“Professional identity follows professional work—not the source of remuneration.”
Perhaps no principle has shaped the Indian legal profession more than the assumption that full-time salaried employment is inconsistent with legal practice. That assumption may once have reflected historical realities. Today, it no longer reflects professional reality. It has become the weakest conceptual foundation of India’s legal regulatory framework. Salary does not change the nature of legal work.
Consider two lawyers. One advises a corporation from a law firm. The other advises the same corporation as a general counsel. They negotiate identical contracts, interpret identical statutes, handle identical disputes, manage identical investigations, and advise on identical transactions. The only distinction is that one receives professional fees while the other receives a monthly salary. Can that alone determine whether one is practising law and the other is not? The answer is self-evidently “no”.
Professional work cannot change merely because accounting treatment changes. India already rejects this principle in every other profession. A Chartered Accountant employed as a Chief Financial Officer remains a Chartered Accountant. A Company Secretary employed by a listed company remains a Company Secretary. A doctor employed by a hospital remains a doctor. An engineer employed by a manufacturing company remains an engineer. Every major statutory profession distinguishes between professional membership and mode of practice. Only the legal profession continues to treat employment itself as a decisive factor. That distinction has become increasingly difficult to justify. The employer is simply one institutional client. The misconception arises because employment is viewed as replacing professional practice. In reality, an in-house lawyer simply has one continuing client — the organisation. The lawyer continues advising on law, exercising independent legal judgment, interpreting legislation, and protecting legal rights. The legal character of the work never changes.
India’s economy needs talent mobility
The consequences of this outdated rule extend far beyond lawyers. They affect India’s economic competitiveness. Leading corporations increasingly recruit partners from law firms into general counsel positions. After serving in-house, many return to private practice with richer commercial understanding. This movement strengthens the legal profession. India should encourage — not discourage — such mobility. If lawyers fear losing professional continuity or recognised experience merely because they join a corporation, India Inc. loses access to some of its finest legal talent. That serves no public interest.
The proper test — the relevant regulatory question should never be: “Is this lawyer salaried?” It should instead be: “Is this lawyer substantially performing professional legal work?” If the answer is yes, professional recognition should continue.
Practising rights, rights of audience and independent client work can always be regulated separately. But employment cannot become the dividing line between lawyer and non-lawyer. Professional identity belongs to the profession — not to the payroll.
*Managing Director & Group General Counsel, Essar Group; Co-founder, General Counsels’ Association of India. Author can be reached at: sanjeevgemawat12@gmail.com.
