Amarchand Mangaldas Mumbai principal associate Satyam Sharat will join Ashurst’s Jakarta office as a foreign legal consultant in a month.
He specialises in banking, having joined Amarchand in 2006 from JurisCorp after graduating from NLIU Bhopal in 2005.
Ashurst India head Richard Gubbins said: “We were looking for a common-law trained associate to assist in dealing with our foreign clients in Indonesia. The fact that Satyam is an Indian national from an Indian law firm is a bonus since Indian investors are quite active in Indonesia.
“The work that our Jakarta Office has done for Indian clients includes work for Essar, [TVS Motor Company], airport developers [such as GVK] and mine investors. Satyam will be a great asset for us to attract additional work from India because he comes to us with excellent credentials.”
Comments
A correction btw, Satyam is from NLIU, Bhopal, if I'm not mistaken. He's definitely not from Jodhpur.
Looks like Richard feels that Indian clients are naive and will gravitate towards his firm just because they see an Indian face sitting on the table, despite that Indian face not being trained or experienced in Indonesian or English law..
Mr. XYZ should have been recruited instead as he shows great acumen in such practical matters. A substitute for the Principal Associate has been spotted on LegallyIndia's comments section. Hail XYZ.
That said, he's still perfect for amarchand.
Neither Satyam, not any other Indian advocate, can legally practice Indian law for a foreign firm abroad. The rules are as clear as they are uneforced and ignored.
An advocate must surrender or suspend his admission if he becomes employed. Satyam is presumably being employed by Ashurst. He should suspend or surrender his admission to practice and should not be entitled to practice Indian law until this disability is removed. He would face the same issue if he were employed as an in-house counsel in India (or anywhere else).
If Satyam is brought on as a partner (super unlikely) he would still be in partnership with (and presumably sharing profits with) people who are not admitted under the Advocates Act, which is not allowed.
Consequently, Ashurst is employing someone who will not be elgibile to practice law in his home jurisdcition. If Satyam is not licensed to practice elswhere he is not a practicing lawyer at all. Ashurst, like all foreign firms who try this approach, could face some interesting claims for malpractice if they are holding out a lawyer who is not licensed to practice law. If Satyam follows the rules, and is not admitted to practice in another jursidcition, he is really only a para legal. If para legals must be licensed in Indonesia, a person such as Satyam is not even that.
While few if any Indian lawyers embedded in foreign firms follow the rules on employment (like their in-house bretheren in India), the rules are quite clear on the matter.
It is possible for Ashurst to draft around this, in the same way that in-house counsel can draft "consulting agreements" that tie them to a single company but allow them to maintain their admission. One wonders if this was explained to Ashurst by Satyam, or if foreign firms and their Indian employees bother about this at all.
Certainly, BCI should send out notices to every Indian advocate employed by a foreign firm and enquire about their admission and employment status. Anyone employed by a foreign firm and holding himself out as admitted to practice in India should have his admission reviewed.
Not sure whether Indian lawyers who go abroad usually surrender their enrolments, though? (or whether most in-house counsel do, for that matter)
The question is whether he can continue to maintain his bar council membership once he is employed in a job. The rules say he cannot.
If he is not enrolled to practice in any jurisdiction, what will he be doing for the firm in Indonesia? If he is supervised by a practicing attorney he can assist like any other paralegal or non-lawyer asset. But he's not a lawyer, advocate or anything else that requires a license.
Believe it or not, there are indeed jurisdcitions in this world that take professional responsibility seriously, where lapses are punished by the regulator, where malpractice insurers and sophisticated clients take note of laxity. Truly, there are such places! Just not here.
One simple question, if NLIU is so good why have generations of CLAT takers and recruiters tagged it as No. 5 or 6 below even younger law schools like Jodhpur, NUJS I think in 2-3 years even GNLU and NLU Delhi will overtake it. Facts please
One simple question, if NLIU is so good why have generations of CLAT takers and recruiters tagged it as No. 5 or 6 below even younger law schools like Jodhpur, NUJS I think in 2-3 years even GNLU and NLU Delhi will overtake it. Facts please[/quote]
"Generations of CLAT Takers" Dear 'Sir', i get a feeling that you are indeed one of the CLAT taker and by that logic you are not even in the market right now (considering that CLAT was conducted for the first time in 2008). Regarding facts kindly refer to my earlier comment -Managers, Principal Associates Partners, associate partners u'll find everyone in the list. No but on second thoughts u sit with your Clat ranking kid and justify your decision. There is not much difference between u and XYZ above..
At least two ex-students have started their own law firms after having worked in top firms in Singapore, and last year one made partner at Trilegal.
If you have indeed interacted with Mr. Sharat, you might be working at Amarchand, and you are probably nothing but 'frustrated'.
At least two ex-students have started their own law firms after having worked in top firms in Singapore, and last year one made partner at Trilegal.
If you have indeed interacted with Mr. Sharat, you might be working at Amarchand, and you are probably nothing but 'frustrated'.[/quote]
That's true. Though names would'nt change the thought behind your comment but Anuj (Trivedi) is a PA at Dua and it is Ravi Nair (not Anuj) who has joined ELP as associate partner. Both r from NLIU.
"Advocate XYZ, you are sorely mistaken. My school, [FILL IN BLANK] is vastly superior to your school [FILL IN BLANK]. Your pathetic school [FILL IN BLANK] is [X] notch(es) below my school in the recent definitive ranking done by [FEMINA, VOGUE, etc...].
My school placed [X] number of graduates at AMSS last year while yours placed (
In any case, its kudos to Satyam and best wishes for his future!
Why is there a constant effort by a few people to dismiss every thing "NLIU"? What kind of grievances do they have against NLIU or its people? Is it because NLIU has been rated / ranked above NLU Jodhpur by the CLAT aspirants and India Today or is it because the earlier editions of India Today / Outlook ranked it above NUJS Kolkata? I know there would be this usual refrain by some people that "we have no competition...."; but that is neither true nor the point being made here. Achievements, whether individiual or by institution, should be lauded. Diagreement is healthy, but cynicism and condescension is quite the opposite.