Khaitan & Co competition law executive director Paku Khan will relocate to San Francisco in the US for family reasons, with an added business case meaning he will stay associated with the firm.
Khaitan HR head Amar Sinhji confirmed that Khan would not set up an office for Khaitan in the US but would continue working exclusively for the firm’s competition practice.
“He will further the firm’s interest in the US and help strengthen existing relationships and build new relationships,” he added.
Khan was not reachable for comment at the time of publication.
Khan had joined Khaitan in 2012 from erstwhile Amarchand Mangaldas in Delhi, where he was hired in 2009 from Irish corporate law firm A&L Goodbody.
Khan is of Indian origin but was born in the US. He holds a 1991 law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in the US, and is qualified to practice law in Tennessee, Washington DC, New York and as an Irish solicitor (though he is not qualified to practice law in India).
He had previously worked at the Irish Competition Authority in 2003, joining A&L Goodbody in 2005.
Khan could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.
Update: Khan commented: “I’m terrifically excited to make this move and it’s a real testatement to Khaitan to being as open minded as possible and continuing as usual.
“Nothing really changes, my physical address is going to be in the Bay area, but I’m really doing the same thing.”
Correction: An earlier published story mistakenly stated that Khan began his career in 2003, when in fact he began it in 1991.
Comments
The same Law firms that are anti the entry of foreign law firms, hire foreign qualified lawyers. We have Australians, Irish, American, Chinese, Japanese lawyers working at these firms, completely against the law. If they can be permitted in India, why not other lawyers? Is the distinction for Law Firms or Lawyers? It is not for law firms, but being abused by them the most!
Don't be so hypocritical, if you hire a foreigner, its ok for him to give legal advice in India - otherwise it is not. How is that equitable?
Kian - it has nothing to do with practicing in court - even legal advice on Indian law or similar ramifications is not permitted.
Not sure if it's against the law though - the law is very vague, since the definition of 'practice of law' has still not been clarified sufficiently by Lawyers Collective and Balaji.
Say I'm an economist employed by a law firm's competition team, advising clients on definitions of relevant markets, etc. Does that mean I'm practising law?
Or an engineer advising on IP law stuff? Or someone who only does BD for a law firm in Japan?
Or a foreign lawyer who prepares templates and stuff for a law firm in its KM department?
What I'm trying to say is that transactional legal practice has become so wide, the Balaji and Madras HC judgments would break down if they were challenged in court on those narrow points.
So, hypocrisy, maybe yes - illegal, probably no.
But seriously - the current regulations are a mess and unclear, including the Lawyers Collective and Balaji judgments.
Are the Big 4s and other CAs allowed to provide structuring advice on an Indian transaction? Are they allowed to advise on M&As? Are they allowed to advise on tax litigation? How about compliance? How about a non-lawyer ex-CCI member advising people on what competition law is all about?
Nearly every big law firm has foreigners working for it now. Shardul Amarchand has John Handoll (also competition law) who's on their exec committee, and there are quite a few others whom I can't recall off the top of my head right now. Cyril Amarchand and others have former SEBI guys, or insurance industry non-lawyer guys, etc, all providing advice on everything from transactions, to BD and so on...
So, I agree, the law is a mess and it's a grey area that all these firms are operating in, but I think the law firms and Big 4 know they'd have a strong case to defend what they're doing if the BCI or anyone else came knocking on their door.
Another- can a foreigner be a partner in an Indian firm?