Welcome to Brief Encounters: Law School Beyond, a podcast by Project LLM. The series explores journeys of Indian professionals who have pursued legal education abroad. The goal is to bring out stories, experiences, and practical advice to inspire and guide others considering an overseas legal education.
Today our guest is Mr. Manu Thadikkaran, an accomplished international disputes lawyer. Currently a Senior Associate at Allen & Overy Shearman in Dubai, he specializes in construction arbitration. His illustrious career includes notable years at White & Case LLP in Paris, where he honed his expertise in international arbitration. As an accomplished scholar, Manu earned his LL.M. at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (MIDS) in Geneva, supported by the prestigious Hans Wilsdorf Scholarship.
With extensive experience in construction and investment arbitration and numerous publications in international journals, Manu brings a wealth of knowledge about the complexities of dispute resolution and the evolving landscape of international arbitration.
What sparked your interest in law and what factors influence your decision to pursue it as a career?
Right, so for me, law wasn’t something I always knew I wanted to pursue. When I was in school, I didn’t have the thought, “I want to study law or become a lawyer.” There weren’t any lawyers in my family, and honestly, I wasn’t keen on science or commerce. Initially, I thought I wanted to study economics.
It was actually my father who introduced me to the concept of five-year integrated LL.B. programs. When I read about them, I thought, “Why not give it a try?”—though I wasn’t fully aware of what it entailed. Before starting law school, I was definitely in two minds about it.
However, once I began studying law, everything changed. The logical reasoning involved, the way you approach problems, and the structured thinking process—it all resonated with me. I wouldn’t say there was a single factor that piqued my interest, but as I got deeper into the subject and the world of law, I realized this is what I wanted to do.
At the end of the day, you really need to pursue something that genuinely interests you, and for me, that turned out to be law. It wasn’t a pre-planned decision, but I’m happy I went down this path.
I also made a significant change when I transferred to NLU Jodhpur. Initially, I spent a year at a university in Kochi. At that time, CLAT hadn’t been introduced yet, so my family and I focused on universities closer to home. But when the opportunity at Jodhpur came up, I decided to give it a shot.
Jodhpur had a great reputation, and even people at my previous university encouraged me to go for it. Looking back, I’m glad I made the move—it opened up opportunities for me, especially in international law. What stood out about Jodhpur was its specialization option after the third year, which many other law schools didn’t offer. While I wasn’t sure what I wanted to specialize in at the time, having that choice was a big advantage.
At NLUJ, you were involved with the Moot Court Committee (MCC) and Indian Journal of Arbitration Law (IJAL). Could you share how important was your involvement in these committees in your journey?
Absolutely. When I joined law school, everything was new to me. Having spent a year at a different university before NLUJ, I already had some exposure to mooting. I had even participated in a moot court competition before, though I didn’t know what I was doing back then. But I really enjoyed the experience.
When I joined NLUJ, I heard about the call for the Moot Court Committee (MCC). At that point, I wasn’t particularly interested in other committees, but mooting sparked something in me. I applied, got in, and the rest is history—I was part of the MCC for five years, from my first year to my fifth.
Being in the MCC was a fantastic way to interact with seniors and learn from them. While being part of the MCC doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be a great mooter, it teaches you organizational skills. At NLUJ, we organized internal selections, national moots like the Antitrust Law Moot, and other events. I really enjoyed the process—working as part of a team, figuring out what to do better each year, and progressively taking on more responsibility.
The organizational skills I developed in the MCC stayed with me even after law school. For instance, during my professional life, I was involved in organizing a moot at my law firm, and I could draw from my experiences at NLUJ to make it successful.
As for IJAL, once I realized I wanted to specialize in arbitration, joining the Indian Journal of Arbitration Law felt like a natural fit. It’s a reputed journal, and being involved with it demonstrated my genuine interest in arbitration. It wasn’t just about saying I had an interest—I could show I had taken active steps toward pursuing it.
The key takeaway from my involvement in these extracurriculars is that they should align with your interests. For example, I wasn’t particularly drawn to constitutional law, so joining a journal in that field wouldn’t have made sense for me, regardless of its prestige.
