S&R Associates has promoted three to partner.
According to its press release the new partners are:
Tanya Aggarwal’s practice covers mergers and acquisitions, capital markets, regulatory and general corporate matters. She joined S&R in 2007 after receiving a BA , LLB (Hons.) from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. She received an LLM from Harvard Law School in 2012 and was a foreign associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in London until 2013 before returning to S&R Tanya is based in the New Delhi office.
Radhika Iyer’s practice covers mergers and acquisitions, restructuring, funds, employment and general corporate matters. She received a BSL , LLB in 2007 from ILS Law College, Pune. Prior to joining S&R in 2010, she worked with Nishith Desai Associates in Mumbai. Radhika is based in the New Delhi office.
Sudip Mahapatra’s practice covers private equity, joint ventures, competition and general corporate matters. He joined S&R in 2007 after receiving a BA , LLB (Hons.) from the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. He received an LLM from Columbia University School of Law in 2010 and worked with Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York until 2012 before returning to S&R Sudip is based in the Mumbai office.
S&R very recently lost its first partner ever, with Bhakta Patnaik having left for Trilegal.
The firm is now 12 partners strong, of whom six are women.
Comments
http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/the-number-that-makes-law-firms-tick-and-khaitan-similar-to-jsa-azb-to-amarchand-but-different-from-trilegal-via-mint
It used to be eight partners and 47 fee-earners back during our earlier article in 2015, now it's 12 partners and 48 non-partner fee-earners, which either means they've not hired many associates or have not lost many/any.
So yes, very possible their leverage has gone down, unless the 60 figure isn't 100% accurate (Sandip Bhagat did say 'around 60', so maybe it's a few more).
Certainly somewhat significant.
Is it the first though? Do I remember rightly that ex-Amarchand used to claim they had more female partners than male? Poppycock or truth?
Cheers,
Ex S&R lawyer
So dont laugh off the value of internal promotions.
No idea about the abilities of the people being promoted now but as a competitor, nonetheless have a very healthy respect for S&R's practice and values.
[quote]Other all-equity partnerships have similar figures, such as S&R Associates (eight partners and 47 fee-earners, giving a gearing ratio of 6) and Talwar Thakore and Associates (four partners with 20 lawyers, giving a gearing of 5).[/quote]
http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/the-number-that-makes-law-firms-tick-and-khaitan-similar-to-jsa-azb-to-amarchand-but-different-from-trilegal-via-mint
I assume it would be intentionally kept pretty similar, although it could result in a short term slight drop in leverage until these partners build out their own teams?
But with Bhakta leaving, there was also one fewer partner. So, say for argument's sake if leverage was 6 (it was actually 5.7 or so when we wrote that article), with Bhakta it was 10 partners and 60 associates, after Bhakta left and these 3 were promoted, we're at 12 partners and 57 associates. To get up to 1:6 leverage, they'd need 72 associates - so they'd only need to hire another 15 at most.
But they might be near that number anyway - will check.
Also, the litigation practice is more highly leveraged (as our newsletter points out).
From what I recall, there is only a broad line that distinguishes their disputes lawyers from those on the broadly non-contentious side of things; when it comes to their (S&R's) staffing decisions. Thanks for your answer though. If nothing else, it lent perspective- which was the idea behind my question.
You also need to factor in the following:
A) public infrastructure (roads/parks etc) are of significantly higher quality in the US and free to use. They are non-existent/of rubbish quality in India (Mumbai at least). Your best case scenario after forking out upwards of 2.5 crores in Mumbai for a house is to live in a small crappy 2 BHK surrounded by slums and spend at least 2 hours in traffic each day travelling to work.
B) in the US, quality matters - to clients and the firm you work for. You are rewarded or penalised based on the quality of you work. In India, neither your clients, nor your firm nor your opposing counsel particularly give a shit about quality.