In this in depth conversation, Nabin Bhandari, Founding and Managing Partner at Bhandari Law and Partners, Nepal, reflects on a career shaped by early conviction, international education, and institutional leadership. From discovering a natural inclination toward law in childhood to pursuing a Master’s degree in International Business Law in Brussels, and from entering Nepal’s evolving corporate and arbitration landscape to leading one of the country’s top ranked corporate law firms, he shares thoughtful insights on building a globally oriented legal practice from Nepal.
This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
Before law became your calling, how did your early experiences quietly shape the decision to pursue this path?
To be very honest, my inclination toward law began far earlier than most people realize. As early as Class Two, whenever teachers asked what I wanted to become in the future, my answer was almost instinctive: a lawyer and a politician. At that age, I did not fully understand the profession, but the idea of advocacy, public life, and standing up for rights had already taken root in my mind.
Ironically, I entered the legal profession almost unknowingly. Law was part of my environment—my father is a lawyer, and my sister is also a lawyer. After completing my +2 (Grade 12), I felt a strong need to step out of that familiar shadow. Believing that I should explore something different, I chose to pursue Chartered Accountancy and successfully completed my CPT examination.
However, that experience became a turning point. While accounting sharpened my analytical skills, I gradually realized that I was disconnected from what truly motivated me. I missed the interpretative, argumentative, and human elements that law offers. That realization made it clear that law was not merely a family influence, it was my passion. Returning to the legal field felt less like a career shift and more like coming back to a long-held dream.
Today, law is not just my profession; it is the passion I consciously chose and continue to work on every single day.
Entering practice in 2015, when corporate law and arbitration were still finding their footing in Nepal, what initial struggles did you face?
Entering legal practice in 2015, at a time when corporate law and arbitration were still evolving in Nepal, my experience was shaped more by opportunity and discipline than by visible struggle.
I was fortunate to begin my career at Pioneer Law, one of the leading corporate law firms in Nepal. Working at such an institution gave me early and in-depth exposure to corporate law, regulatory frameworks, and commercial practice. I remain deeply grateful to the firm and, in particular, to my mentors there, who played a crucial role in shaping my professional foundation. The environment encouraged learning, responsibility, and precision qualities that continue to guide my practice today.
One of the most important lessons I learned during those years was the value of hard work. I worked long hours, often day and night, not out of compulsion but out of a genuine desire to gain experience. I actively sought additional work and responsibilities, believing that exposure was the most valuable asset at an early stage of practice. Because I was working within a strong institutional framework, I did not immediately perceive my early years as a struggle. However, that period demanded sustained effort, discipline, and consistency qualities essential for long-term growth in the legal profession.
With respect to arbitration, the field was still relatively underdeveloped in Nepal when I began practice. While corporate law had clearer structures and precedents, arbitration required a more proactive and self-driven approach. I continue to work toward specialization in arbitration, investing time in learning, training, and gaining practical exposure. It remains an area of focused professional development for me.
Currently, I serve as the Founding and Managing Partner of Bhandari Law and Partners, one of the leading corporate law firms in Nepal. The firm was originally established by my father as a chamber based practice under the name Bhandari Law Chamber. The firm was based in Beni, Myagdi the western part of Nepal. In 2023, I undertook a comprehensive restructuring of the firm, introducing institutional reforms and rebranding it as Bhandari Law and Partners to reflect a modern, full-service corporate law firm model. The firm started its operation from Kathmandu, Nepal.
The firm has since been recognized by international ranking directories such as Legal 500, IFRL 1000 and other various international ranking institutions as a leading law firm in Nepal. Taking on the responsibility of Managing Partner at a relatively young age has been both challenging and demanding. It requires balancing client expectations, team management, strategic growth, and professional standards while continuing to evolve personally as a practitioner.
Overall, the early phase of my career taught me that success in a developing legal market does not come from avoiding challenges, but from embracing responsibility, maintaining discipline, and continuously striving to learn.
How did your time studying international business law in Brussels transform your understanding of legal practice beyond national boundaries?
My time studying International Business Law in Brussels, Belgium, was a defining experience that fundamentally transformed how I understand legal practice beyond national boundaries. I pursued a Master’s degree in International Business Law at the University of Brussels (Université Libre de Bruxelles), primarily because the program itself was highly specialized and among the most contemporary international business law courses offered by foreign universities at the time.
