Amarchand Mangaldas Delhi managing partner Shardul Shroff has released a statement explaining the events surrounding the Company Law Board (CLB) imposing a fine of Rs 50,000 and justifying the termination of employment of two allegedly responsible associates, as reported by Legally India yesterday.
The two associates were not reachable for comment at the time of going to press after repeated attempts by Legally India to contact them.
Shroff said in his emailed statement:
1. The Firm is internally reviewing the order of the Hon’ble Company Law Board delivered on 17th of August, 2012 in the matter of Rupak Gupta vs. Banaras House Private Limited. The issue relates to the affidavits in support of a petition, which were deposed to and affirmed before the two notary publics and the deponents were allegedly identified by an associate level retainer.
2. In the first instance the affidavits with the Petition had blanks without stating which paragraphs were based on knowledge and which paragraphs were based on information received.
3. The Company Petition as supported by the incomplete affidavit(s) was, therefore, lying in objection. In order to complete the verification and recordal of the clauses, subsequent affidavits were filed, which were also inaccurate, in that, though the affidavits were affirmed by the general Power of Attorney of the Petitioners, they were still made in the name of the Petitioners and as if the Petitioners were signing.
4. The two associates involved did not take care to ensure that the name of the deponent and the signatory matched. This mistake of signing the affidavit as Petitioner(s) without identifying himself as a general Power of Attorney holder was erroneous and identification by the associate level retainer was also erroneous. The associate admitted the mistake contemporaneously in writing. That is why fresh affidavits were filed with an application before the Hon’ble Company Law Board subsequently.
5. This is a serious mistake on the part of the two associates involved and as soon as this was noticed by the partner on the 6th of August, 2012, an application was filed on the 7th of August to place on record freshly signed and affirmed affidavits. Importantly the petitioners did not repudiate the petition or the affidavits or his general Power of Attorney holder.
6. In identifying the deponent and signatory, the associate level retainer represented himself in his capacity as an advocate identifying the deponent. The firm does not sign or identify deponents of affidavits before any notary public. Individual lawyers present themselves before the Oath Commissioner or Notary Public when they know the deponent and the advocate makes the deponent’s identification.
7. The Firm has always stood for the highest standards of professional practice and integrity and professionalism and has had an unblemished record. This is an unfortunate case where two individuals have not applied themselves, not been diligent and have by their carelessness jeopardized the interest of the client and the Firm. Upon the judgement being received at the level of the Senior Management, the Firm has taken strict action against two associates and have terminated their retainership with immediate effect for their failure to maintain the highest standards required.
8. The Firm’s partner acted responsibly upon the associate accepting the mistake in writing and immediately sought rectification and an application was filed with the Hon’ble Company Law Board for placing fresh affidavits on 7th August, 2012. No undue benefit as a result of the earlier affidavits had accrued to the Petitioner nor any undue prejudice has been caused to the Respondents as no interim reliefs were granted.
9. The Hon’ble Company Law Board has permitted the re-filing of a properly constituted fresh Petition. The client has instructed the Firm’s partner to refile the petition.
Comments
watch out AMSS associates- shroff takes the credit for any good work done and promptly disowns you if you ever slip up..
i can picture the poor associate being made to write this stuff in writing with you guys standing on his head. Really - a hindi film style written confession of sorts by your juniour most associate is your defence? Sorry no Takers.
The AMSS Damage-Control-Strategy is seriously hilarious. [...]
[...] great firms are not made of thrusting the blame on hapless juniours working under your instructions -
Yes, u screwed up, yes please take the blame and no please dont malign your poor ex associates. Do the right thing, accpet your mistake.
I gave you several reasons why you should have the "doubt"
[quote name="kianganz"]If I can pipe up here briefly, apparently, according to what I understand, that 'in writing' apology purported to be from the associate dates from before - around the time the mistake was discovered or so - and was not signed under duress or anything like that afterwards.[/quote]
Hey Kian, doesn't your last article say that SSS only came to know of the order at 3 pm today? Why is it that the associates were fired today and not in August 6th? When did the Senior Management passe judgement? What were they waiting for? Were they hoping that this will get swept under the carpet and the order has forced their hand? I am not a conspiracy theorist, but surely even you can realize that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark.
