'Many good lawyers are individualistic'

by Sonal Makhija | February 14, 2012

Narasappa, Doraswamy & Raja (“NDR”) has, in a short span, become one of Bangalore’s most respected corporate law firms. Partner Harish Narasappa spoke with myLaw.net, and in the concluding part of the interview published below, touched on the subjects of adaptation of technology and the regulatory environment for legal practice. The first part of the interview has been published here.

Mr. Harish Narasappa

Image courtesy, Mr. Harish Narasappa.

Sonal Makhija for myLaw.net (ML): In the last five years, many young lawyers have set up their own law firms. What has led to this current growth and confidence?

Harish Narasappa (HN): I think it is the failure of present law firms to retain good talent. Most good lawyers are individualistic. It is the nature of the profession. Having said that, we are in a market that is growing and nourishing new and young talent.

Yet, I would say that there are several categories of new law ‘firms’. I am not sure whether the current trend means or implies emergence of more law firms. The question to ask is whether these institutions will survive the test of time. What is the institutional ethos that is being promoted in these firms? Surely, there is money to be made, I don’t deny that, but I am not sure whether institutions are being built or they are merely extensions of individual practices.

ML: The current legal environment demands greater use of technology and better knowledge management. The Indian law firms, however, seem slower to adopt these technological advancements and incorporate the habit of knowledge management.

HN: I think more firms today understand the benefit of using technology. That change is coming about gradually.

As for knowledge management, that requires a conscious decision by the firm and its partners. They need to place value on it. The bigger firms are too busy to worry about it. Transactional law is still twenty years old, in that sense the knowledge pool is still limited. Besides, not all lawyers are good managers or good at sharing knowledge.

Nonetheless, the Internet has changed that. Today, information is easily accessible. I think the question is of time and scale. I think Indian law firms have not yet reached that scale yet. I am sure they would reinvent themselves with time; the moment there is financial reason to change they will.

ML: We have witnessed a shift in the in-house legal departments of corporates from the role of a company secretary to a legal counsel. Has this shift affected law firms? If so, how?

HN: There is a need for an internal counsel who understands the business requirements and compulsions of a company. Also, companies with good in-house counsels are sophisticated users of legal services. Although, I must admit that in some cases in-house counsels become bottlenecks.

This problem reinforces the need for knowledge management. Only if law firms address this need will this knowledge percolate to other strands of the legal industry and practice. The benefit of having good in-house counsel teams, like it is the case in most multinational companies, is that knowledge gets shared.

ML: We have witnessed a shift from the practice of law to the business of law in recent years.

HN: I think NDR as a firm is keen on the practice of law, which we may not be good for us in the long term if we want to become a 100-lawyer firm. But, we don’t mind making less money, as long as we have a good practice and have work-life balance.

ML: How important is the branding and marketing of law firms in today’s legal environment?

HN: Our growth has come through client referrals and friends. We haven’t done any advertisements. We don’t do cold calling or pay people to write about us, or our deals. Our focus is on the quality.

In the case of NDR, initially most our clients were entrepreneurs. Institutions, like S.B.I. etcetera, prefer institutions. As large institutions prefer established law firms, similarly, entrepreneurs tend to prefer entrepreneurs. In a city like Bangalore, entrepreneurs drive and nourish the new emerging legal talent. It possibly is also the reason why newer and young law firms do well in Bangalore.

I don’t place the same amount of importance on branding. In the initial days of the firm especially, the firm is built on the strength of partners. The brand emerges only later. The practice of law is still very individual focused. However, when we enter practices like capital markets or banking, then branding is important.

ML: Your opinion on the reform in the regulatory environment for the legal profession and the opening up of the Indian legal industry.

HN: I don’t oppose the opening up of the market to foreign law firms. I think Indian law firms will survive, and flourish even upon foreign firms being allowed to practice. However, foreign lawyers should be asked to re-qualify to practice in India. The current reason being offered for the opening up of the legal market, however, is erroneous. That the non-opening up of the market to foreign lawyers would impact foreign investments or that the foreign clients are not happy with Indian lawyers is erroneous.

At the end of it, foreign law firms would hire Indian lawyers. I don’t see a significant change, except more emphasis on perhaps knowledge management. I doubt even the salaries would shoot up substantially for everybody. The concern I do have is that it may lead to legal services becoming more unaffordable. Today, the demand for good quality legal services is emerging from small or medium enterprises. Legal services should be affordable and accessible to them.

Also, if we are opening up the market to foreign lawyers, then everyone should play by the same rules. Placing restrictions on Indian law firms with respect to professional barriers like marketing or advertising would have to change with the market.

(Concluded.)

Sonal Makhija is part of the Research and Consulting team at Rainmaker.