Ankit Tiwari, Partner at Lawyers Space, shares how law students can move beyond traditional litigation and build expertise in legal audit, compliance strategy and preventive advisory. Reflecting on real world court experience and startup advisory, he highlights why modern lawyers must combine compliance knowledge with professionalism and business acumen. This conversation offers aspiring lawyers a clear roadmap to develop independent thinking, gain early field exposure and build skills in contracts, compliance and regulatory risk control.
This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
Growing up, what were the early influences or experiences that helped shape your entrance in law and also inspired you to choose this profession? And along with that what were your initial years in the practice like?
When I was in 11th and 12th, I was from a science background, so I would love to go in depth when there were physics laws or something like that. But again, the problem is that most of the science things I could not connect to because they were more about numbers, more about theory.
But I wanted something more real, like the effects on life. What are the societal arrangements, how things could be done. So I found that this was not coming from the science subjects. Then I thought about going more into theoretical subjects, and I found law to be one of them when I saw the CLAT paper.
I found it really interesting because it is more practical. It is more about common sense. And if you go inside it, it is limitless. If you are really an expert in it, you can even become a jurist or a social scientist. So all these things made me feel that this is a good field to go into because law cannot be read in isolation. Neither can it be interpreted in isolation. So that is the best thing about law, and that is why I thought I could read these stories. I could interpret the rules, regulations, and conduct. That is the thing which inclined my interest. And also, I believe this is an era of engineers, but when countries were about to develop or were just getting their framework, that was an era of lawyers, right?
We have framed everything. So from Abraham Lincoln to Gandhiji, everyone was a lawyer. Even today, the USA is governed mostly by lawyers, through the power of law and rules. So I found that law is really powerful if you can use it very logically. And there are more good reasons why I romanticize law and why I could not change this field at any time in my lifetime; I will share them ahead. So these were the things which gave me direction to go ahead with law as a career.
In the initial phases, what were your experiences while you were starting out in law? Would you share some of your experiences that helped you gain a lot of insights and build your practice?
I would be very transparent with this answer. I’m also a human, so as a human, when we were in first year, we always thought, I want to write a research paper. Then in second year, you would think, I want to do a moot. In third year, you want to do an internship, fourth year, fifth year. Then when you start your law practice, you say, only one time I want to do a filing, at least for one time. Then you say, at least once you want to do legal research, then you say only one case. Then you say only 10,000, then 50,000, 60,000. So I do not think my initial phase has been completely over.
It’s always on, on, on. You always want to build, build, build, learn, learn, learn, implement. So yeah, initially it is about knowing how society works in a practical sense, how court works, how legal implications work. So all these things sometimes give us a paradigm shift that everything is not very positive.
Society has its own way to run. Law in books and law in action are two different things. And as a legal professional, you have to make a good balance so that your book and your morality remain the same, and you are also able to deliver the field work which is required of you. And I think from here to the next 15 years, I could not say that my initial journey has been completed because it’s like 60,000, 80,000, 1 lakh, 2 lakh, one requisition, one SLP. I don’t know when my craving will be satisfied.
Initially, if you see, first we say, okay, first we think there are cheque bounce cases, okay, we hear as second, third year students. Then we say, okay, Negotiable Instruments. Okay. Then we say Section 138. Okay, okay. Then we see the case file. Oh my God. Then we say, oh, we got a case of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Then we get it resolved either through a session trial or this civil procedure. Then we say, but this is just one of the most commercial or biggest areas of things. But I want to be a constitutional lawyer, then the Constitution. Okay. But then you solve that. Then you say, oh, that’s good, but I want to do international law or service law.
So you are always a student of law, that is the thing.
Was there a particular moment of transition that steered your career towards strategic leadership and corporate startup advisory? And what made you eventually establish your own practice?
I will be blunt on this thing. Firstly, why corporate and compliance? When you see a lawyer, a lawyer is a combined personality of multiple professionals.