Also, any associate is pretty much under duress for the entire period that she or he works at a law firm such as amss, so I dont think your insights on the jurisprudence of valid contracing even apply in such cases.
It is not an email "confession" or "contract" - from what I understand, it was an email that was sent by one of the associates to the partner saying, sorry, my bad, I made a mistake in the affidavit, which seems fairly plausible.
Whether that means the partner should be free of blame is another question, but I do have reason to believe that theories of a forced written confession are highly unlikely.
Yes, if I am wrong on this I will be happy to issue a correction.
Since there have been a lot of comments about AMSS, it was fair to publish a statement proffered by the firm explaining more of the background.
We are endeavouring to tell the associates' side of the story too, if they or others wish to, though I understand the difficulties involved.
Yes, shock horror, journalists may get invited to parties with drinks and food, conferences with free drinks and food, get taken out to lunch or dinner sometimes, or will get sent small Diwali gifts or the like. Sometimes, journalists may also send out gifts in return to contacts or take them out for lunch or dinner. It is a perfectly natural part of building relationships with contacts.
Some news organisations, particularly the cash-rich ones, have a policy that prevents journalists from accepting any hospitality at all. Most do not. In fact, in the UK and the US this kind of stuff is far more prevalent and journalists are invited on foreign all-expenses-paid trips and more.
But what is ultimately important for any journalist is how you deal with this and whether you let it influence you.
Hand on heart I can say that nothing I or anyone else at LI has ever received in the way of hospitality or otherwise from any law firm, has been material enough or was imparted in a spirit that would make me question whether our coverage can remain independent.
Please judge us by our stories, not by your presumptions or gossip. Our coverage may not be perfect, but we try as best as possible within this market's realities to tell the truth, which is not easy.
Feel free to compare us to any other publications out there or to what legal news journalism was like before Legally India started.
Best regards
Kian
Kian,
You have raised some interesting points, but please note UK one of the countries mentioned in your comparison has had the NOTW fiasco and Leevson inquiry on ethical standards in journalism!
Shouldn't LI which no doubt is doing a good job in the field of legal reporting which was practically non-existent also aim to set ethical standards in the field by having a clear policy of no encouraging gifts from law firms. Clearly your correspondents didn't join LI to be in the good books of particular law firms. While you may be able to restrain yourself as the entrepreneur out there to prove yourself, how can you ensure a junior hack is not getting influenced by "small" Diwali gifts and returning favours hoping for an all expenses paid trip to cover a law firm's foreign retreat!
I think as entrepreneurs (I am on too!) we really need to lead by example.
I agree that in the UK and US press it has perhaps gone a tad too far. I remember a statistic from 3 years ago or so that for the first time ever, the number of PR professionals in the UK was greater than the number of journalists. This is potentially a threat to independent journalism, though it doesn't have to be.
I think disclosure of gifts is practically very hard to do. Should we itemise every time someone buys a drink, or sends us some Mithai or invites us to a party with an all-you-can-eat buffet? I think this would raise more suspicion and cause more confusion than it would solve.
Journalism is fundamentally based on trust. There is a huge amount of trust within the newsroom where stories and ideas are discussed openly, and we trust our colleagues not to lie.
Sources also have to trust journalists, and they may be trusted in turn if they prove trustworthy.
Finally, and most importantly, there has to be a strong bond of trust between the reader and the journalist.
If that bond has become so bad that the reader's trust can only be restored by a full disclosure of the journalist's assets or hospitality received, then in my humble opinion, the journalist has already failed and that reader should move on elsewhere.
Judge a publication intelligently by its content or by its willingness to tolerate and engage in criticism and publish contrary view points. It is too easy to just shout "paid news" every time an article appears that one disagrees with or doesn't understand.
My two cents. Please feel free to disagree.
Best wishes,
Kian
I sincerely hope that the two of them do find greener pastures because compared to working at AMSS even a [...]
Retain associates who in six yrs haven't worked twenty hours and fire those that work 20 hours a day.
As for AMSS - this is such an eyewash and a sham. They should be ashamed.
[quote name="anon"]I think its a big step for any firm to actually admit they have made a mistake! Most firms are too egoistical to do so! To that extent AMSS is ahead![/quote]
[quote name="anon"]I think its a big step for any firm to actually admit they have made a mistake! Most firms are too egoistical to do so! To that extent AMSS is ahead![/quote][/quote]
good one!!
