This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
With over eight years of experience appearing before the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court, and various tribunals, you have had a diverse legal journey. Given all that, when did your interest in law first develop? What inspired you to choose this field, especially considering that law was not always a highly sought-after career?
Yes, absolutely. I think if I have to go back in time, it is around my high school and why I chose law. I had a keen sense of justice. I wanted to do the right thing, stand up for what’s right. More than anything, I was also, I believe, influenced by a lot of novels and movies. It would instill a lot of pride in me when I saw a lawyer really fighting for justice on screen, you know, things like those.
So those were the points which sort of nudged me in this direction to explore more about it. Later on, I always had an inherent attraction towards psychology. I used to read a lot of Sigmund Freud and criminal psychology and other things, just out of interest. And somehow, at that time, I think especially around the time when I was graduating high school, things were really looking up. A lot of law schools were opening. Especially, what really I think made a difference in my life personally is that around that time Jindal Global Law School really came up, and I was really in awe reading about it. And so Jindal sort of pulled me in this direction.
I also cleared the CLAT exam. I hope it’s the same exam now. And so I cleared one of these NLUs. And you know, the first week I was like, no, I’m going to drop out of law, because it brought me back to the things which I hated the most: monotony. The way it was taught there in the government institution was a lot of just reading out things. The professor would come and everybody would start taking notes, and I was like, what is happening? Why can’t we just share the notes online or come to what’s important?
Maybe talk about law. Talk about how you apply law instead of just everybody copying the exact same thing which the professor narrates. I found it extremely useless, the way of teaching, the traditional way of teaching. Then I moved to Jindal Global Law School, and I was really impressed by the way they were teaching.
It was a lot of hypothetical, research-oriented, open-book examinations, no note-taking. Notes were up to you, how you wanted to take them. There would be slides shared after class, so you already had everything that had been taught to you. So a lot of technologically advanced ways of teaching, which I think mirrored a lot of universities abroad, and we had a lot of faculty from abroad as well. So it was just all those mixes of things which made me understand law, and that initial attraction happened, that pulled me into the career. It wouldn’t have been possible if it wasn’t for my alma mater.
And especially the way technology was used, and the break from monotony of just remembering case laws, citations, or sections. I mean, we had open-book exams, so all the questions were very hypothetical. I would just conclude this by saying that it’s a mix of a lot of legal dramas I saw in movies, novels, inclination towards criminal psychology, and a contribution of the university. All of them played a role.
Strictly from a point of view of going to university for a job, I think that wasn’t my intention. I really liked it. And my family, we come from a sort of background where engineering plus MBA is equal to an IT job, something like that. So it was a tried and tested path for success. You try to do IIT, then IIM, and then you get a great job, then you move to the US, and you settle. That was sort of the ladder in which my family saw success. So this was really a breaking-tradition sort of thing for me to do law.
From breaking traditions at home to experiencing a diverse environment in your law program, do you think this influenced the diversity in your practice as well? When you interact with peers or colleagues and notice the differences in approach or understanding, how do you encourage and motivate yourself in such situations? Additionally, how have you brought the learnings from your alma mater into your practice, and how have you implemented these experiences in running your own law firm?
Again, it’s very difficult to word it in a few sentences, but I would say it’s a contribution of a lot of things. Let’s say, the first limb of your question about my colleagues, I would say that all my colleagues have been extremely, extremely smart, winners of different moot courts and all when we were in university.
So, a lot of friends and everything. I think the difference which I saw was that they had a more structured way of growing in their profession. And a lot of structured internships, a lot of structured interviews to get a job and everything.
Well, I wanted my early twenties to be about exploration. So, that way I differentiated from my friends. It’s definitely better to have more structured planning and a more concrete way of progressing in a career than just going out there in the world and just seeing what comes your way.