Let me give you an example. Right now, I think you are also from law, so right now, we are doing the role of journalists. Then when you do research, at that time, we are scholars. When you do the field work, when you assist the police in solving cases or getting the investigation done, you are acting as an investigation officer. And when you are dealing with corporates, then you are the CLO, Chief Legal Officer. So a lawyer is a combination of many things. So that is why I do not feel that lawyers should always be limited to the court. I believe that the approach should be changed.
We should, even the Supreme Court wanted us to focus on compliance. We should focus on legal audit. Now, there are financial audits, but we should also do a legal audit, like how the team or corporate could be legally compliant so that risk could be mitigated and litigation could be avoided because it is not just the court. It is a procedure that is very vast, that is very complicated. It takes everything away from you. So I feel corporates should focus more on compliance, more on prevention than cure. That is why I found that legal compliance, legal audit, and legal advisory to small corporates and SMEs would be really helpful.
So that is the reason I shifted here. And the blunt or harsh thing is that if you are into practice, I am also into practice, right? We are a team of three or four people. Ma’am, in practice it is really difficult to be financially independent. Because as an employer, you always want to take more commission for yourself and less commission goes to the employees who are working in the field for you.
So I feel like it has been five or six years. I have always been a junior, junior, junior. Even my position got better and even my experience increased, but I do not think in a chamber practice or in a litigation practice, without being independent, you could make a great move. So that is why I thought enough of learning, we all know law, even I think you know law, everyone knows law.
More important is how you get the client and how you deliver the goal. A senior is required till the time you understand the legal business or the legal system and how it works. After that, you should be independent. Everyone should be independent. A lawyer should be independent and take things on their own.
From your experience, how do you think the nature of working in a law firm differs from having a chamber practice?
So see, this is again something I observed when I was working in the field.
When there is any company in operation, whenever someone wants to invest or someone wants guidance, people at large used to prefer a CA over a lawyer. Why a CA? Because somehow they have maintained that dignity and are seen as professional. But as a lawyer, I am also a lawyer, and I am taking this on myself, as a lawyer fraternity we have lost the trust and interest of many people.
And this is very prevalent in chamber practice. So in chamber practice, you may have a big name who can solve any problem, but it will be solved by a top notch lawyer who is working in the chamber, and that too on his own terms and conditions. That thing is not so good because it is not professional.
There is a need for efficiency and effectiveness, and that is not there. Now the solution is a law firm. A law firm works as a corporate. It is a structured body. It believes in giving professional services for the price you pay. So clients would rather refer you for more professional and more one to one, better services rather than chamber practice.
Chamber practice is great, but I think we need more professionalism in chamber practice, as there is in law firms.
Could you share with us, for a broader audience, how you would explain legal audit and compliance, and how it plays a crucial role in today’s regulatory environment?
As per this present working government, they are more focused on less corruption and more implementation. So now, again, I will tell you the field reality. You might have heard about the POSH Act, Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act. So in that, it is mentioned that even if you do not put up the poster of POSH compliance, or you do not maintain a registry, then there would be a financial implication for you. Similarly, in hospitals, there should be a green dustbin, a yellow dustbin, or an ambulance free of cost. So these all are the things which ought to be there. And now people have started doing it.
So there are two benefits. Firstly, it decreases your legal risk implications. Secondly, it makes you a more civilized human being, whether we talk about a corporate or an individual. If you are doing legal compliance and legal audit, in any law, in any section, it is mentioned what you need to do, like now let’s take an example of data protection.
Anybody who is collecting data should do a data audit. They should maintain records, they should do data processing, everything. Now, ma’am, tell me, in every small district of India there are government hospitals, and there are banks. Okay, so banks are centralizing. Talk about the hospitals, the schools, hotels.
All of them have our data. But whether they are processing it or not, whether they are maintaining it properly or not. So ma’am, these are all the things, if we work more on the compliance aspect, ma’am, then civilization will increase, corruption will be reduced, and overall litigation will be reduced.
