This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team
Reflecting on your extensive experience of over a decade, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law, and what was your journey like during law school at NLU Jodhpur?
I’ve always been fascinated by how the law shapes societies and protects individual rights. Growing up, dinner conversations always revolved around legal and political issues. My father’s stories about his day at Court or a case often left an impression on me. However, it was not until Class 12, that I finally decided to pursue law. Preparing for the Common Entrance Test with Mrs. Sheela Reddy, who trained a handful of students pro bono, cemented my interest in law. She followed a Socratic method of teaching which I came to appreciate even more when I was at UC Berkeley. She would often quip that training with her, we had already covered all the subjects that would be covered till the third year of law school. She was not entirely wrong.
Choosing NLU Jodhpur was a turning point—it was challenging, exciting, and rewarding in equal measure. The curriculum was rigorous, and opportunities like mooting and journal editing pushed me to think critically and hone my legal acumen. Brief Writing for Moot Court Competitions gave me an opportunity to really experiment not just with legal writing but also with legal research. Although, when I look at those Briefs now, they seem silly, they have played a huge role in exposing me to various facets of advocacy. I was always clear that I wanted to pursue Litigation, probably because that is all that I had seen growing up.
Having completed your LL.M. at UC Berkeley, California, what led you to choose this institution and specialize in areas such as Constitutional Law and International Commercial Arbitration? How did the teaching methodology at Berkeley differ from what you experienced in India?
Berkeley popularly is known for its IP program. However, I wanted to study with Professors like Erwin Chemrinsky and Neil Popovich who are well known in the fields of Constitutional Law and International Commercial Arbitration respectively. During my time at Berkeley I also opted for some IP course which focused on Federal Litigation which helped me a great deal when I later worked in the US. One Senior Advocate I worked with used to refer to Constitutional Law as the divine law. I agree with him. For me the genesis of any legal system flows from its constitution and constitutional theory. Even during law school, constitutional philosophy appealed to me a lot. The socratic approach of dissecting seminal Constitutional Law cases at Berkeley, gave me new insights into constitutional philosophy and the critical approach to reading any case law. I also had the opposite to explore the field of Administrative Law, an offshoot of Constitutional law during my time at Berkeley. Comparing the evolution of Administrative Law in India and the US gave me a new perspective about how Indian Courts dealt with this subject. The compare and contrast approach along with the socratic approach, I believe has a lasting impact on anyone who studies as such institutions. The exposure the Institution offered is unparalleled. The multi national perspective you get to experience aids one in thinking from different perspectives as well.
As a dual-qualified lawyer in both India and California, how has this qualification shaped your practice? How do you handle multi-jurisdictional disputes, particularly those involving private international law?
Being qualified in both jurisdictions allows me to work seamlessly on matters in both jurisdictions and also cross-border matters, especially in cases involving overlapping jurisdictions. Like Courts in India, most Courts in the US have also gone digital during the COVID-19 pandemic. That change has further helped me appear virtually in matters in the US. Doing cases in both jurisdictions simultaneously offers me a unique way to compare both the systems, the laws, the manner of interpretation, and the approach. This has helped me in doing multi-jurisdictional matters as well. I am able to anticipate how different aspects could play out in the two jurisdictions.
Managing each multi-jurisdictional dispute is unique. For instance, in a corruption case involving Indian and foreign entities, understanding the nuances of both legal systems was crucial. Managing such disputes often involves coordinating with subject experts, local counsel, and understanding the differing legal frameworks. One has to anticipate how any stance taken in one jurisdiction may impact the other jurisdictions.
In your litigation practice in India, you’ve worked on intricate cases in Administrative Law, Company Law, and Constitutional Law. Could you share an example of a particularly challenging case and how you navigated it?
I was fortunate to work on a few white collar offences and was successful in defending the independent directors of the Company. However, as an offshoot of the main offence, the SFIO had initiated proceedings before the NCLT against all the directors. Ultimately, it took us close to 14 years to have the matter resolved. All through this period, the case was heard by different benches of NCLT – some time in New Delhi and then in Hyderabad. Navigating the voluminous record running into several thousand pages each time we had to argue the matter and then to have the matter placed before a different bench was initially disheartening. Several other directors, considering the time it was taking, admitted their guilt and agreed for the punishment. However, we advised our client not to take such a plea and to fight it out. Ultimately, our client was the only one who was successful in defending the charges and the case was dismissed against him. The case was a learning experience not just on the skill of advocacy but also on the overlapping legal issues between criminal law and Company law.
