Amarchand sizes up options for first international base as India's unlevel playing field continues to frustrate
Less than three years away from his firm's 100-year anniversary, Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co's Shardul Shroff is ambitious as ever.
October 27, 2014 at 08:08 PM
4 minute read
Less than three years away from his firm's 100-year anniversary, Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A Shroff & Co's Shardul Shroff is ambitious as ever. The corporate partner, who co-heads India's largest law firm alongside his brother Cyril, talks of possibly opening a ninth domestic office in one of the country's second-tier cities, and remains committed to breaking the 100-partner barrier by the end of the year. The firm currently has 86 partners.
Perhaps most importantly, his sights remain set on launching Amarchand's first international office – a move that could spark a major turning point in a legal market that has been purely domestic up to this point. Shroff identifies Singapore as potentially the destination of choice. "Singapore [is the strongest contender] because its links with India are quite strong," he explains. "Singapore enables clients to service the whole of the ASEAN market.
"But it could be Hong Kong, London, Dubai or New York – it depends on what 2016 looks like. It also depends where clients need us."
He makes it clear that the firm will approach the prospect of international expansion with caution. The goal is not to merely plant a flag, as lawyers are wont to say, but to ensure a profitable base that won't upset the firm's 'best friends' network.
"It would have to be an office of significance, not just a representative office where you receive the mail," he insists. "We want to do it properly. We also don't want to disturb our international relationships with global law firms – we want to preserve these. But equally we want to provide Indian expertise that is relevant to the international market. We want to be present in markets where the local Indian situation becomes relevant; approaching the clients on their doorstep rather than expecting them to come to India."
Entering the global market has, evidently, not been easy for any Indian law firm, even a relative behemoth like Amarchand. One of the reasons is that, despite the country's now flourishing economy, there remain just a handful of local companies operating abroad, and therefore few anchor clients for firms to follow. Under these circumstances Shroff says it is difficult for firms to compete beyond their own turf.
But the biggest barriers to firms' global aspirations are a host of administrative constraints within their own market. Until April this year, Indian firms could have no more than 20 partners. Although that rule has been binned, firms continue to be plagued by restrictions around maintaining a website, distributing marketing material and other advertising activities. Indian insurance companies, meanwhile, offer extremely limited professional indemnity cover to lawyers, who are also subject to an unlimited liability structure as opposed to the LLP option enjoyed by their UK and US counterparts.
Firms are also far from the stage of being able to access capital from non-lawyers, as UK firms can do in the wake of the Legal Services Act. Most outfits therefore remain small and with limited skill sets.
"This is what stands in the way of Indian firms becoming truly global," Shroff explains. "There are firms that have gone to China or Singapore but their offices are small and not significant enough to make a statement on behalf of Indian lawyers."
Although the restriction on partner numbers has been lifted, he believes there is a lot more work to do: "The gap needs to be reduced; they need to resolve the local firm issues and create a level playing field between local and international firms. They need to put a timeline on it – to bring in new rules."
As for international players coming to India, Shroff still thinks this could be permitted within the next 10 years, and insists it could be beneficial for the country, opening the market in "many ways".
Nonetheless, he believes that without new freedoms for domestic firms, such a move would be a disaster as it could place international firms at an advantage. "The regulatory restrictions [on Indian firms] need to be addressed," he argues. "Very few firms are ready for that kind of thing. The level playing field is critical."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250