When choosing extracurriculars, it’s important to do them out of genuine interest, not just to pad your CV. At the end of the day, your CV should tell your story, and that story needs to be cohesive and authentic. For me, MCC and IJAL were integral parts of that journey.
How should those students who are not able to understand what their interests are even in the first or their second year go about law school?
That’s why you have the luxury of time in a five-year course. You don’t need to know exactly what you want to do in your first or even second year. For me, when I started, I had no idea what I was doing. I tried out different things—extempore debates, moots, etc.—and experimented to see what clicked.
In your initial years, it’s absolutely fine to explore and figure out your interests. The first and second years are the perfect time to experiment and test the waters. You shouldn’t feel the pressure to decide everything right away. It’s not fair to expect someone to know exactly what they want to specialize in during their first year.
For example, I didn’t even know what arbitration was in my first year. Back then, I thought I was interested in intellectual property rights, which later transitioned into trade law and eventually into arbitration. It all happened gradually.
What’s important is that when you find something that sparks your interest, you give it a shot. But try to figure it out early—don’t wait until your fourth or fifth year, as that could come across as a lack of focus. And remember, you don’t have to stick to the first thing you liked. I thought I’d pursue intellectual property rights, but I ended up doing something entirely different. And that’s perfectly okay.
Looking back at your time in law school, how significant do you think academic performance (in terms of grades) is for a law student’s success and future opportunities?
There are many schools of thought on this, but in my opinion, while academic performance is important, it’s not the most important factor in a law student’s journey.
Grades can play a role in certain scenarios, like meeting cutoffs for universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, or Harvard, which may consider your ranking or position in your batch. However, that’s primarily for general LL.M. programs. For specialized LL.M.s or niche fields, academic performance is often not the sole deciding factor.
In my own experience, what truly matters is how you demonstrate your interest in a specific area of law. This goes beyond grades and requires a holistic approach, including internships, moots, publications, and other extracurriculars that reflect your passion and commitment.
I wasn’t at the very top of my class, but I did well academically and had other achievements to showcase my focus and skills. For example, I pursued arbitration through various activities, which helped me stand out despite not being in the top percentile.
That being said, some students thrive on excelling academically and build successful careers that way. Grades can reflect certain skills and discipline, but they aren’t the only path to success. Especially in specialized areas of law, having a clear focus and a well-rounded profile often outweighs just having stellar grades.
In summary, academic performance is important, but it’s not everything. Approach your goals with a holistic mindset, balancing academics with other impactful experiences that tell your unique story.
Among the different honors specializations offered at NLUJ, what drew you to choose international trade and investment law?
Initially, I was interested in intellectual property rights (IPR), and that was how I segued into international trade because trade and IPR were related. To be honest, I don’t recall exactly what piqued my interest in international trade—it’s been over 15 years—but I believe it was the subject itself.
We had Professor Yogesh Pai, who taught trade law, and I thoroughly enjoyed his class and the concepts he introduced. I also managed to intern at South Centre, an NGO in Geneva, which further solidified my interest. That experience, coupled with my exposure to international law, made me realize that international law was likely the area I wanted to pursue.
Within international law, trade stood out as an intriguing concept. I even wrote a paper on a convention and the TRIPS Agreement back then. I remember delving deep into the issues, having discussions, and thoroughly enjoying the process. It was during this time that I realized trade law sparked my interest, unlike company law, which I also attempted to explore but didn’t connect with in the same way.
When I started researching and writing about trade law, it felt engaging and fulfilling. Among the specializations offered at NLUJ, IPR and trade were my primary options because I already knew I wanted to stay within the realm of international law. Ultimately, I chose trade law because it resonated with me the most at that time.
During your undergraduate studies, you interned with top-tier firms like Amarchand & Mangaldas and AZB & Partners. How did these experiences influence your journey?
I think these internships had a significant impact on my journey. At Amarchand & Mangaldas, I interned in the capital markets team during my second or third year. At the time, I was still exploring various legal domains and keeping my options open.
However, my internships at AZB & Partners were particularly pivotal. I interned twice with their arbitration team, which was then led by Mr. Sycamore, before he left the firm to become a senior counsel. These experiences, combined with my involvement in moot courts, played a crucial role in shaping my interest in arbitration.