Transitioning from the Indian legal system to the U.S. must have presented its challenges. What were the key differences in litigation practices between the two systems, and what were the most difficult aspects of passing the California Bar exam?
While I noticed a lot of similarities between the two systems, the biggest difference I noticed is the approach to Litigation. All the stake holders in a dispute, including the Lawyers and Judges always try to settle the matter either before going to court or before trial begins. The attempt to settle disputes is not limited to civil matters but extends to criminal matters as well in the form of plea bargains. The other aspect that I noticed is the time it takes to get a dispute / case heard. There have been occasions where we would complete a trial in half a day and the judgement is also delivered immediately.
The most difficult part about the Bar exam, especially for foreign lawyers, is to be able to study for 14-16 hours a day for at least 50-60 days. That is the amount of time it takes to go over the 14 odd subjects that you get tested on. Most courses for the preparation are designed keeping in view this requirement. If one were to put in the long hours without giving into exhaustion, then clearing the exam is not that difficult. I think lawyers with some amount of practical training fare better in the exam because they are able to compare and contrast the systems to make it easier to remember a large amount of information.
In both the corruption case and shareholder dispute you handled, you faced complex, multi-jurisdictional issues. How do you manage the intersection of domestic and international law in such cases?
These cases require a fine balance between understanding the specifics of domestic law and the broader implications of international treaties or foreign regulations. In one of those instances, we had to attend court proceedings in three different jurisdictions carefully monitoring the stand being presented to avoid adverse results in any other jurisdiction. Trying to coordinate with lawyers from two other jurisdictions was very enriching in the sense that it gave us an opportunity to understand how they viewed and dealt with such disputes. Sometimes, the discussions would see no end as we differed on the strategy to be adopted in each jurisdiction. Thankfully those were very few instances.
Can you elaborate on your role and the specific challenges you face while representing institutions like the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (TTD) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court?
While representing institutions like TTD a nuanced approach is required that takes into account the complexities of the case and the specific context of religious institutions. One of the primary challenges is balancing the legal aspects of the case with the deep religious sentiments of the millions of devotees associated with TTD.
When addressing legal issues, it’s crucial to be sensitive to the cultural and spiritual importance of TTD, as any decisions made can significantly impact the faith and emotions of the community. This requires not only legal expertise but also an understanding of the social and religious dynamics at play.
Additionally, I focus on looking at the larger picture. This means considering the long-term implications of legal decisions, not just for TTD, but for the broader community and the heritage it represents. It’s important to advocate for solutions that not only resolve immediate legal challenges but also promote the greater good and ensure the continued functioning of the institution in a way that respects and upholds the values of the devotees.
Overall, navigating these challenges requires a careful balance of legal strategy, cultural sensitivity, and a commitment to the wider implications of our work.
What advice would you give to law students and professionals who aspire to build a career like yours, with a focus on international practice and successfully clearing the California Bar Exam?
I believe that going forward there would be a globalisation of the legal industry. Lawyers with training in other jurisdictions are needed in all fields of law. For instance, when we represent Indian origin clients in the US, the client and the lawyers there prefer to have an Indian lawyer on the team. This would ensure a more robust representation for the client. I think multi-jurisdictional careers are going to be the norm. It is very doable and in fact some jurisdictions in the US enable foreign trained lawyers to apply to the Bar without further education. California is one such jurisdiction.
For those preparing for the California Bar, practice is key—focus on understanding patterns and writing concise, analytical answers. Legal writing is what most candidates find difficult.
With your numerous professional commitments, how do you manage to maintain a balance between your personal life and your demanding legal practice?
Balancing a demanding legal practice with personal life is indeed very difficult. One of the key strategies I employ is setting clear boundaries. This means making a conscious effort to separate work from personal time, ensuring that I dedicate specific hours to my legal practice while also carving out time for my personal life and family.
Additionally, I maximize my time in court. Court appearances can be time-consuming, but I use that time efficiently. By preparing thoroughly and organizing my schedule around court dates, I can minimize the amount of time spent on related tasks outside of court, which helps free up more time for my personal commitments.
Overall, while the challenge of maintaining this balance is significant, being disciplined about boundaries and strategic about my court-related time helps me manage both my professional responsibilities and personal life more effectively.
Get in touch with Chidambara Sastry Sarva –