So definitely, I think when I was just in law school, I think every year, like the first year I would want to be a corporate lawyer, second year I would want to be something else. So I could never really have a static thing in my mind. What happened was during the internships, I interned with IndusLaw, ITC, different places in different capacities.
And I enjoyed the Patiala House Court trial matters the most. While talking to you, I think a lot of self-reflection is happening. And I think, again, the answer is monotony. So every day you end up learning something new, interacting with newer clients.
So that way I got pulled towards litigation. It wasn’t my first preference in law school because I wanted to get a more stable income career and everything. So a lot of good fortune to have landed in chambers where I was not treated just like a junior or just like a person who does research.
All the seniors I have met were very, very good mentors. And I think spending time as a mentee during those formative years is so important and depends on your luck as well to fall in these kinds of chambers. But that person can really pull you up and teach you a lot, or you can just do a dedicated task every day.
And you may not grow at the same speed as somebody whose mentor really wants to help. So what I really realized is that a lot of your growth is not just merit, it’s a lot of relationship building. How you come across to your mentor, how much trust he has in you. So this trust starts from very basic things, like if your senior has asked you to come to court at nine and you are there at 8.45 every day, every time, you never miss a date. Little things really make a big difference. And then they start trusting you with bigger cases, start telling you to handle clients yourself. So a lot of my experience and confidence came because of my seniors who handheld me in different areas.
So that being said, while you were establishing your career, how soon did you decide that you would go for independent practice? Because there is a lot of planning that goes in, even when you are working with or for someone, you start planning for that. So what was that particular reason or maybe what kind of thought went into deciding this factor so early in your career that you wanted to have your independent practice?
So it was just, let’s say, more like a breakfast conversation. One of the designated seniors, now she’s a very good lady lawyer in the Supreme Court, and what she told me was that you can very well be a part of the chamber, we’ll refer you cases, you do that, do my case, and time will fly and you’ll be in your forties and you’ll still be here.
She said, take the leap, ask your seniors to refer you cases. Open up your thing, and instead of spending time with us, go and pitch to the government, PSUs, or other places. Spend your time pitching and not in the way of asking for a job, but more like getting an empanelment and an association.
And she said that associations never die. You’ll always be our friend in this community, but what really matters is that you tend to be comfortable. So once you’re comfortable, you might as well reach your forties, and there won’t be a day dedicated like, okay, this day he’s getting independent. So she was like, if you’re just waiting for that spark or that amazing muharat or something like that, that day is not going to happen, and you just take the leap now. And the best time to take a leap is when you have certain savings, I think.
So you have a little bit of savings, you know you can survive for the next six months. Take the leap. Most likely, in six months, you won’t be that profitable. But these things only start coming into action when you really go independent. And all these seniors, they were also reminiscing the days they chose to be independent.
And she said that there were times that she used to cry because she couldn’t pay the rentals or the fees of the clerk. But she held herself strong. She managed, pushed through it. And again, a lot of focus on relationship building, meeting people. Those things are very, very important.
So it was sort of, let’s say, a cushion which I got from my seniors in the initial days. My best clients, the highest-paying clients, were the referred clients from my senior. I don’t think there was any other way I would have reached these clients if it wasn’t for my seniors. So a lot of trust, a lot of confidence they had in me to have referred to me like that.
Having such mentors and seniors is also very good luck because it is not easy to find one. In very early stages, like when you started, even before that, you worked with several companies and a variety of law firms, both nationally and internationally, in different capacities. What was the most valuable learning that you had during that time? How did that learning shape your understanding not only about the foundation of the law but also to pave the way for the foundation of your independent practice as well? How has that worked out for you, other than your seniors and mentors being in the picture?
Right, with respect to that, especially, I think the younger you are, it impacts you a lot more, like your first jobs would impact. The first year of working has a lot of impact and then it just gets routine.
So there is a very significant impact in the initial years. And I think I was working in Toronto with a barrister there, and a lot of things which I incorporated in terms of, I don’t know if it is relevant to this question, but I see a lot of transparency.