So the Amarchand propaganda machine has finally kicked into action.
This looks like an AZB conspiracy to tarnish Amarchand's image.
Even fictional law based serials have stories where an Associates screw up, the fall is taken by the Partner. What is the meaning of a Partner if they only take in the limelight and never the fall!
I wish legally india had done its home work before writing this article that has the potential of ruining the careers of two hard working people.
Has anybody made an investigation into how many people have resigned from this partner's team in the past one year?
Sad day for journalism
i agree with you, to protect the partner or firm credibility they can't make others scapegoat, i have seen their way of work from very close, i don't believe that, the Associates did mistake without partners knowledge
I wish legally india had done its home work before writing this article that has the potential of ruining the careers of two hard working people.
Has anybody made an investigation into how many people have resigned from this partner's team in the past one year?
Sad day for journalism[/quote]
Agree completely with this!!
Look - the fact is that the quality of legal services in India is generally not as good as it should be. Partners, who dont do what they are paid to do is part of the problem.
Lets not live in fairy tale land about what happens at big firms in India.
Your reaction reminds of a hindi movie in which they suggested a novel way of removing poverty...remove the poor...so great reasoning for maintaining a high level of accuracy..remove those who make mistakes...hilarious...actually...legen...wait for it...wait for it...dary...legendary
We are trying to get a copy from the CLB also, but if someone has a softcopy we'd be much obliged and it would save a lot of time.
We have been facing some technical issues with our other email IDs so if anyone has been sending us any emails in the last day, they may not have reached. Apologies for any inconvenience.
Wish AMSS would rise above the "mediocrity" and display the so called "ruthlessness" at all levels of the heirarchy? Or is "mechanical accuracy" not a standard for the loyalists?
Is Chemical Kapadia sermonising associates on behalf of AMSS Senior Management? Way to go!Great way to "carve its name" in the market!
The partner in-charge must take the blame but clearly this is also a question of some really shoddy work done by the associates. The issue is more to do with the lack of focus and the great keenness to take short cuts, i.e., go with a precedent based approach as against a slower and painful approach involving a proper review and diligence for each document that is sent.
I would also not be surprised if an intern worked on the documents and everyone up the chain assumed that the work was done. To conclude:
I. The partner must be held responsible.
II. One wouldn't expect the managing partner to run through each document that the firm sends but he must ensure that there are enough checks and balances in the system that prevent these occurrences.
III. It is time that lawyers and professionals are held responsible and liable for their advice/actions.
IV. Foreign law firms should be allowed to practice in India (probably limited advisory work) as their entry will set better standards for the local market.
Best wishes
While I accept that partners cannot always oversee each document, I am frustrated to pay their bills when they charge their hours for reviewing each and every document.
-- An in-house counsel, paying Partner invoices
Kian it is very unfortunate that your article is more of a cover up for AMSS's faults. AMSS has gotten so much coverage for no rhyme or reason as such things happen many times, especially with big firms dealing with small clients due to less time being devoted by the partner incharge. It is unfortunate that the associates who are just beginning in the profession have to take the blame. Also remember that official email ids are controlled by AMSS and any apology could have easily written by the administrators. Therefore, so much for the official apology.
Thanks for your comments and apologies for the, at times, heavy-handed moderation.
In moderating comments we are often between a rock and a hard place, and are trying to steer a fair course that allows freedom of expression while avoiding personal attacks on individuals.
Please help us in this effort and bear this in mind.
Best wishes
Kian
It is common knowledge how mails are sent from partner email accounts by associates. Look out for the Ref no in certain partner mails and you will know what I am talking. Some of the other partners don't use reference numbers.
It is an illusion that AMSS is good. [...]
I hope Bar and Bench does fair and dispassionate reporting and doesn't appear like the personal pimp of AMSS like LI is now. U guys have fallen in everyone's eyes!
I hope Bar and Bench does fair and dispassionate reporting and doesn't appear like the personal pimp of AMSS like LI is now. U guys have fallen in everyone's eyes![/quote]
They haven't reported this yet. That probably is a greater favour to AMSS.
For what it's worth, if you were to add up all the scoops I am confident you'd count far more at LI than at any other legal publication in India. And unlike most, we'll also generally try to attribute other publications when they get the scoop.
George Orwell famously said: "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."