A key strength of the program was its faculty, composed largely of practicing lawyers from leading international law firms. Learning directly from practitioners allowed me to bridge theory with real-world application and gain insight into how complex cross-border legal issues are handled in practice.
Every subject was taught from a comparative legal perspective, covering European Union law, UK law, and U.S. law. This approach trained me to analyze legal problems beyond the confines of a single jurisdiction and to appreciate how different legal systems address similar commercial and regulatory challenges.
The academic environment itself was truly international. The university selected only 40 students each year, representing nearly 33 different countries. Engaging with peers from diverse legal backgrounds exposed me to the reasoning, legal culture, and problem-solving approaches of multiple jurisdictions. In effect, I was learning not only from professors, but from 33 distinct legal systems simultaneously.
Beyond academics, I had the opportunity to visit international law firms, observe their operational structures, and understand how global legal practices are managed. I also participated in international conferences, where I engaged in discussions with practitioners from various jurisdictions. These interactions deepened my understanding of cross-border transactions, dispute resolution, and international arbitration in a practical, real-world context.
Overall, studying in Brussels reshaped my legal mindset from thinking as a national practitioner to approaching law as a borderless profession, where adaptability, comparative analysis, and international perspective are essential.
What was that one defining moment in your career that shaped the direction of your practice ?
There was no single defining moment that shaped the direction of my practice. From a very young age, I was deeply passionate about the legal profession, and my career path has largely followed a straightforward drive by that long-standing commitment to law.
However, one experience in the early stage of my career played a significant role in shaping my professional maturity. At the beginning of my practice, I founded a law firm with a few partners and worked tirelessly to build the institution. I invested four years of my productive time and effort but also my full professional commitment into developing it. Unfortunately, circumstances eventually required me to step away from the law firm that was created from the ground up.
While challenging, that experience proved to be a valuable lesson. It taught me the importance of institutional structure, choosing the right team, alignment of values, and resilience. Rather than diverting me from my path, it strengthened my resolve and clarified how I wanted to build and lead a legal practice in the future.
In that sense, my career has not been shaped by a single dramatic moment, but by a combination of early passion, lived experience, and lessons learned through challenges, all of which continue to guide my approach to practice today.
In a career marked by high-stakes arbitration, which dispute was the most interesting to you that you’d like to share with our readers?
There have been several arbitration matters in my practice where the final awards were genuinely surprising. These cases reinforced an important lesson: while arbitration is firmly grounded in law, outcomes are often shaped just as much by facts, case strategy, and tribunal dynamics.
Although confidentiality prevents me from discussing specific disputes in detail, such experiences have significantly strengthened my respect for arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism. They have also sharpened my analytical judgment, strategic planning, and ability to approach each case without assumptions.
Ultimately, the most interesting arbitration disputes are those that challenge your expectations and deepen your understanding of how law, facts, and strategy intersect in real world dispute resolution.
Transitioning from practitioner to managing partner, what were some responsibilities and challenges you faced along the way and how did you navigate them?
Transitioning from a practitioner to a Managing Partner brought with it a fundamental shift in responsibility. As the head of the firm, the most significant challenge is ultimate accountability. Regardless of the strength of the team, the Managing Partner remains answerable to clients for the firm’s work, outcomes, and professional standards. Ensuring consistency, quality, and client confidence requires constant oversight and leadership.
Another key challenge has been manpower retention, a concern faced by most law firms, particularly in developing legal markets. Law firms naturally function as training institutions, and team composition often changes over relatively short periods of time. As lawyers develop greater competence and professional confidence, many choose to explore new opportunities, which is a normal and healthy aspect of professional mobility within the legal sector.
While law firms must continuously strive to improve mentorship, workplace culture, and compensation structures, retention is also shaped by broader economic realities and market conditions that are often beyond the firm’s direct control.
To navigate this challenge, I have focused on building an institutional culture that emphasizes long-term professional development rather than short-term incentives alone. This includes offering clear career progression, sustained mentorship, meaningful responsibility, and exposure to high-quality work. When lawyers can see a future within the firm and feel valued as part of its growth, retention becomes a shared objective rather than a unilateral expectation.
Overall, the transition from practitioner to Managing Partner has required balancing leadership, client responsibility, and institutional development shifting from individual legal performance to building a sustainable and credible legal institution.
How does the arbitration and corporate legal landscape in India differ from Nepal, and what has been your experience handling matters involving Indian entities?
