Thought Leader – Employment Law – AT Law
Next up on our employment focus is Archin Talpade, Principal and Founder of AT Law, in London. Archin talks to Lawyer Monthly about the potential avenues employment law could take in terms of Brexit, the necessity for pre-thought prevention in employment dispute matters, and the ways of dealing with redundancies in a business.
Archin Talpade runs A.T. Law Solicitors in Mayfair. A City career took second place to his (and his clients’) desire to provide (and receive) quality legal services comparable with the City but at competitive rates. Archin took the plunge and started his firm in May 2006 as a boutique employment law provider. That decision paid off and 10 years later, Archin is recognised by clients – ranging from multinationals to private offices to senior employees – as an integral part of their teams.
Archin’s firm specialises in two things – his clients’ businesses and their people. Many law firms these days tend to focus either on acting for employees and employers to a large extent; rarely do firms act for both in equal measure. Archin considers himself privileged to be regularly instructed by both employers and employees at all levels of business, from board rooms of multinationals to senior executives in board room disputes. Because of Archin’s experience in this regard, his firm has developed a strong and distinctive style and ability to understand the mindset and strategy of opponents or the buyers and sellers of businesses in a TUPE transfer situation. This provides Archin’s clients with a clear advantage when assessing the often critical, sensitive and confidential issues his clients could be faced with.
Archin is often consulted where there are sensitive and often critical legal and commercial issues at stake that require an immediate, solution driven and result oriented approach. Archin’s competitive edge over the last decade has been founded on providing quality advice but at reasonable rates.
In advising businesses on employment matters, what do you find are the most surprising pitfalls they never considered?
I’m instructed by a growing number of businesses which have their headquarters abroad. The executives and management teams I work with are highly knowledgeable and skilled at doing what they do. As such, I find that they’re very switched on in recognising when they might need advice and taking that advice before they actually arrive at a pitfall. The same is true of senior individuals, whether at plc level or in the financial services world, these are people who have the foresight to understand when there might, for example, be a dispute brewing, sometimes many months before they reach a potential impasse. My job in those situations is to guide the business or the individual around any pitfalls I or they might have foreseen, usually in the most elegant and least contentious way possible.
When there are pitfalls, which for whatever reason have not been foreseen, these usually in my experience arise where there may have been factors which are almost, you could say, ‘black swan’ events – for example, when litigating, I’ve been faced with errant employees recording meetings with their colleagues or managers without permission. Such recordings may lead to some potentially embarrassing moments for clients but it’s then a question of dealing with such events in the most tactical and beneficial way for my clients.
Are there particular challenges involved in advising large and busy businesses in the City of London on employment matters?
Most clients, be they commercial enterprises or individuals, are savvy business leaders and there’s not much that they’ve not seen or are unaware of. So to advise clients of the type that approach me you need to be able to think creatively and respond rapidly and pro-actively. My clients are not looking for run-of-the-mill advice that a solicitor reading say an online legal service or textbook , might be able to deliver. They’re seeking solutions which will probably require a degree of ‘advocacy’ – whether that advocacy is carried out around a Board room table, over a series of conference calls, in presentations to prospective purchasers or sellers of my clients’ businesses and/or services or before an Employment Tribunal. It’s really the art of persuasion, in one form or another, married with an in-depth understanding of the practical implementation of the law, which brings about the desired results for my clients.
You have previously advised CEOs of FTSE 100 companies negotiate their exit packages; what kind of complexities did this involve?
Whether you’re dealing with a CEO or any other senior employee, the law is the same – it’s the scale and the tactics that we employ that differs. The key with any client – but in particular a CEO or senior executive – is to ensure that they’re fully aware at all times of the position and are on-board with the approach and tactics, which have to be deployed sometimes within hours of the first meeting. Particular complexities could also include concluding negotiations sometimes within 24 to 48 hours given the sensitivity of such matters on the share price of a plc. Senior executives above all value precision in advice, determination, speed and quick wits!
You have also previously engaged in defence cases surrounding employment matters; what do you find is the best way to approach redundancy claims?
With a degree of empathy for all involved. My company clients, who are usually well versed in dealing with all aspects of employment law including redundancies, understand that first and foremost they’re often dealing with a life-changing situation for their employees, sometimes of many years standing. It’s therefore a concern for many of my clients that they operate fairly – which is not always simply about money – it’s about the human aspect of employment law.
Do you work mostly alone in the capacity of employment law, or alongside a team?
It very much depends on the case. If it’s a large case with different strands which might cross over into employment law, corporate and tax, then I work alongside colleagues, counsel and consultants specialising in those areas.
On the back of the recent Brexit vote, do you expect much change in the realms of employment law and the demand in legal services?
It‘s not entirely possible to predict exactly how the UK’s laws might change following the UK’s exit from the EU. Changes to UK laws will likely stem from the arrangements the Government applies when formalising our departure from the EU. There are broadly two ways of dealing with our exit: the first way is a model based on us joining the EEA perhaps in the same vein as Norway; or secondly, the Government of the day tailoring a custom-built UK- EU relationship. The ‘Norway Way’ would entail the least change, as EU law on the whole would likely remain more or less intact. The ‘UK-Tailored-Way’ could in theory lead to a more significant degree of change, particularly to laws which are “EU-Centric” such as certain aspects of TUPE.
In practice, it remains to be seen whether any Government would wish to cause such a potentially seismic change immediately following the implementation of Brexit – which would then have a major impact on employers and employees. Any change is likely to be carried out over time and after consultation with employer groups and employee groups including the CBI and Unions.
As a thought leader, if you could implement changes to facilitate your work in the UK employment landscape, where would you start?
It’s apparent to me that the landscape of employment – not just employment law – is shifting; this can be evidenced by, say, the number of commercial properties which remain vacant for longer, the rise of technology in reducing the numbers and types of jobs (e.g. in the retail sector and financial services sector), the outflows of jobs abroad and the continuing popularity of flexible working patterns. It’s a debate that’s been raging across academia, but is also incredibly relevant to all of us in the UK economy:- how do we preserve skilled paid jobs to facilitate the continued success of the UK? The answer does not solely lie in changing or reducing the impact of employment laws or immigration laws. The answer, I think, partly lies in having a pre-eminent education sector which builds the workforce of tomorrow today while co-ordinating a more holistic and less prescriptive approach to employee relations by both employer and employee groups – eventually leading to a genuine economic and business partnership. That, I think, is the challenge for this country – and the solution doesn’t just lie with the lawyers or legislators.
