India’s Grand Advocates:

A Legal Elite Flourishing in the

Era of Globalization
Marc Galanter
& Nick Robinson
Presented by: Arunima Nair and Shruti Kapur
LLB 2019(A)
 Introduction
Grand Advocates (GAs) - handful of legal superstars, advocates based in
the Supreme Court and High Court, known for their strategic acumen,
quirks, impressive roster of high-profile clients, their large incomes, and
contributions to the development of the law.

TOKEN WOMAN
Introduction
Galanter and Robinson examine the conditions
that allowed for GAs to thrive in India, based on
interviews with 50+ legal professionals in Delhi,
Bombay and Madras.
Galanter and Robinson note that GAs are a
peculiar species of lawyer, indigenous to India
alone. No other country has a class of lawyers
that wield the level of influence and power
possessed by GAs in India.
GAs thrived from and resisted absorption into
the firm structure for various reasons:
● Litigation in India is more about social
control than about monetary parity.
● GAs possess extensive socio-political
capital such as good reputational standing
with multiple judges - such benefits cannot
be transferred to juniors or partners.
● These benefits can be used across all
systems and areas of law, thus eliminating
the need to specialize in a singular field.
Background
Until 1857, most of India was ruled by the East India
Company, which operated Courts staffed with civil
servants and which licensed Vakils to represent
clients in those Courts. Post 1857 rebellion, British
Crown merged both systems. British Barristers
practiced in India for the higher fees; elite Indians
went to the Inns of Court in London for education.
The Advocates Act, 1961 abolished old
classifications and consolidated them into a single
body of advocates who have the right to practice in
Courts across India, with very few statutory
differences in classifications amongst advocates.
One such difference was the appointment of certain
advocates with a minimum number of years of
experience at the Bar as ‘Senior Advocates’ (SAs),
similar to QCs in Britain.
Senior Advocates cannot draft, and cannot appear
without AoRs/briefing counsels.
AoRs are advocates registered with the SC after
passing an exam conducted by the SC. Though
they can argue before the SC, they generally serve
as briefing counsels for Seniors, and handle the
logistical and back-end tasks for hearings and
litigation.
Basic Structure
Dominant model - independent advocate who practices mainly in single Court. Model formed in colonial times
which persists. This model gives birth to three features of litigation in India:

1. Individualism: Advocates practice individually, with assistance from clerks and juniors. Firms are a minority,
and rarely focus on litigation.
2. Orientation to Court: Advocates spend most of their time in court, and have chambers located close to or
within Court premises.
3. Performance is primarily oral: Advocates focus on arguing in court over providing memos/opinions/other
forms of advice to clients.

Advocates in India are overwhelmingly generalists, without a singular niche (though this is not unheard of).

Advocates have the capacity for collective action, and have conducted numerous strikes. GAs are generally far
removed from such politics, but are the direct beneficiaries of the Bar’s stern opposition to reform.
Steep Hierarchy
● “Legal practice in India, though a booming profession, success has come to a few select members of the
profession, the vast majority of them being designated Senior Advocates.” – Indira Jaising v Supreme
Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766

● Hierarchy noticeable with:

○ Number of matters scheduled for a GA per day: sometimes up to 25 matters.
○ 10% of lawyers handling 75% of business.

● What are the consequences of this steep hierarchy?

○ “A culture of postponement” in the judiciary.
○ The leading lawyers, rather than judges, emerge as norm-setters and value-givers in the
judicial system, especially in a polyvocal structure with many concurrent Division Benches
and fractured precedent.
The Seniority Factor
● On the bench
○ Relevant for promotion. Along with rigid retirement age (Age 62/65), retirement and promotion
are predictable.
○ Some GAs decline to ascend to the bench because of the income cut and compulsory early
retirement.
○ Seniority on the bench affords influence and privilege but also disappears after retirement.
○ Following their early retirement - judges are forced to rely on political figures for appointment
to commissions, tribunals or private parties - sometimes GAs - to engage them for
arbitrations.