Working in the arbitration team gave me practical exposure and helped me understand the nuances of the field. It also gave me clarity on what I enjoyed and what I wanted to focus on in my career. These internships, coupled with my moot court experiences, were instrumental in helping me decide that arbitration was the path I wanted to pursue.
When did you decide to pursue a master’s degree abroad, and what guided your decision?
When I decided I wanted to specialize in arbitration, I realized that pursuing a master’s degree was the next step. The question was whether I should go for an LL.M. right away or work for a couple of years first. Financial considerations played a significant role in this decision, as I didn’t want to burden myself or my family with the cost of the program.
Initially, my plan was to work for a while before pursuing an LL.M. However, things didn’t go as I had planned, and that’s when I thought there was no harm in applying to programs. I didn’t apply to a lot of places, mainly because many U.S. universities required additional standardized tests, which I wasn’t keen on taking.
Knowing that I wanted to focus on arbitration, I researched programs that aligned with my interest. At the time, there wasn’t much guidance available on pursuing arbitration-specific programs abroad. So, I did my own research and discovered Geneva’s LL.M. in International Dispute Settlement (MIDS), which was just five years old back then. It stood out because of its excellent faculty, well-structured curriculum, and location in Geneva.
The fact that the Geneva program had a free application process also made it appealing. Besides Geneva, I narrowed my choices to Stockholm University, Queen Mary University of London, and the University of Miami, as they all had strong arbitration elements in their programs.
How important is research during the LL.M. application process? Did you reach out to alumni, professors, or professionals to gain insights into the universities or programs you were considering?
Research is very important during the LL.M. application process. Once I shortlisted the programs I wanted to apply to, I reached out to alumni and had some insightful conversations that helped me refine my approach. For instance, I had a great discussion with Rukmini Das, who had completed the same program a year before me and is now a lecturer at MIT. She provided valuable insights into the course structure and what to expect, which helped me better prepare for my application.
Apart from alumni, I also relied on support from my peers and classmates. A few of us were applying for LL.M. programs around the same time, and discussing our plans and strategies with one another was incredibly helpful. Some of my peers had a clearer understanding of the application process and were kind enough to share their experiences and advice, even if we were applying to different universities—or occasionally to the same one.
Additionally, I consulted my arbitration professor after I had finalized my list of universities. He had positive feedback about the programs I was considering, which further reassured me. Overall, while I did the initial shortlisting independently, the insights and support I received from alumni, professors, and classmates were instrumental in shaping my approach. I’m truly grateful for the guidance I received during this process.
What was your final university shortlist like? Which ones were you conflicted in after receiving admission offers, and how did you ultimately choose the MIDS program over the rest?
In the end, my final shortlist included the MIDS program, Stockholm University, Queen Mary University of London, and the University of Miami. I was fortunate to receive admission offers from all four.
The deciding factor for me was scholarships. I applied fully aware that without a scholarship, pursuing a master’s degree wasn’t feasible for me. The University of Miami offered a partial scholarship covering half the tuition, while Queen Mary didn’t offer any scholarship. However, both MIDS and Stockholm University offered full scholarships. Stockholm’s scholarship came through the Swedish government, and it was slightly better in terms of benefits, including covering flights.
Despite the financial advantage of Stockholm’s scholarship, I chose MIDS for several reasons. First, while I was focused on arbitration, I still had an interest in trade law. The MIDS program had a more holistic approach, covering international dispute settlement as a whole, with a focus on arbitration as well as trade and public international law. This flexibility allowed me to explore my interests further.
Second, the MIDS program offered excellent networking opportunities and was located in Geneva, a hub for arbitration and international trade. Its proximity to other major arbitration centers like Paris and London was another advantage.
Lastly, my personal preference for Geneva played a role. I had visited the city before and liked it. I also had a close relative living nearby, which added to the comfort of the decision. While Stockholm was a great option, the combination of academic structure, networking opportunities, and personal factors made MIDS the better choice for me.
How did you weigh the pros and cons of doing a master’s immediately after undergrad versus gaining work experience first? Looking back, do you feel this was the right choice?
For me, pursuing a master’s degree immediately after undergrad turned out to be the right choice, but whether it’s the right decision objectively depends on individual circumstances and goals.