If journalism is perceived as massala, so be it.
I hope Bar and Bench does fair and dispassionate reporting and doesn't appear like the personal pimp of AMSS like LI is now. U guys have fallen in everyone's eyes![/quote]
See the comments starting at 5.1 above and Kian's responses on the matter. Strangely further comments on Kian's response and not being permitted by LI. Pathetic attempt at portraying that Kian had the last say on the discussion.
In response to "Disgust not misplaced at all" - in this thread yours was actually the only comment responding to mine.
If you have anything substantive to add beyond speculatively trolling me, which I bet is an entertaining pastime, please do.
Best wishes,
Kian
Must have been a strategy implemented by a junior in the Strategy team WITHOUT Senior Management approval... Tsk Tsk
You still feel bad, neglected or used by your firm or your senior, let me put it this way; the world was never fair. If you still feel being handed out a raw deal, type in your name and move-on to that utopian place you have been striving for all your life.
2. It is obviously a joke, perhaps even satire, and I'd think associates would understand that?
3. 'These people' is referring to a very large group of people of national law school graduates. I do not think it is possible to insult, defame or otherwise be mean to such an amorphous and varied group.
4. We have not published the associates' identities and we hope to keep it that way, unless circumstances change significantly.
Our comment moderation policy is not a one size fits all approach, and we never claimed it is. But if you really have a problem, press the report button and give a valid reason and we'll be happy to examine.
Best regards
Kian
who is 42?
[Sorry - a technical glitch that displayed the wrong comment numbering for me, hence my wrong reference. I was referring to commenter 36. Best regards, Kian]
And if this bit of my comment is not moderated, I'd say that the graduates of the NLUs at least have a better grasp of law, which is why they are recruited by both foreign and domestic firms.
you siwm together ---- you sink together (including the partner).. so of AMSS has guts, then they shoudl fire the partner as well...
not a good message sent through this practice ... associates woudl stop taking any additional responsibilities.
(1) Any document created by the firms resources (Clerk/Steno/Para-Legal/Associate/S.A./Partner) is a product of the firm. Good/bad or otherwise. When it comes to taking credit then somehow the Firm takes precedence over individuals.
(2) Law is a profession which calls for utmost caution at all times from any responsible professional. However, at the end of the day everyone is human, mistakes do happen at times and as good lawyers we must know how remedy the mistake, rather than letting things get out of hand. What kind of a leader points fingers at the easiest scapegoat /target i.e. Associates. "Collective responsibility, share in profits and success is the only way forward for the modern law firm" ~ Aristocratic firms like AMSS will learn their lesson when they begin to slide.
(3) I can only wonder what kind of faith and trust the Managing Partner of a firm will inspire in his workforce after this kind of conduct. Am sure many are considering alternatives already.
(4) Why was the Partner not fired? A partner defines the systems and work process within his/her team, hires competent lawyers delivering the 'highest standard of work', is directly the face of the firm to the Client. The answer seems obvious the Partner generates revenue and brings clients. Well if it weren't for the Staff-Associates-S.A.-P.A. AMSS would never be known for these so called highest standards of work, because almost all deliverables to Clients are generated by them.
Reputation can only take you that far. Don't fool your Clients.
Everyone would give gyaan for governance but many at Bar and few at Bench also tremble. It's a shame that if there was a counter to this news, why it has not come out at any other website. Is there a managed silence? Whosoever believes in fair reporting, please dig deep and keep doing the good work.
All of us in legal fraternity know how overloaded with work one person can get at times. And no matter how old AMSS might be, one must remember corporations have collapsed because of similar arrogance and mistreatment of employees.
2. Mistakes do happen. But a series of mistakes only shows that there is lack of accountability at higher levels. It's an open secret that seniors with heavy packages do not want to be held accountable. This practice must change. Or, the pay structure should be inverted!
3. Sacking the associates for face-saving will undermine confidence and instill fear. Juniors will just try and keep their senior happy and shirk responsibility to survive in law firms.
I'd hate to get fired for something like that. Hate it even more if my boss went on a public forum and pointed it out to the world, ignoring that there was someone else in the hierarchy whose job it was to oversee my work.
Such is life. Sigh!
When will lawyers.... all lawyers... realize that law is an individualistic profession? You stick up for yourself. You work for yourself. If you're brilliant, people will come to you for advise. You don't need to slave away at a firm like AMZB Legal etc etc.
