It’s been almost a year since I last wrote
here, and to say that this period has been “eventful” would be an
understatement. After spending seven years in the profession as a litigator in
a law firm (which was my first ever job), and dare I say having earned my
stripes, I finally went independent as an arguing counsel late last June. These
eight months of “independence” have been hectic
in a good
way and they have taught me quite a few things about myself and the
profession.
For instance, despite having been part of a law firm setup for well over half a decade, I have come to realize that my
conscious decision to not start a firm of my own and instead opt for a Chamber
practice as an arguing counsel appears to have been a prudent one given that
running a firm is perhaps more akin to running a business, in that it demands
your attention 24*7*365. The significant managerial and administrative responsibilities
that come with running a firm would have left me with little or no time to read
widely and deeply on the law and outside of it on areas which interest me such as
history, politics and economics, all of which I believe add to the practise of an
arguing counsel.
Importantly, the skill set needed to successfully run a law
firm, I think, is very different from the one needed to be a good litigator or
counsel. One perhaps needs to be a “systems” guy to manage a firm, whereas the
practice of an arguing counsel is relatively more of a solo act. That’s not to
say that you don’t need the support of a committed team to succeed as an
arguing counsel. All I am trying to say is that there may be several gifted
individuals who are capable of running a firm as well as appearing in Court day
in and day out without there being a dip in their performance, but I don’t
consider myself one of them. Therefore, given my love of the law and the
Courtroom and my commitment to give them my all, I chose not to experiment with
running a firm, and instead decided to focus on honing my craft as an arguing
counsel.
The other thing I learnt was that, as an
arguing counsel while you can have your areas of core competence, in India you
are expected to go beyond your comfort zone(s) because after a point of time,
what matters and is valued is your ability to quickly understand the broad
framework of a new area of practice and the nature of the forum, assimilate the
facts of a case and the issues at play, apply the legal framework to the case
and articulate it in a lucid and convincing manner to the forum. In a nutshell,
you can or are perhaps expected to be a jack of some and master of a few
without being perceived as spreading yourself too thin. Therefore, adaptability
at short notice (sometimes barely an hour’s notice) is something you pick up as
an arguing counsel.
While one could go on and on, to cut a long
story short, each day as an arguing counsel brings with it a unique experience
and the opportunity to learn from tremendously gifted peers, regardless of
which side they are on. Hopefully, I have a long way to go and don’t stop
learning. I certainly hope to frequently share with the readers whatever I
learn.
