead and start getting work on their own.
He also said that it is unhealthy for young lawyers to start practicing directly at the Supreme Court. “I have appeared in the City Civil Court of Bombay with a fee of thirty rupees. I have appeared in the Small Causes Court on rent eviction matters”, he said.
Visit and subscribe to Rainmaker India’s YouTube channel to view archive video interviews.
Attorney General G E Vahanvati said that while it is quite attractive to work at a big firm like Amarchand or AZB, doing litigation first will help young lawyers with their first principles. You must have knowledge of the civil procedure code and the criminal procedure code and thus know the ropes of the law.
“Jean Pau…l Satre said that some people become adults without ever having been children. Some lawyers become very successful without ever having dirt in their nails. You have to know how the registry and filing works. After that you can branch off into transactional work if you want, but first principles of law must be absolutely all right.”
The Attorney General was speaking to Rainmaker about the the three things a young lawyer had to keep in mind.
“First of all you must be prepared to work very hard. Unfortunately, today with word processors, it is a cut-and-paste job. Everything is very easy with search engines and all sorts of finders.”
The second is integrity. This is required in everything that is done in the legal profession. “If you are appearing in court, you must exude the aura that the judge will believe what you say”, he said. That is the most important thing - one should never mislead the court.
Even if one is doing non-litigation work, one should never mislead opposing counsel because then “he will never trust you again”. You have to do the best for your client but don’t resort to sharp practices. “Once your reputation is gone, it is gone forever.”
“The third is don’t run after money. Money comes.” He recalled what Atul Setalvad had told him in 1976. “Fees are like water in a reservoir. They will build up over a period of time because solicitors don’t pay immediately, but after some time the water will flow regularly.” In today’s profession, people have to resist the lure of money, he said.
To youngsters who feel that litigation is the poorest of the options that they are faced with, he said that there is nothing more satisfying than a good argument in court. “It is a high. There is nothing like facing a judge who does not agree with you, and then you turn him.”
He also said that it was high time the seniors in the legal profession realised that junior lawyers need to be paid. “I pay my juniors”, he said. “There was a young junior who came to me when I was Advocate General of Maharashtra”, he recalled. “He couldn’t afford to stay in Bombay. He was from Orissa and wanted to practice in Delhi. I called Ryan Karanjawala and asked him whether he could help him. Ryan took him up and paid him fifteen thousand rupees a month. Today he is doing very well.” He said that seniors in the legal profession had to learn that whatever they have is a gift that must be shared with young lawyers.
“If you give young lawyers some money and see that they are doing well, their enthusiasm is at a different level. An unhappy junior will never be able to assist you. A happy junior will give you the best he’s got.”
Describing aspects of his relationship with his juniors, he said that he would give his juniors x amount of money every month, and also try to see that they get associated with certain matters so that they can earn some additional income. Once they get the exposure, they go ahead and start getting work on their own.
He also said that it is unhealthy for young lawyers to start practicing directly at the Supreme Court. “I have appeared in the City Civil Court of Bombay with a fee of thirty rupees. I have appeared in the Small Causes Court on rent eviction matters”, he said.
Comments
@#2: I don't think Mr. Vahanvati is saying that a litigation lawyer is better than a corporate lawyer. It's like comparing apples and oranges. His point is not that you "need" to do litigation to become a corporate lawyer but that you "ideally should" for your own development. What he's probably trying to say is that doing litigation for some time broadens your horizons and makes you more aware of certain aspects of law, which you would never be exposed to doing corporate law. It's important to know the litigation aspects in order to advise your corporate clients' better. That said, I do agree with #2 that today is the day and age of specialization especially in the West.
Practising law in India is very different from the western world so a knowledge of litigation would really help in getting an overall perspective of legal practice in India. If you ever set up your own practice think of the advantage you would have in knowing both litigation as well as corporate/ transactional law aspects.
Thanks for agreeing to my views expressed in your column in an article published on a Prof who created Harward of the East.
Nice bit of advice.
Ehh?? I simply fail to appreciate how knowledge of the working of court registry helps make a better transactional lawyer or a solicitor!!
Having worked in law firms for a considerable period of time, I find it irksome when any and every litigator seeks to portray litigation as the "real" practice of law which is the true test of one's merit and ability. This one-eyed take on law firms is as true as the view of many lawyers working for law firms who think that litigators while away their time gossiping in court, eating samosas and asking for passovers. The issue of why law firms attract new members of the bar in India at the expense of senior advocates or their chambers is a very real and serious one. There are many reasons why young advocates are simply unable to consider litigation practice as a viable career option and it would be more productive for senior lawyers to seek to understand these concerns and to try and address them.
Is it essential or does it make those who do it better transactional lawyers than those who don't? That's another thing altogether and the correct answer is "not necessarily". The often superior attitude of many litigators is a bit galling, as #2 and #* point out. First principles don't necessarily come from a knowledge of the CPC and and the (at times morally compromised) working of the registry, they come from a good education on what those first principles are and good traning in the initial years of practice.
There are today many excellent lawyers who are partners of Indian law firms who have never done litigation. Are we to presume that their performance on an IPO or a structured finance transaction would have been even better if they knew what Order 7 Rule 11 meant? Or course not.
But contrary to above, practicing in a court for a reasonable time is necessary to know the procedures, because without knowing the procedures one cannot complete the job to utmost satisfaction.
For instance, if you give a client some advice, and your client asks you what would happen in court if there is a dispute, and you are not able to effectively and realistically respond to that query, then the very credibility of your advice comes into question. If you can't even explain to your client how a suit progresses in trial court (which btw law colleges are severely lacking in teaching students), then that mars your advice. No degree prepares you for the practical aspects of any career. MBA students straight out of business school cannot become good consultants. It's only life / career experience that teaches them enough to effectively advise their clients.
My two cents.
Hence, if you start your career as a litigation lawyer and you feel you are not cut out for it - you can bank on the experience you have gained and apply your litigation lawyer skills when you switch to non-litigation. However, if you join a corporate and then realize that you don't fit there - the skills you acquire in a corporate are not so easily transferable to a career in a law firm or as a litigator.
Legal Dodo
When I graduated, I resisted offers from law firms. Instead, I joined a small litigation practice where I was paid between 10,000 - 15,000 for the first 15 months. Thereafter, as I developed my skills, the work poured in.
Four years later, I could expect to take home Rs. 70-80,000 / month (and I say this only because I find that many students seem to be interested in knowing just how soon can you expect a litigation practice to start paying your bills).
At this point, I found the work at some firms which had approached me with offers to be of interesting. I was laterally absorbed, and I joined a grade above some of my batch-mates. However, I would attribute that to the fact that I had four years of experience under my belt - in an area directly linked with my team's expertise.
My humble advice to students - Don't look at the money. Look at the work. Litigation may pay less when you start, but in the long run, the grind pays off. It's not as much of a risk as it is made out to be.
With due respect I would like to share my view. Even today most of the seniors are not ready to pay even a nominal amount to juniors. But lawyers who do pay are least in number regarding lower courts. In a lower court getting a senior means getting GOD there! This might be one of the reasons behind keeping legal practice as poorest and least option.