So it will be beneficial for all. So that’s why I certainly believe updated legal compliance is a must thing that everyone, especially corporates, should do. Even, I would say ma’am, as we have a personal pundit, as we have a personal CA, every family has one. One should always have a personal legal professional with them to just tell them whether whatever they are undertaking is a legally sound decision or not.
I think that is very necessary in today’s time considering the evolving legal landscape. And even generally, also, we most of the time do not know what exactly law is.
Now just two points. Firstly, in big corporates, like I used to have some labour law litigation, what HR and the employees do now, they are in IT, they are in MBA. They believe by earning so much they have intellect, and what they used to do, they play around with ChatGPT and they draft their mail through ChatGPT. Let’s consider there was an employee who was in an IT company. He drafted an email or a legal notice to his employer and he mentioned the Industrial Disputes Act. Now they believe by seeing ChatGPT or by doing some Google research, they could understand law, but the Industrial Disputes Act does not apply to every employee, they do not know that. And by just writing Industrial Disputes Act, so on and so forth, the employer gets threatened. And he took a decision against him. So that’s why whatever is the work of a lawyer, let him do it.
Whatever is the work of a doctor, let them do it. Do not run your mind where you do not have expertise. As simple as that. That’s why a lawyer in every family, in every corporate, is required.
You have handled a lot of cases, so could you share one of the most demanding matters you’ve handled so far, and how did you prepare yourself to manage that work and the high pressure that comes with it?
We cannot say money can be the sole criteria to decide difficulty.
I’ll give you two, three instances where I really got stuck. So if you want to change your legal name, let’s say if you get married or if you want to change your surname or something like that, you can go and get an affidavit done, then get it notarized, then you have to publish it, and that’s it.
But when you change your religion, your first name and last name are changing. Now for that name change, you have to again do an affidavit and there is that self attestation that has to be signed by the SDM. Now in the SDM court, no one knows about this. Even I have read so much law and regulation. It is a well known fact that the SDM will sign and then only your name and surname will change, but under which law it is written and which lawyer can assist me, or clerk assist me, or the bureau can assist me.
There was no one. So that is an ongoing thing. Now, this is a matter of only 5,000, but again, the difficulty is that I could not find out the legal backing. Without legal backing, I cannot go to the SDM and say, under this section, you are authorized to do this. But on the notification, I can count on it. And notifications are not core law that the SDM relies on.
Another matter is that there is a friend of mine, so he and his wife are in dispute. They are going through a divorce. Now, ma’am, hear out what he said, my wife has filed a dowry case against me, that I have asked for it.
Ankit, now I have read Section 3 of the Dowry Act, and they are saying someone who takes it or gives it. So if I have taken it, cases are going against me, now they have given it, so the case should be filed against them as well. Okay. So yeah, as per law, she is right. It is written, but now I went to the police and said we have to write this.
He said, no, I cannot write this. We have never written this. Okay. Then we decided with the judicial court that we should draft a private complaint. So we have drafted the private complaint. We have done all the things, but when the matter will reach the court, the court works in the traditional way. They do not work on whims and fancies or whatever is written.
So ma’am, now to get that case admitted, again, it is a matter of a very small amount. But again, the headache which I have because of it is really complicated.
Now the third matter, which is really interesting, and the area is emerging, that is ma’am, infrastructure and construction law. So whenever we see road bridges, we see any infrastructure activities that are being governed by the government only.
So ma’am, in that we do not know that lawyers also play a great role. So any work has to be done within a limit of time. Now I worked for one and a half years in this field. So what happened, ma’am? When the government gives the tender, the tender gets signed, the contractor will fulfill the duty. Now we know all government projects get delayed.