The arbitration and corporate legal landscapes in India and Nepal differ significantly, largely due to the scale and maturity of their respective economies. India has a much larger and more diversified economy, which is reflected in the complexity, volume, and sophistication of corporate legal work. In contrast, Nepal’s economy is relatively smaller, and while corporate law practice is steadily developing, it is still in a growth and consolidation phase.
In Nepal, corporate legal practice is evolving, with increasing awareness of compliance, governance, and structured transactions. However, the scope and scale of matters remain comparatively limited.
Similarly, arbitration practice in Nepal is predominantly construction centric, with commercial and investment arbitration still emerging areas. In India, arbitration, particularly international arbitration, is far more developed, supported by a larger pool of trained practitioners, institutional frameworks, and extensive exposure to cross-border disputes.
India handles a significant number of international and cross-border arbitration matters, whereas Nepal currently has fewer practitioners with sustained exposure to international arbitration. This highlights the need for Nepal to develop a stronger base of international arbitration professionals to meet future demand.
From a practical standpoint, I have had experience handling corporate and dispute-related matters involving Indian entities, particularly in cross-border transactions and contractual disputes. These matters often require navigating differences in regulatory frameworks, commercial expectations, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Working with Indian clients and counterparties has underscored the importance of precise contract drafting, choice of law and jurisdiction clauses, and strategic dispute planning at an early stage.
A critical issue affecting both jurisdictions is the non-recognition of Nepalese arbitral awards in India. Despite substantial trade and commercial engagement between the two countries, India has made a reciprocity reservation under the New York Convention and has not notified Nepal as a reciprocating territory. As a result, arbitral awards rendered in Nepal are not enforceable in India. By the same principle of reciprocity, Nepal could also decline enforcement of Indian arbitral awards, although this would not serve the broader commercial interest.
This issue requires institutional dialogue and policy-level engagement between the two countries. Resolving it would significantly enhance cross-border trade, investor confidence, and the effectiveness of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism between Nepal and India.
For aspiring lawyers in Nepal aiming for international arbitration, what common myths about success do you believe need to be challenged?
One of the most common myths among aspiring lawyers in Nepal is the belief that international arbitration is beyond their reach due to limitations of nationality, jurisdiction, or exposure. As a result, many Nepalese lawyers confine themselves to domestic arbitration, even though the legal skills required for international arbitration are not fundamentally different.
It is true that Nepal has a smaller economy and, consequently, a stronger concentration of domestic arbitration practice. However, this should not discourage lawyers from pursuing international arbitration. On the contrary, it underscores the importance of adopting a broader, international perspective. International arbitration may appear challenging, but it is not inaccessible. With the right training, discipline, and commitment, Nepalese lawyers can compete effectively on a global stage.
Another misconception is that international arbitration requires extraordinary credentials or foreign nationality. In reality, the field values competence, preparation, and credibility over nationality. What is essential is continuous learning through specialized training, exposure to international practice, and engagement with global arbitration communities.
Aspiring lawyers must think beyond immediate geographical limitations and develop an international mindset. By investing in education, building networks, and gaining exposure to cross-border work, Nepalese lawyers can establish themselves in international arbitration practice despite the challenges.
Ultimately, success in international arbitration is less about where you come from and more about how prepared you are to think, work, and operate globally.
Looking ahead, how do you see the future of your practice and arbitration culture evolving in the years to come?
Looking ahead I am optimistic about both the future of arbitration practice and the broader arbitration culture in Nepal. Nepal has strong potential to develop as a credible arbitration jurisdiction, particularly in the area of international arbitration. However, realizing this potential depends largely on the availability of well-trained and qualified arbitration professionals and increased exposure to international standards and practices.
For arbitration to evolve meaningfully, there must be progressive reforms to Nepal’s Arbitration Act to ensure it aligns with global best practices. Legal reform alone, however, is not sufficient. Nepal also needs to invest in developing a strong pool of internationally qualified arbitration practitioners who can handle complex cross-border disputes with confidence and credibility.
Equally important is the role of the judiciary. Judges dealing with arbitration-related matters must receive specialized training to ensure a consistent, arbitration-friendly approach. A progressive and supportive judiciary is essential for building trust in arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism.
If these elements legislative reform, professional capacity-building, and judicial support come together, Nepal has the potential to emerge as a reliable and respected hub for international arbitration in the region.
Get in touch with Nabin Bhandari –
