Senior Lawyers Launch AI-Driven Law Firms in Bengaluru’s Startup Ecosystem, ETLegalWorld

India’s startup culture is spreading into the legal sector as senior partners from prestigious law firms launch technology-driven, flexibility-structured independent practices in Bengaluru.

Recent departures include Vishak abrahmwho left Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas to found Venture A Law, focusing on transactions (including startup and venture capital work) and to work more directly with founders. Akshay Jeet Bhat departed the same firm to co-establish First Principles Law with Prasad Subramanyan, specializing in venture capital and emerging company representation. Clarence Anthony transitioned from equity partner at Trilegal to launch Clarence & Partners, emphasizing technology-driven legal solutions. Meanwhile, Aditya vikram Bhat left equity partnership at AZB & Partners to create AVB Chambers, operating as a pure counsel practice with emphasis on commercial, government and regulatory work.

This wave of legal entrepreneurship reflects how India’s tech hub is reshaping professional services beyond software and startups.

Beyond the ‘Golden Handcuffs’

The departures highlight both personal ambitions and institutional friction points. Most lawyers leaving top firms spent 15-20 years building expertise and financial security—suggesting genuine satisfaction before entrepreneurial urges took hold.

The institutional challenges are real but not universal. Equity partnerships sometimes offer impressive titles with limited decision-making authority over strategy or hiring. Rigid hierarchies create bottlenecks where senior positions rarely open up, frustrating ambitious lawyers despite strong performance.

Revenue tensions emerge in specialized areas. Venture capital work generates lower per-transaction fees than large M&A deals, creating pressure to abandon expertise for more lucrative mandates. Partners developing emerging sector specialties face structural disadvantages.

Personal factors also drive decisions. Work-life balance becomes paramount as family priorities shift. Some catch Bangalore‘s entrepreneurial bug, viewing independence as natural career evolution.

Standardized approaches leave little room for innovation. Partners seeking technology-driven efficiency find themselves constrained by institutional inertia prioritizing consistency over experimentation.

But these aren’t universal complaints. Many partners thrive in collaborative environments with institutional resources and sophisticated client work. The departures make headlines precisely because they’re notable, not routine.

Fitting into Bengaluru’s start up culture

These systemic frustrations coincide with unique market conditions in Bangalore that make independent practice particularly viable. The city’s startup culture and position as India’s technology capital create ideal conditions for launching boutique legal practices.

Bangalore hosts numerous venture capital firms, family offices, and corporate decision-makers, enabling direct client acquisition. Clarence Anthony notes that “the market is mature—now a lot of funds and decision makers are sitting in Bangalore,” explaining that “work can be directly obtained from them.”

The startup ecosystem’s evolution creates new opportunities. Vishak Abraham predicts the next five years will see “a drive towards quality rather than pricing,” as the market matures beyond pure cost competition.

Anthony emphasizes the market’s undersupply issues, explaining that “in the context of corporate legal services we are highly undersupplied” with “a whole bunch of clients that do not have access to quality legal services—high margin work—work that needs sophisticated understanding.”

The rise of Global Capability Centers supporting U.S. tech operations adds another dimension. Anthony highlights the “tremendous schooling opportunities” and “organic growth potential” in Bangalore’s ecosystem, including new funds, family offices, mid-size companies, and these GCCs that require sophisticated legal support.

Abraham observes that while “the market is flooded with sole practitioners and small law firms, most do not have the experience that senior or senior(ish) partners from Big Law have—and that can be a distinguishing factor for clients.” This experience gap creates opportunities for seasoned partners launching independent practices.

The financial security gained from Big Law careers enables this entrepreneurship. Abraham notes that “Big Law allows one to get financial security quite early—and hence a midlife entrepreneurial journey comes with a financial cushion.”

The independent firms are fundamentally reimagining legal practice around client intimacy and operational agility. Abraham emphasises his desire to be “more directly involved with everything I do and want to give more one and one advice,” noting that clients “really eppreciate the personal attention and bespoke advise.”

This personalized approach extends to flexible billing structures that challenge Big Law orthodoxy. Aditya Vikram Bhat explains his approach: “I don’t charge for my juniors time at all,” while noting “we are not charging forty hours for a product that actually takes four hours.”

The shift enables lawyers to pursue work previously constrained by firm economics. Aditya Vikram Bhat explains that at AZB, “my government work (while graciously supported) at AZB was a drain on resources because it didn’t pay anything.” He describes how large arbitrations and investment treaty work with the central government became impossible because “when I pitch for this work at AZB—the bare minimum I can charge is too low for the firm and too high for the government.”

Cross-collaboration networks are emerging among independent practitioners. Abraham highlights “an entire network of people who are building their independent practice,” leveraging “unique practice areas to refer work to each other” where “everyone knows there is a market for everyone.” This cooperative approach includes “considering joint pitching” and collective experience sharing.