The key question to ask is: What do you want to do after your LL.M.? Personally, I didn’t think this through at the time, but I was fortunate that things worked out well for me. In hindsight, I recommend that students take some time to map out their post-LL.M. plans. Do you want to work in an international law firm, an international organization, or an arbitral institution? Or do you want to return to India to practice law or work in arbitration? Your plans will influence whether it’s better to pursue the degree immediately or after gaining work experience.
If your goal is to work abroad, the sooner you pursue the LL.M., the better. The job market is becoming increasingly competitive, and gaining internships and entry-level roles often takes time. Starting earlier gives you an edge. However, if you’ve worked as an associate for four years in India before doing an LL.M., you may find it challenging to return to an internship-level role abroad.
In my case, I took the internship route post-LL.M., and it worked well for me. My first internship helped me secure a second one, which eventually led to my job. However, if you aren’t willing to intern after gaining experience as an associate, pursuing the degree sooner might be better.
On the other hand, if your plan is to return to India, gaining work experience first has its advantages. It helps you build contacts in Indian law firms, which can ease your transition back. Additionally, work experience in India strengthens your understanding of local practices, which is particularly useful if you plan to work in Indian arbitration.
Lastly, finances are an important consideration. For many students, working first and saving money or repaying loans before pursuing an LL.M. is a practical choice. That said, the timing of your LL.M. should align with your long-term goals and financial situation.
To sum up, both approaches have merit. If you want to work abroad, starting sooner is advantageous. If you plan to return to India, gaining work experience first might be better. Ultimately, it’s about personal preference, goals, and financial feasibility.
Not only did you secure admission at MIDS, one of the most prestigious programs for international dispute settlement, but were also awarded the Hans Wilsdorf Scholarship. Can you share how you secured it and what impact it had on your journey?
The Hans Wilsdorf Scholarship was part of the MIDS admission process, and it was both needs- and merit-based. Some scholarships are solely need-based or merit-based, but this combined the two criteria.
In my application, I had to succinctly explain why I needed the scholarship. I was honest about my financial situation. I expressed my strong interest in the program and arbitration as a field but emphasized that without the scholarship, pursuing the program would not be feasible. I explained that I had already taken a loan to study in Salzburg and didn’t want to add to that financial burden, either for myself or my family.
Additionally, I made it clear that I had explored other scholarship opportunities, including options from the Government of India and the Swiss Government. However, I found that many of these scholarships were not available or were limited to specific fields or students.
Ultimately, I believe my honest account of my financial need, combined with demonstrating my interest in arbitration and my efforts to explore alternative funding options, helped me secure the scholarship.
The LL.M. application process involves balancing timelines for applications, recommendations, SOPs, and sometimes language proficiency tests. How did you manage the timelines effectively, and do you have any strategies to avoid last-minute stress?
The Statement of Purpose (SoP) is a critical part of the application process, and for me, it became the story I wanted to tell. While I didn’t have a concrete plan initially, I was fortunate to receive guidance from peers who had gone through the process before. One of my friends, who had applied to several LL.M. programs, provided valuable advice and helped me structure my approach.
I also reached out to individuals who had completed LL.M. programs in previous years, some of whom were kind enough to share their SoPs. This gave me a clearer idea of what was expected.
What really worked for me was understanding that the SoP is not just a repetition of your CV. Instead, it should explain why you are pursuing the program. While your CV lists your accomplishments, the SoP is your opportunity to explain the motivation behind them and what you plan to achieve in the future.
For instance, I started my SoP by describing how I was first introduced to ADR and how that initial interest evolved into a specific focus on arbitration through my internships and academic work. I also highlighted two articles I had written—one on trade law and another on arbitration—both of which were published in peer-reviewed journals. This allowed me to demonstrate not only my interest but also my dedication and effort in the field.
I made sure my SoP read like a cohesive narrative, explaining my journey, my interests, and my goals. I also tied it back to the university, stating what I hoped to gain from the program and how I planned to use that knowledge to contribute to the field of arbitration, both in India and internationally.
In terms of timelines, the key is to start early. Break down the process into smaller tasks—drafting the SoP, gathering recommendations, scheduling language tests, etc.—and work on them systematically. Reviewing examples, seeking feedback, and refining your story also help to ensure that the final application reflects your best effort without unnecessary stress.