There is a lesser senior-junior gap in these law firms abroad, especially in Toronto, the US culture in general. And there is a lot of opportunity to just meet them without that fear of talking to a very senior person, which I see quite visible in the law firms here, or the kind of practice there is in chambers here in Delhi. So as soon as that comfort level is there, a lot of transparency in terms of what a person will be able to do and what he won’t be able to do is there instead.
And you can also ask doubts. I think that is also one of the issues which I faced in a law firm here, that comfort level is not built where the associate can just go up to the partner and say, I have this doubt, can you clarify? What exactly do you need from me? What output can I give?
And that person is working to the best of his ability. And there is this gap, this unsaid hierarchy, where you have to put your head down. So that sort of thing, which I did not experience in the beginning, gave me a lot of knowledge and understanding with respect to speaking directly to the senior and really discussing things with the senior. And I wasn’t just like a cog in the machine, if that is the right metaphor, where you are just doing one part and you are just showing up and doing your thing. That freedom, that open-door policy, is something which I experienced early on and I really incorporated that. Other than that, a lot of things like, I think somewhere in India, we have this colonial, British-era, archaic way of writing judgments, or these judgments which are often published and all that.
It is so complex. It is far away from the comprehension of a layman. And I feel a certain level of clarity and predictability and structure, which I learned there, and I found it missing here. So I tend to incorporate that in whatever I can do at present in my small office.
I try to incorporate things which I learned of transparency and making your clients understand their petitions and not get swayed away by fancy legal lingo. Especially when discussing contracts and everything, I try to really simplify for the person who is sitting in front of me, for the client, and even how I would present myself in court would also be a lot simpler. I wouldn’t just go around beating around the bush with respect to fancy words and everything. So this is something which I have incorporated.
You have also been empanelled with the Punjab National Bank and Central Warehousing Corporation, where you regularly handle high-stake commercial and civil disputes. What kind of challenges do you see or face while managing these disputes, keeping in mind that you work for the government sector there? And there are multiple stakeholders who are also involved, so you have to take care of all the sides related to that particular challenge. So in these kinds of disputes, how do you work around them and how do you convince or formulate a strategy for such high-stake issues?
Like most of the government PSUs I have worked in, there have been times I’ve been on the other side. I would really think that we have to be very, very pro solution oriented and going through litigation is tedious. The government doesn’t really want that.
They want solutions, they want settlements. A person as a lawyer, one’s duty is not to just be very good at presenting yourself in the court. It’s to have that intention, to be solution oriented, to tell the people responsible that this is the realistic judgment.
This is the realistic order we are about to get or we’ll get in future. And this is where we are. So why not just try to get to a solution now instead of waiting for the court to take its due time to come to an order. So especially with all these government PSUs, my intention is to have an arbitration clause.
Their intention also, it reflects that they want to avoid litigation, they want to go into arbitration. They want to have quick redressal, and as a lawyer, as their panel counsel, my job is to ensure that the least amount of litigation happens and we can come to an understanding at the earliest moment.
Thanks for sharing those insights. So when we started the conversation, you talked about data privacy and other aspects, and your background is also in data protection and privacy management, along with the training in Canada and Europe. How do you see the kind of evolving landscape for the Indian DPDP Act and where do you see that we stand when we compare these kinds of acts, especially the new technology-driven acts around the world and what India is doing? What kind of difference do you see, and how do you make sure that you practice it in the best format possible, keeping in mind your international clients as well?
Well, I really think our act mirrors and reflects the GDPR, which is in Europe, and a lot of concepts are there. So very, very similar, very progressive. But just coming to the ground reality, I think this conversation should be more reflective of what really happens.
And in our practice, what I have seen is a lot of sharing of documents within law firms, within lawyers, through WhatsApp, through emails. So one should be really, really careful with all that, about sharing confidential information, even amongst our peers.
