 Thank you, Mela. Ladies and gentlemen, very good evening to all of you. I'm really delighted and it's a pleasure to be here amongst all of you, such an elite gathering, including my co-panelists. I've got a window of 10 minutes to have a monologue with you, and I'm told that at the end of the session we're going to have a dialogue in the form of discussion. But I must remind you that, like many of you, I also belong to a breed called Lawyers who draft 10,000 page documents and still call it a brief. But nonetheless, I would try to remain within the confine of 10 minutes, what has been stipulated by the organizers. If I overstep, kindly bear with me, because it's professional courtesy. Well, first and foremost, we do need to congratulate ourselves as Lawyers for having come a long way in the last two decades. I heard that there was a lot of lawyer bashing going on in the first half of the day. But let me apprise you about the reality, because I belong to both the generations. I have seen a lot many changes happening in my career, the complete reshaping of the legal profession, from an old fashioned stereotypical lawyer who's obsessed with legal precedence and who holds an almost contempt vis-a-vis his clients and bias as well. We have moved to becoming vibrant Lawyers. Today, advocate is not only a legal person. He's a business person. He's juggling every day with increasing demands of competitive services. Way back in 1996, a distinguished law professor, Richard Susskin from United Kingdom, he wrote a book called The Future of Law, where he noted that the changes in technology would go on to change the legal profession, the administration of justice, and the way lawyers deal with their legal and paralegal affairs. And so true was he, at least in Indian context. Robert Joff, one of the leading corporate lawyers of the United States, he said that law is both business and profession. So true was he. He placed business before profession. And our own professor, David Wilkins, who have quoted on several occasions on different forums and who's doing a great job by leading such an innovating program in the Howard, he said that law firms, lawyers, and professional service providers constitute critical part of the global economy. Professor Wilkins, I so much relate to that statement because I'm the living example. I joined law university in 1988 when there was only one set of practice available for lawyers, and that was litigation. My dad was a bureaucrat and he wanted me to become a civil servant and a rebel. And I said, no, I would like to be a lawyer. I would like to wear a black gown or a black jacket and address the court of law. But the destiny is that since 1994, I have not stepped in the court of law. I finished my law in 1991, and there was a headline in the newspaper that India goes ahead with first set of economic reforms. The present prime minister was then finance minister, and you would all remember he initiated a process of economic reforms in the year 1991. And in 1994, when these reforms took a shape, a new area of practice emerged for the lawyers, which got to be known as non-letigious matters or non-letigious practice. I started my career with Cyril's firm in 1990 when I was finally in law. I joined the firm. And that time, also, it was one of the leading firms, and it was a dream come true for me to be part of Cyril and Shardul's team. And at that time, the fashionable terminology for lawyers was that there was one set of lawyers who used to appear only in lower courts in High Court and Supreme Court, but then there was a segment of lawyers who used to appear in company law board, quasi-judicial tribunals, forums, so on and so forth. But in 1994, the lawyers got into completely different mode of practice, a segment of lawyers. And I assumed that practice as well, which was assisting foreign companies in opening up shops in India, be it offices, identifying joint venture partners for them, drafting mergers, acquisition documents, taking care of their regulatory issues, compliances, so on and so forth. And that time, I realized that law definitely is a catalyst and instrument for economic change. And lawyers are drivers of economic policies. There cannot be any doubt about this. Law is brought about changes in the economic fiscal policies of the country. And I felt, and I understood, that the notion and concept of law and economic change has to be seen in respect of the cogent controls which law exercises on fiscal and economic policies, thereby guiding the path of development of economy. But in that process, what Cyril was also mentioning, a dangerous thing happened. There started happening blurring of boundaries amongst different professional service providers, chartered accountants, investment bankers, consultants, company secretaries. Non-litigious practice became like a shamlet, a common land for everybody. Accountants were also rendering legal advice. They were doing commercial documentation, investment bankers, company secretaries. Everybody was getting into it. Until 2009, when this judgment of Bombay High Court came, which said that section 29 of the Advocates Act is wide enough to include litigation as well as non-litigation. And actually, the judgment went on to say that in order to draft any commercial document or render any advice of legal nature, you need to be enrolled as an advocate. In other words, it meant that chartered accountants, company secretaries, or investment bankers, private wealth managers who did not have a degree or let's say a license under the Advocates Act were not authorized, enabled, licensed to practice non-litigation. But I don't know how implementable that judgment is, but that judgment I think holds good. I don't know, I mean, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. I don't know what happened to that. I don't think that judgment was stayed by the Supreme Court. I'll be closing my address because I think I would have done seven, eight minutes already. Quickly, I'll also share my views with you with regard to the current state of affairs of lawyers. I mean, I brand lawyers as jarts, jack of all trades. Today, they are friend, philosopher, guide. I have accompanied my clients to several places where they were pure and simple business negotiations. They just wanted me to sit there as an observer and share my gut feel, my prudent feel with them. Lawyers have become, I won't say lobbyist because that's an untouchable word. Today, parliament got stalled because of Walmart debate. There were allegations of some people having been involved in lobbying. And lobbying is clear no in India. You can do lobbying, but you have to call it licensing. You can do it. So whenever you're raising in voice, say that you were lazing or you were sort of helping client with regulatory issues and complying, never use the word lobbying because that has got many lawyers into problem as well. There was one chopper deal which happened some time back and one of the law firms got involved into it and there is a criminal complaint lodged in Italy against that law firm. And you all know that best of the spokesperson of political parties are lawyers. Best of the performers in the cabinet are lawyers. Even business houses have started identifying lawyers as spokesperson. So what else can I say? And as Cyril had rightly put it, that there is amazing potential in this profession. And if you guys are looking to step into it, you're more than welcome. There is definitely a lot of scope and potential and attraction, be it accomplishment or be it money. In both senses, it's definitely most sought for kind of profession. And finally concluding, I would like to share one incident with you which is an outdated incident. May not hold good in today's scenario. There was one gentleman called Mr. Smith. He called a law firm and he inquired about one lawyer called Mr. Peter. So the telephone operator picked up the phone and Mr. Smith said that, can I speak with Mr. Peter? So she said, I'm sorry to let you know that we lost Mr. Peter a week back. He died a week back. So he hung the phone, Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith called again the second day and the telephone operator again said that, you know, I told you even yesterday I can identify your voice. You called yesterday as well. Mr. Peter is no more. The guy again hung up the phone and third day he calls again and this time the telephone operator gets irritated and she says that, what's wrong with you? Are you trying to pull fast one? Are you teasing me? I told you on last two occasions, quite consistently and repeatedly that Mr. Peter is no more. We lost him. So this gentleman says, well, don't get irritated. Let me share with you that whenever you tell me he's dead, it gives me a lot of pleasure and happiness. So therefore, please don't mind. But that was an outdated incident, let me tell you. In today's scenario, lawyers are not that unpopular. They are quite popular. Thank you so much. God bless.