Considering that you didn’t have any work experience and you went from your LLM directly after undergrad, how did you decide whom to approach for the recommendations?
For my recommendations, I approached my professors because recommendations should ideally come from people who have worked closely with you and can vouch for your skills and achievements. It’s not about the name of the recommender but the content of the recommendation itself.
I had one recommendation from my arbitration professor, who was familiar with my interest and work in arbitration. I had worked with him on several projects, and he could speak directly to my academic and research capabilities.
Another recommendation came from my trade law professor, who had been instrumental in guiding me toward my first proper article on trade law. He knew me well, having taught me multiple trade law subjects and helped me develop my academic writing.
Lastly, I approached the vice chancellor at the time. While he didn’t teach me in a significant academic capacity, my involvement in committees such as the Moot Court Committee and other university initiatives meant I worked closely with him on several projects. His recommendation highlighted my organizational and management skills, as well as my overall contribution to university life.
Each of these recommendations showcased a different facet of my personality and capabilities. Together, they painted a holistic picture of who I am—not just as a student but as an individual with a wide range of skills and interests. I believe that’s what made them impactful.
The MIDS program is often considered unique compared to traditional LL.M. programs. Could you share what aspects set it apart from others? Is it the specialized modules, projects, or the distinguished professors?
The MIDS program stands out for its holistic approach to education and skill development in international dispute settlement. While arbitration as a subject may be taught similarly across institutions, the MIDS program differentiates itself through its structure, faculty, and focus on practical skills and networking opportunities.
The faculty at MIDS was exceptional, with renowned figures in the field leading both semester-long courses and intensive short courses. These intensive courses, lasting two to three days, were taught by top arbitrators and practitioners, which made the experience incredibly enriching.
The course structure was also unique. In addition to the general and optional courses, students could attend classes out of interest without sitting for exams—a flexibility that allowed us to explore more topics without the pressure of assessments.
Another highlight was the emphasis on networking and practical training. MIDS organized workshops led by law firm partners, which focused on skills like witness examination, legal writing, and working with experts. Students also had the opportunity to attend two international conferences, which were instrumental for networking. For instance, it was at one of these conferences that I connected with a partner who later offered me a role.
MIDS also arranged site visits to institutions like the ICC in Paris and the ICJ in The Hague, providing firsthand exposure to the hubs of international dispute resolution. Additionally, the program included a retreat that combined a moot court competition with networking opportunities in a relaxed setting.
These elements, combined with Geneva’s proximity to key arbitration hubs like Paris and London, made MIDS a truly unique and well-rounded program for me.
Could you share some insights into your experience working as a Research Assistant to Dr. Michael Waibel and Prof. Joost Pauwelyn? How did it complement your academic learning at MIDS?
My experience as a Research Assistant to Dr. Michael Waibel and Prof. Joost Pauwelyn was incredibly rewarding and complemented my academic journey at MIDS.
With Prof. Pauwelyn, I worked on the Trade Lab, a unique initiative where students handled real-world projects for actual clients. This required an application process, and I was fortunate to be one of the selected students. Through this, I got to work closely with Prof. Pauwelyn and even took another course with him later.
My role as a Research Assistant for Prof. Pauwelyn came about as I stayed in touch with him after completing his courses. Toward the end of my program, I reached out when I heard he was looking for assistance. This opportunity allowed me to contribute to an article he was writing, which explored the differences between WTO panelists and investment arbitrators. The article, titled “WTO Panelists are from Venus, Investment Arbitrators are from Mars,” was both insightful and engaging to work on.
Similarly, the role with Dr. Waibel came through networking. A friend from Cambridge informed me about the opportunity, and I reached out. This was a paid position where I assisted with research for another significant project.
These experiences were invaluable because they weren’t just about conducting research. Both professors took the time to discuss their ideas and expectations, providing a collaborative and intellectually stimulating environment. It wasn’t just about executing tasks—it was about understanding the thought process behind academic research and contributing meaningfully to it.
These roles not only enhanced my academic learning but also helped me develop skills that extended beyond the classroom, providing a strong foundation for my future career in international law.