Introspect young padavans. There are far far better things ahead.
having said that and being vella myself, i find it quite hard to believe that a 3 year assoc had an affidavit filed which had blanks/empty spaces or filed one with forged signatures-i mean forget an intern, a layman knows that once you are presenting something finally before anyone, be it another contracting or a state authority/court/tribunal, it has to be a complete document. i guess we would never get to know what actually happened unless there is a "my life" moment for the associates who got fired once they reach fag ends of their legal careers. as for the blame, i agree a 100% that the liability is joint and several (its a partnership at the end of the day)and should have been taken with a pinch of salt by the firm instead of playing the highly popular corporate game of scapegoating.
there have been some scarring remarks in the above chain of comments abt the assoc as well as against Kian which are not only unworthy of criticism but are appalling to say the least. the assoc must be growing through enough torment already and this certain doesnt help. heck, the firm must be going through a tough time-not only do they have to handle bad publicity (i do hope the phrase any publicity is good publicity is not something the firm stands by) but they have to try fervently to retain the client!
as for blaming this forum, on the flip side, had this forum not been there we wouldnt have even known abt such a thing.
In Court practices , mistakes happens and Court also knows it. Although , these sacking may give message to clients that they maintain highest professional standards but may create fear fobia in the mind of all associates and sr. associates and may effect their zeal to deliver. At the outset, my personal opinion is that these two associates could have been warned first instead of dismissal. However, I agree that it is the absolute discretion of Amarchand to take any decision as per their policy.
The above is totally my personal view.
I can speak from experience that the quality of work done by the so called "top notch" firms is pathetic and mostly copy-paste stuff. Associates are only worried about getting their retainers and laze around on their computers.
LI, how did you allow this comment? My mind has gone numb because of this one extremely stupid comment. Moreover, this guy says "lappie"..juvenile.
LI, how did you allow this comment? My mind has gone numb because of this one extremely stupid comment. Moreover, this guy says "lappie"..juvenile.[/quote]
Well, if you could not detect the obvious undertone of sarcasm in the post, which (let me clarify for the benefit of the 'numb" mind of yours) sarcasm and incredulity was also meant to extend to the brouhaha around this incident and some over the top reactions it was drawing, i know not what to say to you. And please follow some etiquette and keep your geriatric/ jejune ( apply as you deem fit) perceptions of juvenility to your esteemed self.
i agree... especially because i think CLB was trying to teach AMSS a lesson but poor newbies into the profession had to face the grunt!!
1. Associates at Amarchand have messed up "royally". Three years is more than enough time to realise that the GPA holder cannot make an affidavit posing as the principle.
2. The practice of "allotting seats reserved for foreigner's as long as Indians pay in dollars" that is being followed by law schools has scalped its first victim (rather victims)
3. There are two associates out there going through hell [...].( Kian....for the love of humanity...dont publish their details here)
4. AMSS has realized that resting on their laurels is more of an aspiration in a world of cut throat competition.
5. there are lawyers out there ( including moi) commenting here only because its AMSS that has suffered a severe blow.
6. There are lawyers including Mr. Shroff, who have come to realise that certain Internet Media( read Legallyindia ) have become a force to reckon with thereby requiring a press statement.
7. And finally ... the most important lesson of all ......"U aint nothing in a firm if u arent a partner"...everybody else are scapegoats or worse still bonded labourers.
Leave only the true blue AMSS loyalists and fire all these 'rumour mongers' and 'spoilt brats', and 'kids resting' on their laurels.
Who are they to tell lawyers that mistakes happen when you pull 16 hour days 365 days a month. We all know that real bonuses, promotions and careers are made by filling in 8 hours of time-sheets with invented billing and atleast 20 coffee breaks!!
And the rest of you commenters go fill your time-sheets with suitable 'wreaked AMSS reputation' entry's, and stop whiling your time here. AMSS is fully capable of wreaking its reputation!!!
Let BCI bring in strong and efficient cleint care remedies and the law firms will all set theri house in order. But i guess this is too much to ask for in India where everything is "Chalta Hai"....
The entire treatment has just been unfortunate.
Remember what goes around, comes around.
