Shagoofa Rashid Khan, the senior director and legal and compliance head at IDFC Alternatives, will join Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas as a funds partner to take over some of the practice left by Ashwath Rau, who will be joining AZB & Partners, according to authoritative sources.
Managing partner Cyril Shroff confirmed that she would join in the coming months.
We have reached out to her for comment.
Update: She commented in a press release:
“The funds industry in India, I believe, is at an inflection point due to interplay of market dynamics, increasing contribution from domestic savings, evolving legal & tax regime and realignment of regulatory oversight.
“It is an exciting time to return to private practice by partnering with Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and this symbiotic partnership of General Counsel experience and the firm’s culture of top quality legal advice will equip our clients to not only better navigate the industry but also capitalize on opportunities to launch newer products through different pools of capital as well as to restructure/recover their investments.”
Cyril Shroff commented in the press release:
“The Firm is committed to a strategy of profitable growth as a full service national firm. The admission of Shagoofa is a welcome addition. She is very experienced and highly talented professional who will add a lot of value to the firm in the funds practice as well as in other practices”
Khan had previously been at Tata Services as vice president legal between 2013 and 2015, was senior vice president and legal head at Kotak Investment Advisors between 2006 and 2013.
She was head of real estate funds and international tax policy at Nishith Desai Associates between 2002 and 2006, after nearly seven years as a chartered accountant (CA).
She is a 1998 chartered accountant, a 2002 GLC Mumbai law graduate, and a 2003-qualified company secretary.
As reported earlier today, Cyril Amarchand has also hired two partners from J Sagar Associates (JSA) - Manisha Kumar and Guatam Gandotra - to its corporate practice.
Comments
NDA has one less competition to worry about, unless Ganesh falters at AZB.
I can understand where a law firm lawyer joins her favourite client as an in house counsel but I have always found the reverse a bit disturbing. Given that Indian companies usually do not follow a panel system (which ensures that the legal work is systematically distributed), Indian GCs often rely on one or two firms for all their work.Arguably, a conflict of interest or fairness argument may be raised if a GC after pumping in work for a couple of years to a single law firm, join the same firm as a partner. There should be some cooling period. However, all that may not even matter in India where the firms are happy to breach any policy. For example conflict - all the big firms will throw conflict issues out of the window when they smell a big pudding. 5th floor will represent one side, 6th the other and 2nd yet another. all the teams will perhaps report to a common chair. However, the clients are to be blamed for this - thery have overlooked these practices solely because they have drawn comfort from the big names. So what can any one say at the end of the day!
Comment #1.1 is pretty spot-on. Nobody with any real choice joins in-house. If you examine the inhouse lawyers, most are either young freshers who couldnt make it to a firm, middling seniors who are burnt out/ passed over imports from the firms. Only the GC is a position where very occasionally a modest partner may be tempted to join.
Kya badee badee baata karti na ino? Bilkul Sooji Naidu aur Rabina Tagoor jaisee baata. Humna bhi English Litichur mein BA karkoo, BA ke baad MA karkoo, MA ke baad MehFIL Karkoo; MehFIL ke baad PacHiDi karkoo degreeaa haasil ki so. Par Allah ki kasam, aise confusun baata karkoo, kisi ko hum ullu nahee banayee.
In house GCs generally struggle in a law firm culture : it is rather difficult for a person focussed on execution to also suddenly become a work generator and meet stiff revenue and billing targets. Truly, the move from in-house to law firm makes very little sense, especially for lawyers with considerable experience.
And so much talk about Ashwath, he also needed a Cyril and now needs a Zia. He knows on his own he is nothing as on date, or else why doesn't he open his own firm? Empty vessels make the most noise.
Is Ashwath not what the stories and comments are making him out to be? Reading these comments we are very confused. Can someone please explain? We gave up on better campus offers to pick this place, was it a mistake? Someone please shed light. Very impt for fresh Joinees
1. Lack of depth in the subject, easier to receive advise than to provide
2. Handling a team - almost all have been single generals, having to fend only for themselves. Hiring and grooming wuality juniors required different skills
3. Book - in in-house roles, focus on avoiding work/ passing on to law firms. Exact opposite of this in firms
4. Organisational dynamics - getting work requires being in the good books of someone, plus having to prove yourself constantly. Needs different people skills.
5. Longevity - in-house folks are mostlt ex-firm people, used to different (non-rainmaking and execution) stress. Welt under firm revenue pressures after a point.
5. I know it all problem - limited worldview. Are smart, but exposure gets limited, reflects in fromt of clientsm
6. Have usual insecurities - promotes backbiting.
Sadly, in India, there is a negative perception on in-house lawyers, whereas internationally, there isn't. Internationally, they judge the person, as it should be.