With the rising cost of living and education, particularly given the steep currency conversion rates for Indians, securing a job after an LL.M. has become a major concern for many. How was this process for you after completing the MIDS program? You also worked as an intern with top international firms, including LALIVE in Geneva and White & Case LLP in Paris, for almost a year. My question basically is, how does one pivot from being a student to securing a job?
The typical route is through internships, which form the foundation for securing jobs post-LL.M. The first step is to get an internship, but there’s no definitive formula for it. In my case, I began with an internship at LALIVE. The firm had publicized the opportunity to the MIDS cohort, and it was ideal since Geneva doesn’t have work permit issues for students working part-time. I applied, interviewed, and was fortunate to be selected. Additionally, a friend who worked at LALIVE gave me insights into the team and interview expectations, which were very helpful.
For White & Case, the opportunity came through networking. I attended a conference where one of their partners, a last-minute speaker, gave a talk related to my thesis. During the networking session, we had a detailed conversation, and I kept in touch with him. Later, I connected with another partner in their New York office, visited them during the ICC trip organized by MIDS, and continued building the relationship. Once I published my thesis in a reputed journal, I shared it with the partner, which impressed them, and I was invited to interview.
Initially, I didn’t get the job due to specific language requirements. However, during a later workshop at MIDS, I interacted again with the same interviewer, and after showcasing my skills and expressing my interest, they reconsidered. This eventually led to an internship offer.
Networking plays a critical role, but it should be genuine. Building relationships and showcasing your interests are essential, rather than outright asking for a job or internship. You need to develop rapport, understand others’ work, and demonstrate your value. This approach worked for me, but it’s also crucial to be prepared for rejections, as I faced several before landing opportunities at LALIVE and White & Case. Persistence and calculated risks, like speaking up when necessary, made a difference in my journey.
You spent an impressive seven and a half years at White & Case in Paris. What was your experience like? And then shifting to A&O Shearman in Dubai, what was the shift like between the two?
My time at White & Case in Paris was pivotal in shaping my professional skills. Despite the challenges of living in a French-speaking city without knowing the language, the team I worked with made it an incredible experience. The arbitration team had nine partners, each of whom was highly regarded in the industry. I had the opportunity to work with multiple partners, not only in Paris but also in Geneva, London, and Washington, which provided me with diverse exposure.
The work culture was excellent, and the team dynamic was supportive. The firm offered a mix of challenging work and a good work-life balance. I could travel home to India twice a year and explore Europe during long weekends. That said, like any law firm, the workload was intense during submissions and hearings, but it was balanced with rewarding experiences.
The decision to move from White & Case to A&O Shearman in Dubai was driven by both personal and professional reasons. Personally, I wanted to be closer to India, and Dubai made sense due to its proximity. Professionally, I noticed a trend where investment arbitration was seeing some decline or transformation, while construction law continued to grow.
Dubai is a hub for construction projects, and with construction comes inevitable disputes. The Middle East’s booming infrastructure projects presented a great opportunity to focus on construction law and expand my profile. Additionally, being in Dubai offered a strategic advantage to build connections with the Indian market, aligning with my long-term goals.
At A&O Shearman, I joined during its transition into a merged entity. The firm’s truly international presence and its position as a leader in the region made the move an exciting next step in my career.
How did you secure this particular opportunity and how was your transition like from Paris to Dubai?
To secure this opportunity, I relied on recruiters because, after a certain point, they are the best way to move, especially if you’re a lateral hire or don’t have direct contacts in a particular region. Unfortunately, I didn’t have many direct contacts in Dubai, so I approached a recruiter. Recruiters have a good pulse on the market and can guide you toward suitable opportunities.
The transition itself was seamless for me, both personally and professionally. Dubai wasn’t a new place for me as I had visited often and even worked out of White & Case’s Dubai office occasionally, despite being based in Paris. This flexibility, which global law firms offer, allowed me to familiarize myself with the region.
On a personal level, I have many friends, some family nearby, and Dubai is just a three-hour flight away from India, making it an ideal location. From a professional perspective, while there are regional peculiarities that I’ve been learning over the past year, the core of what I do hasn’t changed much. For instance, I handled construction arbitration in Paris and now deal with construction disputes in Dubai.
