Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas is in advanced discussions with senior J Sagar Associates (JSA) Mumbai partner Akshay Chudasama to head its Mumbai office but nothing concrete has been signed or agreed between the parties according to several authoritative sources.
It is understood that no internal announcement has been made within JSA and that discussions between Shardul Amarchand and Chudasama are ongoing.
Chudasama declined to comment when contacted.
Bar & Bench has first reported several minutes ago that that “SAM & Co bags JSA biggie: Akshay Chudasama + Team” and that Chudasama was “all set to join Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas in Mumbai, according to authoritative sources”.
Legally India authoritatively understands that this is incorrect as talks are still ongoing and not finalised, though they may end up being successful.
We have reached out to JSA for comment.
Chudasama has been a partner at JSA since 2005, having joined from AZB & Partners where he was a partner from 2002.
He was the managing partner of Lex Inde in Mumbai from 1994 until 2002 and holds an undergraduate in economics from the University of Bombay and a 1994 LLB from the London School of Economics.
Comments
This will completely change the internal dynamics of JSA as well. And LOL on the Khaitan partners who joined SAM in Mumbai. With Akshay, they will be pushed to the sideline.
Unfortunately, B&B reported it and at that point since the damage was already done, so to speak, there was no additional harm in reporting what we knew already...
We try our best to avoid these kind of situations but sometimes our hand is forced.
Within JSA, you can be guaranteed that news like this would spread like wildfire even if it were published in Vogue.
2. If you read the story, you may note that we did not blindly copy but published the version of the story that is far more accurate, according to my understanding.
Best wishes
Kian
1. Once anyone reported this, it became a reality within JSA that Chudasama and the partnership had to deal with in one way or another. The brunt of the damage was done the second they hit publish, tweet it or Google alerts pick it up.
The only options available to Chudasama internally would have been to deny completely, clarify or confirm that story to the other partners. The first is not really an option in a partnership such as JSA.
2. We would have added to the damage by misreporting it; by clarifying that currently it is only talks in advanced stages, arguably the damage is being reduced and internal discussions at JSA at least have a bedrock of facts, rather than Chudasama having to deny the B&B report which stated he had already signed up to SAM (without telling his partners).
Us not reporting on it would be like us sticking our head in the sand that wouldn't have made the situation any better, and arguably worse for everyone involved.
This isn't the first time we have such a situation - I'd say that we were aware of at least 80% of the B&B Amarchand 'exclusives' of the last 6 months before they were published but we slow played the stories due to sensitivities involved or at the request of the subjects.
In nearly every controversial and 'unnamed sources' partner move story we try to give the person time to respond and at least make them aware of what and when we are publishing and give them the opportunity to object. Usually we speak to the partner involved on the phone.
I don't think our competition does that necessarily, which can speed things up but lead to situations such as this one.
However, dont get the logic of ".... a[u][b]nd arguably worse for everyone involved[/b][/u]. "
Let me explain, hypothetically. Senior partner X talks to SAM while still partner at democratic firm ABC.
X has not told ABC about these talks, since they're not finalised yet and it'd be a pretty massive deal to the entire partnership.
Publication F publishes, saying his move is a done deal. ABC jumps on X's head, as do clients, saying, 'how dare you sign up with SAM without even telling us, your co-partners and clients???'
Scenario 1) If LI didn't publish anything, X would have to tell angry clients and partners: 'Honestly, please believe me, F made a mistake it, I am still just talking to SAM. Shouldn't I be allowed to talk and examine options? You'd have been the first to know if I was about to sign something. And look, LI didn't report it, so it can't be true, no?'
Doesn't sound very convincing.
Scenario 2.) If LI published, at least X can say: 'Look, I'm sorry I didn't tell you but we were just talking very seriously - look at LI has the correct report. I really hope the discussions work out with SAM and you'll be the first to know.'
First option sounds much worse for everyone involved (other than SAM, possibly).
Also, you can't survive in this market for 6 years if you don't do this kind of basic journalism by the book...
Unfortunately, B&B reported it and at that point since the damage was already done, so to speak, there was no additional harm in reporting what we knew already...
We try our best to avoid these kind of situations but sometimes our hand is forced.[/quote]
Haha! LI has marked Kian's comment as a troll!
Cheer up guys, it's just comments...
Partner- Ashoo Gupta, Nandni Mehta, Manisha Kumar, Jamshed Bhoomgara, Mithun Thanks, Ashni Rao and Gaurav Singhi
Some 7 senior associates and 10 associates.
Please allow me to blow LI's trumpet briefly and explain what we are about.
I am happy and take a certain pride in our editorial output and the quality of our articles, particularly in the law firm field in which, it is no exaggeration to say, we've pioneered, consistently led on, and have more authority in than anyone else. Our archives are second to none on pretty much every law firm while our features and analysis explore complex issues, data or areas I've not seen any other publication even try to cover. Do a search on SSRN or other academic databases for mentions of LI for instance or on Wikipedia. Or check out coverage such as:
Http://www.legallyindia.com/tag/liberalisation
Http://www.legallyindia.com/tag/bar-exam
Http://www.legallyindia.com/tag/shroff-vs-shroff
Http://www.legallyindia.com/tag/law-firm-management
Or many more
Our first priority is providing an honest, accurate and useful publication for our readers that provides a holistic picture of the legal market. If in the process we drive some traffic to our competitors, so be it, I don't really mind.
And I think that our traffic growth and overall reader feedback has been supporting our approach (we hit 198,000 unique visitors per month last week or so - thank you all! :)
To those who like and understand what we do, I don't mind if you read other publications and we're forced to prove to you every day from scratch that our coverage is Better and we're worth coming back to - it is the Internet after all and everything is just a click away.