Now why do they get delayed? Firstly, the owner, like the government, should give them free land to construct. Now free land is given after getting NOCs from all the persons who were preoccupied with that. So now there are procedural defects. Then it gets delayed in giving the land to the government. Then once the government takes the land, it gives it to the contractor.
And then this series goes on. If there is one tree while making a road, then one tree requires 5 to 10 permissions to get cut down, and again, the contractor will go to the owner. The owner is the government. The owner will go to the concerned authority, that is a department. All these things get resolved, but time gets extended. As the time gets extended, the amount which a contractor is getting through the work gets reduced. That is another term and condition in the NHAI contract, EPC contract, we used to say that. So now the dispute is under whom the obligation was not fulfilled, whether the government has not given the land or the permission, or whether the contractor has delayed and not placed enough personnel at the place.
So now the role of the lawyer is to write the letters to the government that this is a problem. I am doing this. So what is this letter? I think this is evidence development. Once all the letters are developed, this matter will directly reach the court. This will reach arbitration, and, in arbitration,
If a matter is of 300 crores, 400 crores, because one road of 20 kilometers takes 50, 60 crores to build. So if we say AIIMS has been built, so how many crores you can just estimate it. Now the arbitrator who has been seeing all the letters, all the things, he is following the case for a long time. Once you become an arbitrator or as a law firm you are assisting your client in an arbitration process, even if you get 2% of the total contract value, that would be 5 to 10 crore rupees.
And the law firms are doing this work. So this is really great. And the new work that is emerging, there are some seminars and courses around it, but very limited. And it involves technical work, because we have to know civil engineering also while doing this. But it is amazing work. I worked on two, three projects.
One was of 2,400 crores of the government. So these are interesting areas and the most challenging things also.
I would really love to know now that as a partner at Lawyers Space, what core values and long-term vision shape your leadership style and the approach you have for client advisory?
I should not say it, but it is the reality. We are into the business of law. So firstly, one thing should be taken care of. That is being professional. If you take money, you have to deliver. You have to give the best legal opinion, the best thing out of it, and you have to give it on time and in the best possible manner, in a professional manner. So one core value is professionalism. Secondly is, ma’am, connecting with fundamentally good people. Now, again, I’m telling you, when you go into the field, there are 40% of works which are legitimate for which lawyers are being hired.
Lawyers are being hired majorly for wrongful purposes also. So I have a very clear part to connect with more fundamentally right clients so that I can help them in building their legal business or whatever their legal requirement is, in a very legal manner, in a very moral manner also. Secondly, ma’am, I always want to be someone who wants to build something of my own. So I will never say I have employees, I always take them as business partners. And I always tell them two years maximum. If they are not good at generating work, then it’s okay.
Otherwise, I always believe you should work for three to five years maximum in some place. More than that, you should not. If you do not have any financial obligation, you should always be a leader of your life and as a lawyer, you should never be an employee. For three to five years, you learn the business, you fulfill your basic financial obligations and all those things.
When we go to court, it’s not like a hundred lawyers. They are a hundred entities. Each one is working on their own, by their name. Just for example, if by your name you can earn 200 rupees, that is more satisfactory than earning on behalf of your employer who does not take care of you.
So ma’am, that is the thing, connecting with the right resources, the right business partners and connecting with the right clients would be my approach with full professionalism. And see, ma’am, we should take three follow-ups, but not more than that. If someone wants to give you work, they will. Otherwise, they will not.
And that’s the philosophy and the principle which I’m aligned with.
If you are earning, you should give it to others as well. Say, for example, you have a driver, you have a clerk assistant. You have someone who has researched for you. Like if you are getting money, if you will hold it, na. I’m not Mukesh Ambani, I know that.
But if you have some money, take your expenses out. But the person who is aligning with your work, you should always give them good money. If you cannot give good money and freedom, then you are doing something wrongful. And I certainly believe if you are earning in crores, then at least give like 30, 40,000, 50,000 to your junior.
