I work with US lawyers, companies and investment funds on matters that need work done in India. That covers expert testimony on Indian law in US proceedings, cross-border investigations and discovery, due diligence, and compliance work.
The work runs under the direction of the US counsel who retains me and is set up to meet US rules on evidence and privilege. I lead it in India and deliver it in the form a US proceeding expects.
I am based in India, admitted in California and enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, which allows me to practice anywhere in India. The work is not tied to one city. For example, an engagement may involve witness interviews in Chennai, document collection in Delhi, court filings in Bengaluru and a regulatory appearance in Kolkata.
In my observation, cross-border matters most often go wrong in India at the stage of gathering facts locally, when that stage is treated as logistics. It is legal work, and treating it otherwise causes problems in three ways.
First, US privilege does not automatically extend to Indian law firms hired as local counsel. Unless the engagement is set up correctly before the work starts, for example through a Kovel arrangement, what local counsel produces can be difficult to protect in a US proceeding.
Second, sending US associates to India often costs more than the work itself. By contrast, not sending them means relying on local counsel whose working pace and procedural assumptions do not always fit a US litigation timetable.
Third, Big Four and global consultancy fees suit matters where cost is not a concern. Many of the cross-border matters that reach me cannot carry that cost, so the scope gets cut or the work is not done.
I built this practice to address all three: a lawyer admitted in the US and in India, based in India, who keeps the work under US privilege and carries it out locally, in one engagement.
Kroll, Control Risks, Alvarez & Marsal. They bring a recognized brand, established methods and scale. However, they are not law firms, so their work is privileged only if a Kovel arrangement is in place before the substantive work begins, and their fees put much mid-market work out of reach.
Where I differ: they are not in a position to give expert evidence on Indian law, to claim their own work as attorney work product, or to defend an individual executive, and their pricing rarely suits mid-market due diligence.
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Khaitan & Co, Nishith Desai Associates, J Sagar Associates. They have deep experience before Indian courts and regulators. Their reporting, however, tends to follow Indian procedural timelines.
Where I differ: they are not in a position to testify on Indian law as a US-admitted expert, to run the US side of an investigation without handing it off, or to represent an executive before the US Department of Justice or the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Some AmLaw firms run India practice groups that work with Indian local counsel, or send US associates to India for particular workstreams. The Bar Council of India’s 2025 amendments to its rules on foreign lawyers and foreign law firms have limited how these arrangements can operate, and flying associates in is expensive.
Where I differ: these firms either send US associates at high cost, or rely on Indian local counsel without US privilege arrangements built in. I offer both in one person, based in India.
Sayari, Exiger, Kharon, LSEG World-Check and Diligent scan registries and sanctions lists quickly, and review platforms built on large language models reduce the hours spent on document review. What they produce is data. They do not check it against primary sources, certify evidence under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, issue Kovel letters, or appear before tribunals.
Where I differ: I use what these platforms produce and act on it. The two work well together.
What I offer sits apart from all four. I am a US-admitted Indian advocate based in India. I give expert testimony on Indian law and handle cross-border discovery, executive defense, FCPA work, and private equity and M&A due diligence, under US privilege and to the standard Indian courts apply to evidence.
I lead every engagement myself. Strategy, privilege arrangements and communication with the client stay with me from start to finish. Where a matter needs more hands for fieldwork, document review, expert reports or travel across jurisdictions, I direct that work and I am answerable for it.
You retain me, and I am the person you deal with throughout.
If you have a matter with an India side, do reach out and I will take a look.