And if on stories like this, where in my opinion B&B jumped the gun, got it wrong and reported what should have waited, I and I'm sure most readers don't mind if we exercise restraint and *not* publish immediately, lose one 'scoop' and publish 10 minutes after they do.
Anyway, completely off topic but thought I would use this opportunity to explain sanctimoniously what I want LI to be and why we do things the way we do.
Best wishes
Kian
Please keep it up and don't listen to the trolls!
I read both but I honestly can't think of a single important exclusive story they have ever done, correct me if I'm wrong, whereas with LI I could list dozens.
CAM may have hired 30 people, but not even 1 is a rain maker or good enough to compete with this move.
See this for more examples of what you now consider unacceptable journalistic practices http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/phoenix-boosts-delhi-disputes-hires-ksp-partner-debarshi-dutta-plus-2
Look, LI is vastly more entertaining than BB is (at least for the moment) and you seemt o attract a far larger audience than BB does - but ranting about how you didnt publish a story that you knew about before BB because of some odd moral reason just makes you seem like a sore loser. Let it be - you win some, you lose some.
Also, as an aside, now that you are moderating a large number of comments, when casual visitors like me come on to your site, it almost seems like you only publish positive comments. In fairness, I think that the more aggressive moderation has improved LI, but you might be better served not leaving a reference to the fact that a comment has been moderated / not published on the site.
Just my two pennies - feel free to ignore.
I hereby ignore you without guilt
Manisha Shroff leaving was confirmed by Cyril Amarchand and we had let her know we're running a story. Her joining Khaitan was confirmed by two authoritative sources.
The Phoenix story was confirmed by an authoritative Phoenix source and another, they had already joined several weeks ago and we reached out to KSP for comment several days before publishing.
Happy to explain our sourcing requirements more thoroughly, but when we say 'authoritative sources' it means at least two independent sources who know what they are talking about have confirmed it but can not go on the record for a variety of reasons...
I think this was bound to happen if a firm prefers non NLU freshers / laterals like from amity, ILS, symbi and GLC.
hahaha buddy i have seen a top ranked nlu grad who in an interview when asked about "mens rea" has answered that read the term somewhere probably in CPC but unable to recollect the meaning of the term..!!! this is just one example ..having interviewed many do you really want me to disclose the ridiculous answers given by NLU grads..!! better grow up and concentrate on studies rather than sitting and boasting about NLU's otherwise probably u will end up with a bowl in hand for job in the market.. nobody cares after 2-3 years which colg u belong to..!!
The title of your post here is: "Shardul Amarchand in talks with JSA senior Mumbai partner Akshay Chudasama, nothing signed yet".
I am saying the same thing my friend - that Shardul Amarchand is in talks with [...] for Bangalore office.
Can you please explain to me - whats so different between the two statement? You are running a headline in one case and editing the name in second.
You are becoming a bad 'kanna' (endearing term for kid in kannada)
Hope you will publish this comment without editing. Be fair in your journalism. Either you should not have published this story or publish my entire comment.
Cheers,
Your well wisher
SAM has talked to almost everyone in the market. If all of these were published in headlines or in comments, half the partnerships would spiralled into nasty fights, mistrust and recimination.
For that reason, in the vast majority of cases we only publish moves after:
1. Things are final
2. Things are internally announced (ideally)
3. We've spoken to the partner leaving.
Just putting names out there doesn't serve anything other than fuelling rumour and speculation.
Getting some new information btw, the name you mentioned in Bangalore may be staying after all... Again, we'll report something when we know more... :)
How do you justify publishing the story on Chudasama with your three cardinal rule(reproduced for convenience):
1. Things are final
2. Things are internally announced (ideally)
3. We've spoken to the partner leaving.
Which of these did you complete before publishing this story. I am curious to know - considering that your headline for the story is: "Shardul Amarchand in talks with JSA senior Mumbai partner Akshay Chudasama, nothing signed yet"
Come up with some solid reasoning for your continued edits of my comments.
http://www.legallyindia.com/Law-firms/shardul-amarchand-in-talks-with-akshay-chudasama-nothing-signed-yet#comment-69170
Tl;dr: once something is published already by someone else, the damage is done and we don't have a moral obligation not to publish such talks anymore, as long as we are sufficiently confident in the facts.
And before the angry troll comes back, we're happy with the Bandhakavi story that we reported before the partnership vote had concluded because we had very strong sourcing. Speak to the people involved and ask if they were upset or thought our coverage was unfair, and then come back and complain. Thanks!
SAM has talked to almost everyone in the market. If all of these were published in headlines or in comments, half the partnerships would spiralled into nasty fights, mistrust and recimination.
For that reason, in the vast majority of cases we only publish moves after:
1. Things are final
2. Things are internally announced (ideally)
3. We've spoken to the partner leaving.
Just putting names out there doesn't serve anything other than fuelling rumour and speculation.
Getting some new information btw, the name you mentioned in Bangalore may be staying after all... Again, we'll report something when we know more... :)[/quote]
Kian, is this an AZB bangalore partner SAM is talking to?
If I wanted unfounded gossip and rumours, I would go to B&B. For facts, debunking or confirming of B&B gossip, I go to LI. :-)
I don't disagree with the statement above but are you sure you are okay with your competitor being called a "[...]" in your threads?
on the point of football - who will win the Chagla cup this year? amss won it thrice or so..
I'm sure this is a comment by the BCI. Killing 2 birds (being judiciary and LI) with one stone ;)