Tata Sons legal shrinks to 6 after lateral defections gift 4 other Cos legal heads, senior IH counsel

Shroff, Surana, Balajee, Sharma, Bharadwaj join other corporates from Tatas
Shroff, Surana, Balajee, Sharma, Bharadwaj join other corporates from Tatas

Five in-house lawyers in Tata Sons’ legal team, which is headed by former Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas partner Shuva Mandal, have moved to other companies in in-house positions over the last year, Bar & Bench has reported.

Tata Sons had been aggressively growing its legal team after Mandal joined in mid-2017.

After the departures, Tata Sons’ in-house team now stands at a headcount of nine, according to Bar & Bench.

Correction: We understand that the size of Tata Sons’ in-house team is now six, excluding Mandal.

Four out of the five leavers had joined the Tatas as lateral hires in the hiring spree within the last two years.

Tata Sons legal team members who’ve moved over the last year, include:

  • senior legal counsel Prateek Shroff (NUJS 2010, ex-Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas) joined Brookfield Asset Management as vice president, investments, this month.
  • senior legal counsel Abhinav Surana (NLU Jodhpur 2007, ex-Juris Corp) joined Aditya Birla ARC asset reconstruction arm as head of legal in April.
  • senior legal counsel Aravind Balajee (NLSIU 2004, ex-Amarchand, Allen & Overy) has moved to Adani Finserve Private Limited as vice president legal in January.
  • legal counsel Rishi Sharma (GNLU 2010, ex-Kanga & Co) joined Star TV Network as senior manager in November 2018. His tenure at Tata Sons predated Mandal’s, having started there in 2015.
  • legal counsel Supriya Bharadwaj (GLC Mumbai 2004, ex-Piramal Bain Distressed Asset Fund head legal), who had left the Tatas last year, has joined Reliance Capital as general counsel.

Comments

PeeAss 14 Jun 2019, 11:36
+6 -3
good moves
what about sampath is she still in tata?
Jasoos 14 Jun 2019, 12:11
+3 -3
Her LinkedIn profile indicates that she is.
Secret Squirrel 14 Jun 2019, 12:18
+7 -0
So, the last six who are standing would effectively be: Sayak Maity, Kathya Braganca, Dnanyesh Sabnis, Poornima Sampath, Ankit Mishra, and Gauri Rao. Kian, can you confirm?
kianganz 14 Jun 2019, 12:33
+7 -1
Yes, that sounds about right!
Friend 1 14 Jun 2019, 11:47
+7 -29
Surana is ex amss rockstar. One of rare sharp deal negotiators in corporate practice.
Impartial opinion 14 Jun 2019, 11:49
+76 -4
Shuva and attrition have always gone hand in hand.
Guest 14 Jun 2019, 15:30
+18 -30
Surprising - he's usually such a delightful person. /s
Wtf 15 Jun 2019, 07:29
+14 -0
That made my day...ROFL
Guest 15 Jun 2019, 13:01
+18 -0
Does no one know what the /s stands for?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2Fs
Mx. X 17 Jun 2019, 14:54
+3 -2
You learn something new everyday. Thank you!
Guest 18 Jun 2019, 15:06
+4 -0
Sarcasm is hard to convey on the interwebs.

[img]https://media3.giphy.com/media/d1DXtAUbZuvWZobu/200.gif[/img]
Surana ji 14 Jun 2019, 15:38
+9 -8
Greetings from amss ! You were on your way to equity in amss but still chose to follow Independence and different route.
Blunder 15 Jun 2019, 05:53
+3 -11
Why make a blunder of a move and move in-house from law firms which also pay more and you get more experience
reason for blunder? 15 Jun 2019, 07:13
+12 -15
possibly because law-firm lifestyle is not for all. long working hours, extreme pressure, taking-calls and responsibility, etc. is not for all.

Why not move in-house and instead of being a decision-maker, become an email forwarder. When faced with a problem, call your buddies, get fee quotes, let someone else burn midnight oil for the answer while you wait for their opinions to call them s***. And then all the perks of the corporate abound.

Ain't it a better choice Mr. Blunder?
In House 15 Jun 2019, 09:01
+16 -0
This seems to be biggest misconception in the market. Even I before going inhouse used to think the same. But let me tell you, working culture, kind of work and money is far far better than inhouse counsels.
PQE 15 Jun 2019, 15:09
+9 -2
only if you're at the top rung in an in-house role in a big organization will you be assured of lots of moolah.
Why Bitter? 17 Jun 2019, 05:55
+14 -2
Hi, there are a few misconceptions.

1. Your impression of an in-house lawyer may be true for the most part but things are changing now and in-house has become very competitive with truly efficient lawyers. I am an in-house lawyer and I do all the work without referring any matter to law firm(s) and when I say work, it includes acquisitions, structuring, investments, strategic partnership, et cetera with the likes of AZB, Shroff brothers, Trilegal and others on the opposite side. There are things in-house offers which law firms generally do not and you are not just stuck with your defined area.

2. 'Long working hours, extreme pressure, taking-calls and responsibility, et cetera' is same in an in-house role because you are responsible for what gets signed. As law firm lawyer we always pass on the decision making to the Company.

