There will be changes in the way judicial systems function, post COVID-19: Raian Karanjawala

The global financial crisis of 2007-2008 was felt more in the United States than in the rest of the world. Though it did have an impact on the Indian economy, it did not affect companies across the board. The current pandemic is different. It has a worldwide impact. It has affected all companies, even firms that are financially strong because offices had to be shut down everywhere.

So, COVID-19 has had a far greater impact. I also personally feel the world is going to take a much longer time to emerge out of this crisis.

Do you think the nature of judicial work will change from ‘touchy- feely’ litigation to smart work, post-pandemic, permanently?

I think what will emerge, post COVID-19, will be an amalgamation of touchy-feely kind of litigation and the new smart work, ‘Zoom call habit’ that has now come into practice.

There will be more work from home than there was before. Clients and lawyers will now look upon videoconferencing as a means of saving time and effort.  In my view, ultimately when things settle down, there will be a 20–25 percent change in the way things are functioning in the judicial world.

Do you think, post COVID-19, new practice areas will evolve for both law firms and in-house lawyers? What are some of the areas in the legal profession that have flourished, post pandemic?

While I can’t really pinpoint which areas of the legal profession have flourished, I do feel that COVID-19 has somehow consolidated the legal industry. The bigger, more well-known firms have (even while experiencing a drop in income) been able to survive the pandemic in a much better manner than smaller, individual lawyers.

What are the entry-level salary range lawyers can expect to draw at bigger law firms, post pandemic?

I feel that whatever the increase, certainly, had there been no pandemic, the salary (range) that lawyers would be getting today would have been much more than what they are getting.

Are you facing any pressure from clients to come up with innovative fee structures in the wake of possible cuts in legal budgets due to the pandemic?

Even before the pandemic, clients have always been concerned about the fee structure of lawyers. We ourselves have, over the years, evolved different packages to meet a client’s need and we sometimes operate on a monthly retainer system and handle as much work as the client sends our way within the retainer.

As a result, the general counsel knows in advance how much his legal outlay on our firm will be.

Your firm has handled a lot of high-profile cases, including that of MJ Akbar, former Minister of State for External Affairs who lost his job in the wake of the ‘Me Too’ allegation; and Tarun Tejpal, who had to resign as editor of Tehelka following a rape allegation by his colleague. How do you deal with criticisms while fighting high-profile cases?

Criticism, while handling controversial cases, is something that comes with territory.  You have to be prepared for it, and if you don’t have the stomach to face such criticism, you will be better off not accepting such cases.

Your firm also has a reputation for fighting complex legal issues that embroil governments and corporate houses to causes that make a difference to the life and livelihood of the common man. How do you think litigating skills differ in each situation?

Litigating on behalf of a corporation is, to some extent, different from litigating on behalf of an individual. At one level, it is easier because while the individual is normally not able to instruct you adequately on all aspects of his case, corporations and their general counsels are usually well-versed in the intricacies of the matter, and, therefore, their ability to instruct you is far better.

Having said that, obviously, some corporate battles are far more complex and require far more manpower than an ordinary litigation would. It is in cases like this, and, for this reason, that corporations prefer to come to the big firms for their litigation needs rather than place their faith on individual lawyers.

A study by Deloitte predicts that 100,000 legal roles will be automated by 2036. How do you visualise the legal world changing in the wake of automation? Do you think it will also reflect in the kind of talent law firms will be looking for in the future? Will it lead to more diversity in the employee base, with people from different educational backgrounds, in a law firm?

The question really requires a detailed debate and thought-through response. Certainly things will change, automation will play an increasing role, but that is part of the normal advent of time. Let me give you an example. When I joined the profession in 1979, the junior counsels of Bombay used to pride themselves on what they used to call their ‘diary’, in which they would note different cases that they had come across.

Also, in those days, any junior counsel in order to come up with a case law on a particular point would have to, apart from banking on his experience and memory, go through many textbooks and other references in order to come up with the legal answer. Today, most of it is immediately available on a computer with an elementary search. This shows the contrast between what was and what is and also how much change there has been in the last several years. Equally, looking into the future, I am sure that there are going to be many changes, which, today, frankly we are not even in a position to visualise.

Sangeeth Sebastian is a senior journalist and founder VVox, a digital health clinic