The third session titled “Enabling and Skilling” comprised of the panellists Professor (Dr.) G.S. Bajpai, Vice Chancellor, NLU Delhi; Professor (Dr.) Shubhashis Gangopadhyay, Founding Dean, Indian School of Public Policy; Professor (Dr.) Ashish Bharadwaj, Founding Dean, BITS Law School; Professor (Dr.) Avinash Dadhich, Founding Director, School of Law, Dhirubhai Ambani University; Mr Naveen Tuli, Managing Partner, EMEA & APAC, In-house Practice Group, Major, Lindsey & Africa; Dr Risham Garg, Associate Professor, NLU Delhi; and the moderator, Ms Shelly Kohli, General Counsel, United Breweries.
Ms Shelly introduced the topic of changes that took place in the legal education field, and consequently, the legal industry that saw the rise of in-house counsels. She asked Dr Risham about what legal in-house teams do to attract top talent from law schools and what law schools could do in terms of levelling the playing field between law firms and in-house roles. Dr Risham responded that times have changed as the enrolment process and outlook of law students in terms of career.
Ms Shelly shed light on the usage of AI in legal education and the concerns regarding originality, authenticity, and lack of critical thinking and analytical depth. In this regard, she asked Dr Ashish how law schools could rethink their evaluation method to uphold academic integrity and ensure originality and should the law schools today include practical skills such as oratory advocacy, and negotiation, by incorporating activities like mood courts, mock negotiations, and client counselling as core components of assessment. Dr Ashish, in his response, talked about how there is too much focus on the advantages of the technology, and there is a little bit more to it than that. He stated that the basic tenets of higher education were slightly compromised. He added that there were issues with over-digitisation in terms of deterioration of cognitive ability as the ability to read and write with focus and critique has been compromised across the board. He highlighted that this was not the fault of students, but rather a response to the cultural messaging that books are slightly less relevant, and technology is the saviour.
“We are doing to AI what we did to social media, when Orkut, Facebook were new, we got absolutely amazed by it, promoted it, practiced it, invested in it, we scaled it, and then we got scared of it, now we are tired of it and now we want to regulate it. Some countries have started to ban it.”
“AI Revolution raises some really important existential questions around how we acquire knowledge as human beings and the role that human beings play in facilitating learning for each other.”
– Professor (Dr.) Ashish Bharadwaj
Carrying the conversation further, Mr Naveen spoke about how to train students in terms of experiential learning and adopt an interdisciplinary approach to make them well-rounded individuals. He also mentioned the need for a regularly updated syllabus, moving towards an analytical method of learning, establishing mentorship programs, upgrading infrastructure, and strengthening the regulatory role of the Bar Council of India.
Regarding the role of electives, Dr Avinash spoke about the Madhav Menon Model, the inability of law schools to produce good lawyers, and the need for redefining the purpose of law school in society. He stated that the elective model was good, but the gates must be opened for working professionals from the beginning of law school and designing of the courses, not just teaching one course. Dr Gangopadhyay added that law students are learning in an environment that is not conducive to their education, and a need for a change in approach to how law is taught for a person to be a complete lawyer. He added that law was treated as a career which was unfair to the discipline.
From the perspective of an academician, Dr Bajpai drew a comparison between medical and legal education. He mentioned how medical practice was inherently a part of medical education, which was missing in the legal profession. He stated that a practice could not mature without theory and vice versa. Dr Bajpai suggested that the in-house industry had to organise itself like a service to attract bright students. He also suggested that a lot of institutionalisation had to take place in order to bridge the gap between practice and education.
“The art of writing and the craft of preparing the document is no longer a benchmark or assessing the skill of a student now AI can do it much better. Instead, innovation, creativity, and risk taking is something which we should teach.”
-Dr GS Bajpai
Following the third session, Dr Lalit Bhasin, President, Society of Indian Law Firms and Managing Partner, Bhasin & Co delivered a speech. In his speech, he stated that the purpose of law schools was to make themselves good lawyers and the element of social service would come naturally. He also criticised the 5-year integrated course as it did not help the students develop in a well-rounded manner, thereby affecting their quality as lawyers. Regarding the role of general counsels, Dr Lalit said that general counsels were indeed treated differently. He stated that these counsels were not mere rubber stamps but played an active role in a corporation, thus, it would be very beneficial for them to be empowered with the actual ability to advise like lawyers.
“The role of in-house counsels is unequalled so far as the economic growth of the country is concerned.”
-Dr Lalit Bhasin
The fourth session titled “Recognising In-House Counsels”, moderated by Mr Rakesh Kumar Prusti, Group General Counsel, OYO, consisted of Ms Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court; Dr Shardul S. Shroff, Founder, and Executive Chairman, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas; Mr Harsh Pais, Head of India Corporate, A&O Shearman; and Mr Amit Singh, Partner, India Group and Head of South and Southeast Asia, Capital Markets, Linklaters.
Mr Rakesh introduced the topic and opened the floor for Dr Shardul. Dr Shardul spoke about the difference between a lawyer and a principal. He stated that if the equation was re-evolved in a way where an in-house counsel states that they are not employed but rather they have dedicated time to one client, from whom they receive compensation in return for rending their services, then they are allowed to carry on the profession of law.
Adding to the conversation from a global perspective, Mr Amit stated that in England, as long as the principal communication is legal advice it was privileged, but the legal and business correspondence had to be separate.
From the perspective of dispute resolution, Mr Harsh stated that protection of privilege at an international standard was important because the operation and legal departments were usually integrated. Additionally, the lack of clarity on privilege made dispute resolution in cross-border matters harder.
Regarding the navigation of corporate counsels when they practice in courtrooms, Ms Pinky stated that such navigation was difficult and could only be done with experience. She added that the practice of law is the cause of justice, a lawyer is not only answerable to the client but also to the nation. She stated that in-house counsels or general counsels had a responsibility towards their company and would largely be a mouth-piece for the company which was different to the ecosystem of a lawyer.
After the enlightening fourth session, Justice (Retd.) AK Sikri, Supreme Court, delivered an address wherein he talked about India’s license raj, liberalisation and privatisation of the economy, and changes in the Indian Legal system and increased regulation. He stated that this history has laid the groundwork for the important role that general counsels play today. Furthermore, he remarked that from the constitutional perspective, general counsels required the dignity of being recognised as a lawyer as per Article 21.
Following Justice Sikri, an address was delivered by Justice (Retd.) Hima Kohli. She highlighted the growth of the Indian Economy and the importance of reshaping our legal landscape to meet the complex demands of corporate transactions and international trade. She also spoke about the development of the Indian Legal Ecosystem from panchayats to alternative dispute resolution. In this regard, she also commented on the role of technology in aiding rather than replacing legal practitioners. Concluding her speech, Justice Kohli spoke about the need for general counsels to be treated equally to advocates.
“Our regulatory framework, particularly the Advocates Act and the Bar Council regulations, have yet to fully recognize the nuance of strategic roles played by modern legal practitioners as a general counsel, and they must be mainstreamed and rub shoulders with litigation practitioners as co-equals.”
-Retired Justice Hima Kohli
Concluding the conference, the Chief Guest, Mr Arjun Ram Meghwal, Minister of Law and Justice, had a candid conversation with the audience wherein he conducted a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) Analysis exercise with the audience regarding general counsels and in-house counsels. He announced that such analysis was important as the Advocates Act, 1961, was in the process of being amended. He also spoke briefly about GDP and the role played by lawyers, especially, in-house lawyers in the growth of GDP.
The conference concluded with a group photo and memento distribution.