3. 'let someone else burn midnight oil for the answer' goes with my point 2 above and why continue in a law firm if it is an issue for you?
Lairrrr 17 Jun 2019, 06:51
+36 -1
Law firm lawyer here, who has also seen a fair bit about how top in house teams function. Seems like you're peering into the outside world from the tiny hole you've dug yourself into. It's one thing to be unaware of how something functions, but another to harbor delusions of your own so called law firm 'life'. Long working hours? This is how it goes- even if you've spent the better part of the daylight smoking cigarettes, getting coffee, and showing how hard you're supposed to work, before you know its now getting dark outside and you now realize you actually have to put in a few hours. So you amble to your desk and start typing furiously into the night, telling yourself this is the thug life and that's what you're built for. Extreme pressure? Yeah, only if you have neglected to do it when you had all the time in the world but were too busy discussing that crocodile leather belt your colleague is wearing or the new macchiato in town. Taking calls and responsibility? Haha. Unless you are at partner level in most firms, this is something you will never have to be concerned about. You think you take calls, but you never really do. Taking instructions and executing it is not the same as 'taking the call'. Far too many law firm lawyers are just glorified secretaries doing what they are told and not having a handle on how they are to do it.

While its not true for the majority of the in house teams in India, there are at least 3-4 which operate very efficiently, handle a lot of the work in house, and only outsource it to firms when a vast due diligence is required. They also pay at par with most tier one firms. The up side is you get to learn a lot of the commercial side of transactions sitting in meetings with business heads, structuring transactions, knowing how the financing works, and seeing it from start to finish. Also, no one calls them on a weekend and lights a fire up their ass asking them to send that document in the next 2 hours. You might think you are the bees knees because you're associated with a job that gives the impression of being demanding, but life's a bit more than that.
True story? 19 Jun 2019, 07:38
+2 -0
Is this story true for all the tier 1 firms in India? Is the culprit actually procrastination?

On a side note, can someone please rank Tier 1 firms on the basis of work-life balance?
Affirmative 20 Jun 2019, 09:34
+1 -0
[img]https://media0.giphy.com/media/J336VCs1JC42zGRhjH/200.gif[/img]
Guest 24 Jun 2019, 09:10
+3 -0
Maybe because in-house positions now pay more. Do your research :)
GIF 15 Jun 2019, 08:50
+2 -0
Has Prateek joined in a non legal role and made a transition from biglaw to PE front end?
Not sayak 17 Jun 2019, 05:45
+10 -0
I wonder if this will be like Mr. Mandal's time at SAMCO where only Sayak remained after a while.
virus 17 Jun 2019, 06:55
+3 -2
maybe tata sons reduced legal team budgets- in which case we can expect more exits.they will review the couple left as virus in the system. except for shuva who they need.
one would think the tata culture is soft and sweet and easy. how bizarre.
Culture 17 Jun 2019, 11:25
+10 -0
Tatas are one of the most, how do I put this? not-so-smart-corp groups in the country. Except for TCS, all heavy asset companies are in the red and have been in red for a while. Legal team is always a cost to the company, whatever brilliant arguments one may come up with, you are the one driving sales for a company and if your cost cannot be explained, you get shafted out. That simple.
Guest 18 Jun 2019, 07:36
+8 -2
Any bets on how long Shuva will last in Tata ?
Guest 18 Jun 2019, 10:33
+8 -0
Which law firms does he refer work to now? Mostly AZB and SAM or does he use others too? Does he decide which law firms the operating companies use?
Good 19 Jun 2019, 05:29
+8 -3
He is an in-house counsel. So he will try to diversify work as much as he can because ultimately, he will one day want to join some law firm, and therefore he will keep good relationships with all the firms, and more so of the firm where even he may want to join in future.
Guest 19 Jun 2019, 05:53
+4 -1
Thanks. Just out of curiosity, do the operating company GCs have any autonomy or does everything need to be run by Tata Sons? If so, isn't that a breach of all sorts of corporate governance norms? The only reason I ask is I can't imagine there is enough work purely out of Tata Sons to keep such a high powered team fully occupied.
Guest 19 Jun 2019, 07:17
+2 -1
I guess these lawyers can be hired on retainers rather than on Tata Sons' payroll, which should get around that problem. The bigger issue is probably the fact that someone like the Holdco GC gets access to UPSI for Tata Sons in advance of other public shareholders.
Is he on the board of all the listed Tata entities? If not, I wonder how they're maintaining the required Chinese walls?
Unless, of course the operating company GCs have complete autonomy.....
Guest 19 Jun 2019, 07:54
+1 -0
Andy Mukherjee had written an article in late 2016 about this. You can find it online - I'm sure Kian won't allow me to post a link to Bloomberg.
kianganz 19 Jun 2019, 08:08
+1 -0
Heh, what's wrong with Bloomberg? :) please share.
Guest 19 Jun 2019, 08:43
+2 -0
I can't find it now but it may have been in The Economist after all, so not by Andy. My bad. But the premise was the same - the poor treatment of minority shareholders in Tata's listed companies.
nano 19 Jun 2019, 11:34
+1 -0
recently i was surprised to find large organizations have personnel in their Legal department on a retainer basis! And their Legal Dept wasn't exactly big to begin with. Wonder why they don't keep them on a full time basis.
Guest 19 Jun 2019, 05:39
+3 -0
I'm curious to know too.....Anyone....?
Suarana Fan 20 Jun 2019, 13:16
+3 -4
way to go AS. Star law firm lawyer is now STAR in house counsel. Greetings from Juris Corp from my side !!