What’s unique here, however, is the more holistic approach to construction disputes. Clients often prefer dispute avoidance strategies, and as lawyers, we step in early to help resolve issues before they escalate into full disputes. This proactive approach is a preference for many clients in the region, and understandably so, as it results in better outcomes for all parties involved.
Transitioning from India to global legal markets is a dream for many but comes with challenges. What were the biggest hurdles you faced, and how did you overcome them?
To clarify, I haven’t directly worked in arbitration within India. While I’ve been involved in arbitration events and stay updated on the developments in India, my arbitration experience has primarily been international. That said, transitioning to global legal markets does come with its set of challenges.
India, as a jurisdiction, is witnessing significant interest in arbitration due to increasing investments and government initiatives to bolster its arbitration ecosystem. Institutional arbitration centers are emerging, and while there are occasional decisions that raise questions about arbitration-friendliness, I believe India is making progress in the right direction.
For me personally, the challenge has been adapting to a different style of work abroad. International arbitration demands a unique approach, which is distinct from how things are typically handled in India. Despite this, I’ve found the global experience rewarding and enriching.
As for India, I see tremendous potential for growth in arbitration, particularly given its proximity to the Middle East and other Asian countries. This geographical advantage, coupled with ongoing developments, will likely drive significant changes in the arbitration landscape in the coming years.
While I don’t have immediate plans to return to India, I remain open to the idea. Being an Indian lawyer, I’d certainly consider opportunities in India if the timing and circumstances align. It’s something I might explore in the future, depending on how the arbitration ecosystem evolves.
Working across different jurisdictions like India, Paris, Geneva, and Dubai must have exposed you to various legal systems and cultures. What has been your favorite city to live and work in, and why?
In terms of the work environment, I’ve already mentioned that the office in Paris was exceptional. It was, without doubt, the best place for work in terms of the cases, the people, and the opportunities I had there.
However, as a city to live in, I think I would prefer Dubai. That’s a very personal choice because it’s close to home, it’s where everything is happening right now, and it’s a very convenient city to live in. So, overall, I’d say Dubai has been the best place for me so far.
Looking back on your career, are there decisions you would approach differently, or do you feel each choice contributed uniquely to where you are today?
I’m happy with how things turned out, but there are always things to reflect on. One piece of advice I’d give, especially to those in international law firms, is to think ahead if you plan to move jurisdictions. For instance, if you’re in arbitration, it’s easier to move as a mid-level associate rather than at a senior level.
At a senior level, moving becomes more about timing and whether there’s an active space for that role. As a mid-level associate, firms are generally more open to lateral moves, even if there’s no immediate opening.
Looking back, I wouldn’t necessarily change anything because my experience in Paris was exceptional. However, if I had thought about moving to Dubai earlier—maybe 1 or 2 years before I did—it might have made the transition smoother. Moving earlier would have given me more time to develop a network and rapport within the new firm.
So, while I wouldn’t have wanted to leave Paris earlier due to the excellent cases I was working on, if there’s anything I’d reconsider, it’s the timing of my move to Dubai.
Finally, what message or advice would you like to share with our listeners who are considering a career in law, and particularly in arbitration and dispute resolution?
My main advice is to ensure that arbitration is something you’re genuinely interested in. Don’t pursue arbitration just because it’s popular, or because others are doing it, or simply because you want to work abroad.
At its core, you need to have a real interest in the field. Only with that interest can you genuinely engage in activities that will help propel your career. For instance, I wrote an article on arbitration purely out of my interest in the topic. That article later became a great talking point in my interviews with law firms. I would often steer interviews toward discussing it because I knew I could speak about the topic confidently.
At the time of writing it, I had no idea how it would benefit me in the future. I didn’t write it thinking it would help me secure a job; I wrote it because I was genuinely interested.
So, follow your interest. Don’t hesitate to try things out—law school is the best time for trial and error. Even after law school, you have some flexibility in your early years to explore different areas. I know people who started in corporate law, later pursued a master’s in arbitration, and now work in the field.
There’s no right or wrong path—just make sure you’re not stuck in a place you don’t enjoy. If you want to explore something, do it sooner rather than later. Don’t put it off.
(This transcript is based on the original interview’s audio. It is a refined version and may contain minor errors, omissions, or variations from the verbatim recording. For the guest’s exact inputs and sentiments, please refer to the podcast episode.)