● For GAs
○ Enhanced standing and enlarged human capital (contacts, experience and reputation).
○ Often SC judges are younger than senior advocates.
○ GA may feel more at home than the judge in the courts.
Grand Advocates’ Clients
● Impact of liberalization on the practices of Grand Advocates
○ Charge 5-6 lakhs per appearance before the Supreme Court.
■ Wealth of GAs in the country:
● Abhishek Manu Singhvi: Annual Income as 50 crore in 2010-11.
● Ram Jethmalani: 8.4 crore.
● Shanti Bhushan: 18 crore.
○ On admission day, they appear for 5-8 matters per day.
○ Charge the same for admission and regular hearings.
○ Payment to GAs for services rendered is then used to pay their juniors, clerks and staff.
GAs justify their skyrocketing fees as a way to filter clients.
○
● GAs are notoriously inaccessible
○ Poorly managed court system. No penalties for missed hearings.
○ Negative retainers
● Top SC lawyers serve as Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Additional SGs.
 - A system of risk aversion -
shifting blame between the
parties.
- Senior Advocates are not
Grand Advocates’ allowed to have their own
clients under the Advocates
Clients: Hiring GAs and
Act.
Law Firms - Law Firms don’t have huge
litigation practices, anticipating
counsel eating into their profit
margin.
 - Grand Advocates usually have a
wide-ranging portfolio.
- They usually limit their practice to
Supreme Court or a High Court, but

Grand -
are willing to travel for their clients.
Office-set up and requirement of

Advocates’ Work clients to come to their office for a

meeting.
- Grand Advocates and their juniors
- Lack of coordination between GAs
working on the same case.
Grand Advocates’ Work: Importance of face value

Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in its research: “Towards and efficient and effective Supreme Court: Addressing issues of backlog and regional
disparities in access” February 2016
“The expectations for work here are different [than in the West]. There
doesn’t need to be a high level of refinement. When you reach 85% you are
good to go. The judges aren’t great lawyers. The opposition lawyer will not
be well prepared. It’s not worth putting in the extra 15%, which takes 50%
of the time. It’s not that the lawyers couldn’t perform, but there is no
incentive.”
Entry and Ascent
● Entry barriers include: ● Ways to ascend to the upper ranks:
○ Fluency in English ○ Foreign LLMs
○ Social capital ○ Becoming panel
■ Access to successful lawyers lawyers/standing counsel
constantly which demystifies ○ Academic commentaries
the profession ○ PILs
■ Clients know you faster ○ Media appearances/op-eds in
■ Have the cushion of already
leading dailies
existing resources and office
○ Leadership positions in
space instead of building it
from scratch professional associations
○ Gender
From Swetha S. Ballakrishnen’s Accidental Feminism: Gender Parity and Selective Mobility Among India’s Professional Elite (2021)
From Swetha S. Ballakrishnen’s Accidental Feminism: Gender Parity and Selective Mobility Among India’s Professional Elite (2021)
Impact of Grand Advocates
● Young lawyers and briefing counsel view GAs with resentment - as unnecessarily
idealized by clients and judges.
● Law firms seen as more meritocratic and professionalized spaces - as opposed to
litigation, which is still perceived as an old boys’ network.
● Transition in the approach of the present generation.
● Concerns regarding GAs causing a decline in the legal profession.
● GAs reduce the quality of developing jurisprudence.
● GAs contribute to delays in the judicial system.
● Services of GAs often benefit only a limited number of people.
● Importance of role played by GAs as independent counsel.
● Stature and knowledge of GAs has aided the Courts while developing jurisprudence.
Conclusion
● Hierarchical structure of the Bar still persists. GAs However, despite these numerous flaws, many
still command enormous reputational capital still maintain that the GA system cannot be
before overwhelmed courts. abolished. For if GAs are no more,

● Larger structural shifts that may impact position of

GAs:
○ Courts are no longer exclusive site for litigation:
development of specialized Tribunals make it harder
to remain generalists who jump from Court to Court.
○ Law firms encouraging in-house counsel to argue
instead of relying only on external SAs.
○ The large number of incoming high-quality lawyers
from newer law schools - may help professionalize
standards. Since many are joining law firms over
litigation, may shift balance of power.