And first, that cultural shift has to be there to really understand that there will be consequences. In general conversations, I see a lot of lawyers talk in the cafeteria, talking about their cases. One has to be very, very careful not to disclose your clients, not to disclose anything personal, or not even say something from which a person can really predict who I am speaking about.
So that cultural shift has to be there with respect to privacy, and I think that is missing. Also, the way our websites are made, or our shopping websites are made, or any website for that matter, it is not humanly possible to read the cookie, the privacy policy, etc.
So really, there is a great disbalance. You can take consent from a person on a 300-page document within one second, and a person just has to click OK. It is not humanly possible to read 300 pages before entering a website. So again, regulation has to come from the side of the government or from an authority, which we are doing, because it is not a contract between equals.
Because if you are one big corporation, you have so much power. You have great lawyers to draft these contracts, and you expect a layman who is buying maybe a golf club, and then he will have to sign these pages, to just click OK. In a way, it is implied consent to accepting their policies.
So there is definitely a lot of disbalance. And what I have seen is that I go to a shop and they ask for your number so easily, like it is nothing, like I have to give it. They don’t even bother with your consent.
If you need the bill, you need to give the number. I am like, what kind of a relationship is this? You are putting pressure that if I need the bill, I need to give you the number, and then the number is just available out there, and you will be getting random calls and promotions.
So where do we draw the line? Why don’t we have that power as consumers to say no, to say to the company that, okay, forget me, erase my data, whatever you have on me? These provisions are there, but to what extent are we really incorporating them and to what extent are we really educating the consumers about them?
I mean, there is a huge gap. And I think as consumers, we are on the losing end of this battle. The way private data is shared, I think everybody would have experienced talking amongst their friends about a certain product and then seeing the advertisement of that online all of a sudden.
So who is listening to what? To what extent is our data being shared? There is a lot of gray area in this, and there is absolutely a lack of transparency and a huge imbalance of power between us and the technology, the people out there who want the data. So regulation has to come from the government, from the authorities, so that there is some fear in the people or in the corporations or technology-related companies to be careful with the data.
So true that we should be aware of our privacy as well as the child’s privacy. Nobody talks about child rights either, which is something absolutely missing from what we are doing, although it is there in the act. But if we are not aware of our own privacy, then how are we going to be inspired by child rights and other aspects.
Absolutely. I think that it is just that the act, that legislation has to reflect or be incorporated in societal culture. And there’s seriously a big gap when it comes to that.
Everything, even if you visit somebody’s apartment these days, they need your phone number, data, everything to let you in. And then you have been profiled. And you don’t know who’s buying this profile. How many times have you visited the hospital? Maybe the insurance company is buying the profile.
So there’s a lot of sharing of data which a person has not expressly consented to. Consent can be skewed in a way that you click okay on a cookie policy or something like that and then, in a way, legally the companies are protected. But is it really a balanced contract?
I don’t think so. The consumers, the regular people, have been taken for a ride.
Keeping all this kind of technological advent and the kind of issues that arise with it and the regulations that are required, you have extensively worked in this field as well. How do you keep yourself ahead of the times and learn about all these things? Where do you learn from? What kind of research do you do around this, and what will be your advice to the younger generation who are entering this particular field in this specifically technologically advanced era? Things have changed before COVID and after COVID, the kind of world we are living in. So how do you see yourself, your practice, your firm, and how do you see the young generation learning from it?
Right at the outset, I would say the old schoolers, the law firms, are hesitant. Even today they are very non-AI, they have these internal policies, but AI is so powerful. It’s not so easy to just reject it outright. The more realistic thing will be to adopt it and regulate it.
And I think the younger generation, we know that you are using AI, we know that you are using it for research and drafting and whatnot. So there doesn’t have to be shame in it. Be outright. Be transparent with your bosses and professors and say that this is the kind of research you’ve collated, and as long as you’re using a tool, do good work.
