Nischal Hindia, who had left his role at drinks giant Diageo’s legal function in Februrary, as we had first reported, will be joining GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) as its India legal head, reported Bar & Bench.
Hindia will be reporting to GSK in London and is due to join soon.
He will manage a team of around six in Mumbai.
Hindia declined to comment when contacted.
The 2003-NLSIU Bangalore graduate had begun his career at Wadia Ghandy in Mumbai, before joining Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London for a year in 2006, followed by four years at Allen & Overy in London, returning to India in 2011.
He had moved to Diageo in 2013 from UBS India, where he was country counsel.
Mamta Sundara remains GC of Diageo.
Comments
60-70 Lacs at his level. No?
Regards
Bharat Sharma
It may be all about saving your a** by getting external advice or in-house team not being enough competent. Being a GC is a cozy job....with some exceptions of course like Mandal from Tata and a few others
If you know the following things done by lawyers as mentioned by you above - "instagramming pathetic firm coffee while putting up stupid captions, smoking like a chimney and eating and dining on clients expense. ...... with sexist pigs, drunks, abusive people, who preach and practice the 'law-firm culture". Then why do you approach them and waste your money?
Contradicting isn't it?
That means you ARE WELL AWARE of what law firms lawyers do and yet you go ahead and WASTE THE COMPANY'S MONEY by approaching them!!!
1. Ones who don't have a life
2. Ones who think pushing papers is cool
3. Ones who are poor
4. Ones who are single and nobody wants to mingle with them.
Whichever lawyer claims that you can't have a work life balance while working at a law firm has clearly given in to the law firms' game. No change is coming from that direction. I've seen many partners amongst the big 5 who have a very healthy work-life balance and are known to be star performers. Such partners also ensure that their teams have some semblance of a life. At the end of the day, what really matters is how the firm management treats it's human asset, like humans or like slaves and the what is the message flowing from top to bottom.
A quick survey of in-house will show that something like 90% of those people are either passed-over, on maternity / paternity mode, wanting to chill before quitting altogether or not wanting to slog till late nights to get the job done.
It's a fact that the MDs / CEOs ALWAYS insist on the word of a law firm before going ahead. If in-house is so good why would they do that huh ???
But I'm not saying in-house has no benefit. The hours are better, the work stress is much less and there is Zero client pressure. So more time for family and drinks.
Nothing to get worked up over. Relax, add a small comment or two on the latest draft received, send couple of fee reduction emails and go home or party. PEACE
You guys don't know the dynamics that goes on behind the scenes.
The CEO knows that if he bets the company on something, he needs to have a CYA if something goes wrong. That's why we get McKinsey to come and say its OK. Similarly, a law firm will come and endorse our business plans. The last thing this is about is the law. It's about telling the board tomorrow "a professional firm has looked at this and has signed off that this is compliant". Go and look up basic concepts of corporate governance. We pay money for that piece of paper which is an opinion so that we can tell our board, auditors, shareholders, that we have exercised sufficient due diligence. You guys are an expensive form of insurance, do not confuse this for superior quality.
If it's complex transactions, we want someone who has done this 10 times to come and tell us that we're not missing anything. It's like paying a mechanic to look at your car, instead of deciding that you can google it yourself and fix it. There is no ego in acknowledging that someone is an expert in one area of law and we will pay for that.
Don't let this fool you into thinking that you are better lawyers. Most in house lawyers know their industry inside out, and also understand business dynamics better. Every law firm has "specialists" in different subjects- I won't go to an IP lawyer for a tax litigation, similarly, I won't use a law firm unless they have experience where we don't.
However, as an inhouse lawyer I get a far better perpsective of how to apply the law to the business, rather than merely focussing on the legal aspects. We figure the loopholes, how to plug them and how to save our ass. I've often found errors in advice rendered by practising lawyers with no clear understanding of the business or the markets. We only get opinions because of corporate governance norms,so we can tell the foreign clients that partner of XYZ is of the same opinon. And whp do you think tells the partner what is to be written in the opion
I send a brief for opinion to BigLaw Partner. Brief is 6 pages. Brief quotes 3 sections (call them Section A, B, C), and asks "Can the company take the view XYZ".
Background: I have already decided to take the view XYZ. I need air cover for this.
BigLaw Partner replies with a 3-page opinion saying "This is the full text of Sections A, B, C".
I call up BigLaw Partner.
BigLaw Partner then adds one sentence saying "Based on Sections A, B, C above, we are of the opinion that the company can take the view XYZ".
They send me a bill for 5 lakhs. I ask for the signed opinion, then pay.
I take the opinion, lock it in a cupboard, and pray that I don't ever need to take it out and produce it anywhere.
This is what makes the law firm world go around. Good partners know how the game is played. They know not to make foolish statements like "GCs don't know anything, why else do they want opinions from us?"
It's actually ridiculous if some soul slaving away in a firm actually thought their shoddy research is worth any shit in the opinions. That's all for billing purposes only
I was going to write the exact same thing. Agree
@ Commentor 8.1
True dat. Yeah
Personal experience:
Seen a GC who would pick up the phone for every small thing and call up lawyers. I used to think, " Why have a GC, even an office boy could be made to sit there and he can dial up lawyers and take advice". Obviously, he had not earned his position and had been appointed because he was management's relative.
Overall, we need dynamic leaders.
Yeah and also office gym, kickboxing, golf, swimming all that.
What a nice life it was for him.