But this is not a practice in law and that is really disheartening. That’s why my principle would be if I am earning good, whatever I will be earning, I will be giving them in that proportion only, in a good proportion.
What matters most in the legal profession, talent, academic knowledge, specific expertise, or business acumen? And what advice would you give to young lawyers on building a successful and established practice?
Firstly, I’ll tell about the younger students. If someone asks me how a student should be, take admission in any state or central government university, first thing, but that city should be tier 2 or tier 1. Second thing, focus less on regular classroom dependency and more on self learning and practical exposure. The next thing you should do is join good judiciary classes like Rahul’s IAS. They may cost you around 2,50,000, but they’ll teach you law and principles in the best possible way that many legal colleges may not be able to teach you in depth.
Once you are done with your theoretical studies, then take some practical skill based courses like Lawsikho Courses. They’ll give you the practical aspects. When you have strong theoretical mentorship on one side and practical training on the other side, you are good to go. Then always, always, if you want to be a lawyer, always go to the court.
That’s what I missed in my early life, that I never went for filing or something like that. But if you want, you should go. And if you want to be a lawyer, your mind should be open. You cannot be like any other corporate professional. If you think of safety, security, right or wrong, or finances really matter to you, ma’am, I don’t think this profession will work for you. So you always have to be courageous, going beyond limitations. You should be the person who challenges things. You should be a person who can think independently.
Right now, if anyone wants to get a great career, just a career, then go in house, then go with law firms, work one year in the court. You will get all the mind opening perspectives and then apply to any corporate and go ahead.
But if you really want to be a lawyer, always, always work in the field. See now, ma’am, there are websites where people write their general legal queries. Read them, understand them, and try to solve them. You may not always be able to reply, but try to solve them on your own.
Try to solve more and more legal problems and legal inquiries, and by that, you will develop a good mind. Books alone will not do it. Attendance alone will not do it. Moot court alone will not do it. Research alone will not do it. Whatever is being taught to us is not enough by itself. That’s the only thing. Do what brings value. Do what brings solutions, and all the practical things will bring solutions, not just theoretical exercises.
In your view, what truly defines meaningful education and learning, and how should colleges evolve their approach to better equip students?
Ma’am, universities are not always designed to directly give someone a great future. They are largely structured to run educational institutions and sustain the larger academic system in society. And I do not think universities in the next 50 or 60 years will drastically transform themselves unless there is a strong shift in approach. One positive development, however, is that UGC has introduced the concept of Professor of Practice, which is a good step.
So now, if you look at people who are teaching, ma’am, I am also doing my PhD. I can easily go to any college. I love to teach. I can go to any college and start giving lectures on international law or administrative law. But many times, what we teach remains largely theoretical. It becomes more like structured schooling. If teachers honestly reflect, they may ask themselves whether they truly know how courts function in practice or how corporates operate on the ground. In many cases, there is a gap between theory and field exposure.
Let’s take the example of venture capital or legal due diligence. If even one or two sections are taught very well, along with practical insight into how things actually work, that itself can be very valuable. But institutions also have administrative and financial structures to maintain. Students enroll, fees are paid, placements are highlighted. However, deeper practical exposure is often limited. If practical realities were fully emphasized, the traditional academic model might look very different.
So one meaningful improvement could be that along with regular faculty, professionals who are actively working in the field should also teach. Even if they deliver two or three strong lectures with real experience, that can make a big difference.
There are rare examples of professors who have had significant influence at national levels. But broadly speaking, most academic professionals are not directly involved in roles like Advocate General, in house counsel, or legal venture capital advisory. This reflects the reality that much of the core legal work happens in the field, not only within classrooms.
So perhaps the way forward is greater collaboration between academia and practice. When people working actively in the field come and teach, even occasionally, it creates a valuable bridge. Some skill based legal platforms and institutes have started moving in this direction, and it would be good to see this approach grow further.
Get in touch with Ankit Tiwari –