That’s what matters. As long as that tool is not misused to the extent of plagiarism, I think it’s absolutely fine. One should adopt it. I have been using AI tools for my scheduling. So imagine earlier if you typed so-and-so versus the state, versus the case number, et cetera.
Now I can just, I have this app. I can just update my data, say put it up in my calendar for so-and-so date. So everybody’s using it and younger people are using it. It’s a great tool. So imagine going through a contract of 200 pages and you really want to understand if there are any loopholes, what exactly the termination conditions are.
For instance, if you just go to the termination clause, there will be clauses talking about termination. But you need to really holistically understand the contract because a lot of times these clauses have a bearing on each other.
And a lot of times these clauses are extensions of each other. So you cannot read these clauses in isolation. Let’s say one person uses AI to really understand the termination clause, or let’s say whatever period, indemnity clause in totality, and see how it assists you.
So use AI like an assistant. You wouldn’t put your assistant’s work directly to the client. You’ll ask a paralegal to help you out and then filter things out for you, and then you apply your legal mind to it and then take it ahead. So as long as you’re using it as a paralegal or an AI agent, it’s fine.
It’s absolutely fine. There’s no shame around it. I know my partners are really upset because of some interns who used AI and found these AI-hallucinated case laws, which do not exist. And this I’m talking about in some tier-one law firm.
So it is concerning, but use it as an agent. If, let’s say, your intern brings you a case law, you don’t just directly sign it, right? You would go to SCC Online, a more legitimate sort of legal resource, and cross-check it. But, in essence, I would just like to say be adaptable.
See how the situation is changing. Very soon there won’t be a lot of paralegals. As a job, it may become obsolete. Stenographers may become obsolete. So be realistic. There is an aspect of what’s morally correct and what’s not. Let’s not go there at the moment.
But what’s real is that yes, jobs are going to move, a lot of clerical jobs will go away. So be mindful of that and use this as an opportunity to do really good legal work. Be better than your seniors because they didn’t have these tools. Now your senior would’ve taken a day to read a contract.
You can do it much faster and try to do the law analytical stuff because your clerical stuff is taken care of. So use it like you have hired an intern or a junior paralegal and then be the person who vets everything before forwarding it to the court or client.
Thank you for talking about all these aspects of AI and how to use those kinds of tools for your own benefit and for your work’s benefit. It has been a very enriching conversation with you where you have talked about your understanding and the way your seniors have helped you, all of it hopefully is going to help our learners to understand how they should pave their way in being not only first generation lawyer, but I would say first generation using technology at this level because this is something which is absolutely new for legal fraternity, so thank you for this conversation.
Just adding one last thing with respect to the AI, it’s bridging the gap. Imagine if nobody has the excuse now that I do not have good professors. I do not have a good education, my college isn’t good enough.
You have these sources, you can get access to a lot of great sources online, so there is no excuse now. A level playing field has been made because of AI and technology. So you can be anyone, you can be a first-generation or third-generation lawyer. Now the third-generation lawyers have their own challenges.
Being under the shadow of someone, someone a great lawyer sometimes. So that kind of sometimes limits the third or the fourth-generation lawyer. So a lot of these seniors, which I know, have sent their kids to absolutely different chambers.
Far away from their chamber so that they learn to stand on their own feet. I see a lot of LinkedIn posts about first-generation, second-generation differences. It’s not as rosy as people think to be a third-generation lawyer or a fourth-generation lawyer. One always has to show merit and everybody, in a sense, is a first-generation lawyer.
This is not like a food business or a restaurant that, okay, it just came to you. Everybody has to show merit. Everybody has to show their skills to really last in this profession. So, in essence, now that AI is there and other technology, which makes it easier to navigate cases, easier to do research.
One should learn all that and this is a great time to be a lawyer in a way that now you have a level playing field, you can go against the best.
Get in touch with Kunal Sinha –
