SpicyIP Policy on Law Firm Coverage

Yesterday, we posted an update about the elevation of certain lawyers as partners etc. within a law firm. The reason we did so was to also begin covering issues within law firms (elevations, promotions etc.) in much the same way that Legally India and Bar & Bench do.

We had received an e-mail from the said law firm (Singh & Singh Lall & Sethi) requesting us to post this and we did so by posting the entirety of what they sent as is. However, on second thoughts, we realised that it came across as an advertorial for the firm in question. We have, therefore, edited the post and linked for details to the Bar & Bench article. And have also thought through this issue a bit and our future policy on this count will be:

We will not be posting any routine elevations/promotions or activities or movements within and across law firms etc., but will only do so when it involves a significant development for the IP ecosystem as a whole or represents a very distinct development that deserves a post.


About The Author

7 thoughts on “SpicyIP Policy on Law Firm Coverage”

  1. “but will only do so when it involves a significant development for the IP ecosystem as a whole or represents a very distinct development that deserves a post.”

    Wow really?! Who’s’ gonna decide that.. Please accept yourself Spicy IP. The website is indeed commendable for its ip updates but as a long-time reader, please allow me to say this that the tilt towards certain firms is very clear. When reporting a judgement or an injunction, if it’s firm like Anand or Sai Krishna, the firm names are mentioned while it is not so for others. Maybe you can consider deciding as a policy measure- to name or not to name uniformly …

    1. Shamnad Basheer

      Who decides what content to publish on a blog? The ones who run the blog obviously! SpicyIP is no different. If you think we’ve been remiss in reporting something that shouldn’t have been or vice versa, let us know. If your claim carries merit (as the comment to this specific post reporting on standard law firm promotions etc) did, we will make amends. But if it does not, we will politely decline. If you’re unhappy with the call we make, you have a fairly simple option: avoid the blog! As for naming certain law firms and leaving out others, I don’t believe we’ve ever done that. Where we’ve been remiss in particular instances, kindly point them out with specifics. We’ll make amends, where your claim carries merit. But if you’re keen on simply mounting sweeping attacks for the heck of it, you’re not welcome on this blog!

      1. Shamnad Basheer

        also our general policy on naming lawyers etc is that we broadly we try and avoid such naming, when the said lawyer/law firm is on the losing side. in the past, losing lawyers have been very upset with such naming and unless the naming was critical to the story itself, we try and avoid this. Similarly, we try and name the winning side/lawyers if the story so merits such naming.

  2. Yes, that would be pointless reporting — and your comments section would be filled with trolls. And it would hardly add any value to the blog.

  3. Why so much fuss over the blog post. I believe it’s alright to post the promotions as long as the news is related to broader domain of IPR which is the core area for the blog. The blogger should have the flexibility to take a call in these matters. The readers can decide to follow or unfollow the blog based on their intellect. And I believe the post wasn’t per se promotional activity. When a blogger writes something about a firm or an individual doesn’t mean that the blogger or the blog are promoting the firm/ individual.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top