India Business Law Journal – July/August 2018

An audacious argument

Can a case be made for working less?

In his paradigm-challenging 1935 essay, titled In Praise of Idleness, British philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote: “I want to say, in all seriousness, that a great deal of harm is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work, and that the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work.”

That Russell had to prefix this statement with an assertion of his sincerity speaks volumes for the outlandishness of the case he was making. Over eight decades later such opinions will appear ludicrous to many, but the essential argument remains just as audacious. If happiness and prosperity are what we seek, can the virtuousness of work continue to be taken as the accepted norm?

A contention well worth pondering even though it may be far from the minds of our readers for whom idleness can be an unaffordable luxury. Also, “diminution of work” is virtually impossible for private practice lawyers given that revenue targets are increasingly hard to meet in India. As our Cover Story details, such targets are par for the course in developed markets where the structure of the legal market is more efficient. So proprietorships continue to dominate in India. Also, power within partnerships, which are few and far between, is typically in the hands of seniors. As we detail, remaining in this environment has its challenges.

As such, with attention shifting to rising partner at Phoenix Legal, says revenue targets are necessary for ambitious lawyers seeking a successful long-term career, but these can also come at the cost of other professional goals, like pursuing a broad-based area of practice or building professional networks, all of which may hamper their long-term career progression.

Moreover, as firms attempt to maximize revenue, areas like cybercrime, sexual harassment, and domestic violence remain under-serviced, as these are typically not lucrative areas of practice. Accordingly, both lawyers and law firms are forced to compromise between setting high revenue targets and the pursuit of holistic career advancement and well-being.

In a touch of disruption we turn to the growing commercialization of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology, which is likely to prove disruptive for the legal sector among others. Will smart contracts, ledger of things and artificially intelligent robots make a typical litigation or corporate lawyer more efficient or will it make them redundant? The answer lies somewhere in between as lawyers, especially those who can learn and benefit from this technology, will enhance their competitiveness and establish themselves as specialists.

Writing in this issue’s Vantage point Srinjoy Banerjee says that a reading of data privacy bill being considered by the government suggests that while the drafters considered global best practices, these were lost in translation when the bill was being put together. He argues that most issues have not underlied rights over an individual’s data. Instead, it is about the role of a guardian. Following the principles of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, the state should play the role of helping companies and individuals to find a solution to their problems. India’s Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, has some way to go before it can establish India in a position of global leadership on this kind of approach.

This issue’s What’s the deal? is dedicated to a possible legal articulation of an Indian data framework that moves up legislation-making processes and preserves individual interests as they expand into fast-moving fields. And, as such, there is need to amend intellectual property laws, and most brand owners devise strategies against the sale of counterfeit goods with the sole objective of creating deterrence, culminating in offenders facing criminal actions.

This too is a challenge on account of general apathy on the part of the police. For despite the existence of adequate and strict penal provisions under the Indian Penal Code, the police tend to adopt a self-restrained approach when booking counterfeiting offences. All of this spells trouble for brand owners, who despite recent favourable judicial pronouncements, find they are at a disadvantage when confronting counterfeiters. The future may be bleak unless dedicated legislation to deal with the counterfeiting of critical products emerges. Until then, in-house lawyers and brand owners will continue to struggle.

This issue includes India Business Law Journal’s 11th annual edition of its India Business Law Directory. The directory is accompanied by an editorial analysis of the Indian legal market, that is of special interest to readers. The analysis reveals the shape and size of India’s top law firms of all shapes and sizes. The results paint an intriguing picture of the country tainted by some unique challenges, the foremost among them being the new compliance standards imposed on many of our law firms. We include a series of graphic tables identifying issues and SWOT analysis illustrating perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the profession.

As for the elephant in the room – the increasing lay-offs in firms, our pool of data dives into the reasons behind this emerging trend in India law firms and whether these emerging developments are here to stay or are just a consequence of temporary market developments.