1. A3 + PA designate file wrong affidavit (question - shouldn't a partner be examinng docs before final filing?);
2. associate lets partner know "my bad" (using Kian's information about a mysterious e-mail) ... nothing happens till 2 weeks later, when a CLB order is passed. Moral of the story - it is ok to f*ck up (just don't get caught!) ... if you're caught (and if the media gets a whiff of it!), there'll be hell to pay!
3. associates fired - to retain the high standards of the Firm (I like the capital "F" - well done SS) ... clearly - the partner doesn't contribute to the Firm's high standards then?
Sheesh ... to the people who work here (and there are some very very smart people who do) - seriously, can you think of NOTHING better to do with your lives?
Firm doesnt go anywhere for notarisation, its the individuals who do the same on behalf of the Firm. Its very apparent how the blame is being shifted on the poor juniors.
And completely agreed with Zeus @ 53.
1. The PA in question had regined almost a month back .
2. the 3PQE associate had barely finished his 7th month in litigation, having worked in a non-lit team for the remainder period. So the emphasis on 3 years experience is so incorrect, warranting a more suspect review higher up.
3. working hours of them in question are more than 16 hours on all 7 days without an exception. and ALL filings are ABSOLUTELY URGENT and given at 3:30pm.
lets see if you issue anything on this.
Associates has to take the fall because firms can not admit that they manage clerks.
In the name of impartial journalism, please update all readers what real efforts you have made to publish the two associates's side of the story? Or are you leaving that scoop for Bar and Bench?
Best wishes,
Kian
Apologies for the delay.
Thanks
Kian
Apologies for any inconvenience - do read tomorrow's Mint anyway, it is likely to be full of good stuff as usual.
Best wishes,
Kian
My request to LI, as a fan, was for access to a copy of the order. Mint would possibly not publish the full order on Friday, and I follow Mint anyway.
The names of the individuals in question, ought not to be disclosed and you cannot ignore that moral responsibility.
Associates from prestigious law schools who make it as far into reputable firms aren't mugs! There might be good reasons as to why things turned out the way they did - among explanations that could be proffered are difficult deadlines, protracted work hours, defective processes, inaccessible superiors, competition, and a lack of institutionalized (and effective) knowledge management. While the reality of law firm life makes such explanations plausible (and probable, the extent of movement from the realm of plausibility to probability depending on how good/bad a firm is at dealing with these issues internally), what I find disconcerting is that the dismissal comes across as being a knee jerk reaction to a single event.
Lawyering is not for everybody, however, I would think that ability and competence should be judged over a period of time. Individuals and firms eventually find their equilibrium, and the departure of people who may not the right 'fit' can happen in several dignified ways. Liability is a risk, the issue is about what mechanisms are put in place to remedy failings. There is no shame in taking collective responsibility and remedying internal issues in a fair and transparent manner, and I would imagine that such a response would be consistent with good practice and a professional approach to employment.
IMO running with the report was an important exercise in itself insofar as it tabled some valid issues.
However, hectoring LI to provide the order or to provide an update does not appear to serve any useful purpose - all it would likely do is put the hapless associates in a more difficult position (by (a)revealing identities when this should not be required, assuming that it is the issues at hand that should be of interest; (b) by putting them in an unenviable position where they've got to decide between running the risk of an update being published without their point of view being aired, or actually providing their point of view. I wouldn't expect that they'd be in a position to speak up at this point)
Judging from the views expressed here, I would imagine that there will be others in the large and vibrant legal market in India who are willing and able to put things in perspective, offer the concerned lawyers an opportunity to continue doing what they've been trained for (while taking the right steps to ensure that quality is not compromised, also keeping in mind that this could possibly have happened to any law firm given a similar set of circumstances). I wish the associates well, and imagine that they will continue doing what they like doing, notwithstanding setbacks.
But both their names are in the order and easily available to any litigating lawyer. Which is why I believe they should seriously considering suing AMSS for issuing a public statement disgracing them and putting this solely on them. Of course, this is also advise, no one can dictate what the 2 should do. That is their sole call alone.
How come LI is avoiding mentioning the Head of the Litigation Department, Mrs Pallavi Shroff? Very convenient to fire the lowest common denominator. I hope in the interest of fair speech you will publish this. Full credit to you that unlike Bar n Bench you had the journalistic spirit not to succumb to the AMSS PR machinery.