The operational model differs significantly from traditional firms. Prasad Subramanyan notes that “office overheads and friction of starting up is much lower” due to Bangalore’s co-working spaces, allowing firms to be profitable with “a smaller chunk of the market.” He explains that the “ability to be profitable with a smaller chunk for the market is something that is harder to replicate in a large firm model where multiple partners each need to drive very high annual targets to sustain the structure.”`

Talent retention benefits from flatter structures. Subramanyan observes “an expectation of balance in the workplace” among junior lawyers, while Aditya Vikram Bhat’s firm maintains “no artificial hierarchies, archaic attendance or leave policies,” enabling teams to do “premium work, charge for it, take our time off and focus on our personal growth all at the same time.”

Technology the competitive edge

Perhaps the most significant advantage these independent practices possess is aggressive adoption of artificial intelligence and legal technology. They see AI tools as “a big game changer,” noting that it will “assist reduction of costs and dependence on larger teams.”

Abraham believes “competition amongst legaltech AI will reduce entry barriers, and can easily be a factor to encourage people to start on their own.” He foresees a “multiplier effect” where independent lawyers “can do so much more with a far leaner team.”

The adoption challenge particularly affects established firms. Subramanyan argues it’s “a lot more difficult to drive adoption” in larger firms due to “pressure and less room to breathe,” making smaller firms more agile in implementing AI productively.

Some boutique practices are developing proprietary solutions. Anthony’s firm has “built our own suite tailored to our needs” with a vision to use technology to bring “drafting time down by 90 percent.” He refers to his team as “legal engineers” because their focus is providing “solutions—business and legal—not just pure legal.”

Anthony emphasises the importance of lawyer-focused technology, seeking tools that “deliver to me what a lawyer would deliver.”

Building market credibility

Transitioning from established firm brands to independent practices requires sophisticated client relationship management. Akshay Jeet Bhat found that some founders and venture capital clients that he had worked with were likely to show a “fair degree of flexibility in choosing counsel to work with, though he acknowledges large institutions may still prefer Tier 1 firms due to resource pool requirements.

Anthony discovered that converting clients “who were used to big firms” wasn’t a major challenge “if we had the right champions.” His strategy includes hiring “senior level people only for the most part” because “clients really want to talk to senior level people” for solutions—attention big firms often cannot provide.

Client outcomes become primary marketing tools. For Akshay Jeet Bhat, “quality work and client satisfaction is the greatest form of marketing and business development,” with results proving as effective those obtained through marketing teams at large law firms. Aditya Vikram Bhat built his practice on “visibility, recall value, flexibility” and being “available.”

The success reflects broader changes in Bangalore’s legal market dynamics. Abraham observes “that within his circle of friends, there are more senior/experienced partners starting out on their own from Big Law than before” in recent years, marking a shift from when such lawyers were considered “lifers.”

Aditya Vikram Bhat notes the emergence of “a generation of lawyers that not only have the rigour, exposure, training, and professional excellence to provide world class services, but also the financial independence, the curiosity and the maturity to provide a fresh uncluttered experience.” He observes “the market wants this freshness in options,” particularly as “startups are what grow to become behemoths” in deep tech sectors that will “gobble up quality legal talent faster than we can train it.”

The emergence of agile, tech-forward boutique practices raises questions about impact on established firms. Abraham initially suggests the trend “probably will not” impact legacy firms significantly, citing that “institutional mandates from investors still go to Big Law in most cases” for large transactions and complex processes such as IPOs. However, he adds, “I am happy to stand corrected.”

Aditya Vikram Bhat takes a more assertive stance on potential disruption, stating there’s “a renewed emphasis on technology, availability, quality, rigour and bang for the buck.” He notes that clients now “expect premium value when they pay premium cost.”

This competitive pressure forces traditional firms to examine their operational efficiency and client service approaches. Technology adoption, fee structure flexibility, and talent retention strategies all require reassessment in light of boutique competition demonstrating superior client intimacy and technological agility.

Future implications

The transformation suggests a bifurcation in India’s legal market, with large firms likely retaining dominance in massive, process-intensive transactions while boutique practices capture sophisticated advisory work requiring specialized expertise and intensive client relationships.

The success of AI implementation among independent practitioners may force industry-wide technology adoption, fundamentally altering legal service economics. As these tools mature, competitive advantages currently enjoyed by boutique firms may become standard, requiring further innovation to maintain differentiation.

Bangalore’s experience may preview similar transformations across India’s business centers. The combination of technology adoption, entrepreneurial talent, and client demand for personalized service creates replicable conditions in other major markets.

“The fact that this model is now available will mean that the older models will need to look at what they are doing,” concludes Aditya Vikram Bhat.