Alishan Naqvee is the founding partner of LexCounsel, one of the ILN’s member firms in India. In this episode, Alishan and Lindsay delve into several serious and interesting topics, from the very different and yet linked internal and external challenges of managing a law firm to the changing landscape of the legal industry for corporate lawyers or “boardroom lawyers” to the potential impact of AI on the industry.
You can listen to the podcast here, or we’ve provided a transcript of the highlights below.
Lindsay: Hello, and welcome to the Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast. I’m your host, Lindsay Griffiths, executive director of the International Lawyers Network. Our guest this week is Alishan Naqvee of LexCounsel in New Delhi. We’re really happy to have you with us, Alishan. If you could take a couple of minutes to tell us about yourself and your firm and your practice, we would really appreciate that.
Alishan: Well, thanks, Lindsay, for this session. Thank you very much. I have been a lawyer practicing for the last 25 years. Seems like an age since I started practicing. Over this period of time, I have practiced in the area of corporate law. Started as a corporate lawyer, went on to become a litigator. So, I do both. My individual practice includes both litigation and corporate. I set up the firm LexCounsel with three other partners, at that time in 2004 after having worked in different firms for about five to six years, and we have completed a number of years and as you see we’ll be completing about 20 years of this firm next year.
We have over this period of time worked for numerous Fortune 500 companies. In fact, a lot of Fortune 100 companies also, brought in many businesses to India. Worked in some of the widely reported cases in the Indian courts, had very good ratings in a lot of legal directories. Accumulated a number of hardworking and diligent workers with us, lawyers with us, and very good affiliations. We have about five offices, so I can’t complain about the practice, and I can’t complain about the way this law firm has panned out for us, along with the association with ILN.
Lindsay: That’s great. It’s interesting because your firm started the same year that I started my career in the legal industry, so we’re right about the same time.
Alishan: Very good.
Lindsay: So, let’s get into our questions. What would you say is the biggest challenge for you at the moment, and how are you working to overcome that?
Alishan: So, Lindsay, I gave a thought about it, and there are two things. One is internal and one is external. Those are the challenges that I face, and to have a candid talk over the podcast. The internal challenges, of course, are client expectations. There are also you have… I am of a different generation, we have lawyers of different generation, priorities are different, working styles are different. We started in the time when we had to go to the library and look for a case law. So, finding the law was very difficult at that time. Today, finding the law is very easy, but so is the easy for your adversaries. The opposite side also has access to the same law. So, knowledge is no longer the factor which tilts the scale in your favor. It is actually the analysis which is the differentiator. So, while everybody has access to the same law, you have to have better analytical abilities to be successful in the world.
So, one thing that we see, especially is because each law firm operates in a different way, you have lateral hires, of course, you have homegrown talent also, people who join you, who interned with you, who joined. And we have people who interned with us, joined us after becoming a lawyer, and today they are partners with us. And they’re also heading some of the other offices that we have. At the same time, the reality of this practice is that you also have lateral hires. Sometimes the culture of reporting to the managing client expectations is very different in different forms. So, it takes time. So as the practice grows, it becomes very difficult for somebody who has set up the firm and who’s managing the practice to put everybody and everyone in the same format of client responsiveness, managing client expectation. And that is one of the internal challenge.
It’s a constant challenge, and as I speak with my colleagues who are partners in different firms, managing practice, having practicing partners with them who are looking after different clients, but they are managing the overall practice, like being the litigation head or corporate head. That is the issue that they also are facing. And this is a challenge where different partners have different working style, but otherwise you are part of the same firm. So, bringing that parity, bringing that semblance, bringing that equity, bringing that same way of approaching clients and client problems, bringing the firm culture, also keeping everybody happy is one of the internal challenge. And it’s a constantly moving goalpost. Now in terms of external challenge, what in India typically I will say, that the challenge that I’m seeing in the last few years is the differentiation that is coming in the boardroom versus courtroom lawyers.
And let me explain that a little bit. As a courtroom lawyer, I am engaged by a client in a case post facto, means that the reason for which that person is going to the court, either to assert a right or to defend himself, whether against the government or against any private party, that issue has already happened. My engagement is after that. I have no say in the happening or not happening of that event. My role is very much limited on a power of autonomy, which, in India is to represent that client to the best of my abilities. But when you are a boardroom lawyer and you are sitting with the management in the boardroom so many times, you also see transactions and you also see issues which are coming up so many times, you also have your own policies. So many times, their business compulsions have declined.
So, at that time you have to take a call and tell the client that this is legally permissible, this is not legally permissible. And sometimes it may so happen that different clients have different risk appetite. So, at some point of time, if a client has a risk appetite higher than you, what do you do? You stay in the board, or you disengage. So, the differentiation of boardroom versus courtroom lawyer is a very important differentiation, and this is a challenge. Now, challenge is because this is a matter of perception. For me, the risk perception of a particular transaction as a boardroom lawyer may be different as compared to some of my partners, some of my associates.
And most of the meetings, if a three year or four-year associate is going, the firm is participating. So now you understand. So that is the second challenge that we have to face. And this is an unforeseen situation, because you can’t predict what will be discussed at a meeting. You can’t talk about these probabilities. So, then you have to come, you have to review, you have to take a call. This management is not essentially legal practice, but management of your practice in an ethical and legal way, which is an external challenge that all of us face today.
Lindsay: It’s interesting, because I actually think those two challenges, especially the boardroom lawyer challenge, ties into your internal challenges, because you’re talking about this need for expertise and the way that the practice of law has changed and how lawyers learn and how it used to be this need for having to go to law books and now knowledge is really at your fingertips. And so, the way that lawyers are learning has really changed. And so, as you say, it is really about the analysis of the law and how lawyers pick that up.
And so, as you say, you might have this three, four-year associate that you’ve got going into a boardroom meeting and you don’t know what’s going to be discussed. And so, you have to really have confidence in that lawyer and the way they analyze the situation. So, it’s a question of the level of confidence that you have in those lawyers, how they’re learning. And so, it’s sort of a juxtaposition between those two things. How do you really have confidence in how lawyers are learning today and the analysis of the situation and their appetite for risk as it relates to the client’s appetite for risk? So, sometimes those challenges really overlap quite interestingly.
Alishan: Correct. And Lindsay, what is also happening in the Indian landscape is that there is a legal responsibility and accountability which is being fixed. Across the world also it was there, it is coming in India. So chartered accountants and company secretaries have separate obligations for ensuring the legality of the transactions of the clients that they see. Very soon we’ll also have it. Now, there was a general principle of law which applied more to courtroom lawyers that a lawyer cannot be forced to testify against the client.
Now that applies typically to courtroom lawyers because a client comes to you, he says, this was my transaction. Was is the important word. This was my transaction, and this has happened. Now, how do you defend myself? A lawyer usually won’t say it was illegal, I will not defend you because a lawyer’s job is not to decide for the client. That is the job of the judge. That’s why their name has the prefix or suffix of justice. I’m only an advocate. So, justice has to come from there. My job and my professional obligation to represent that client, even if he’s a murderer to the best of my abilities. I sit in judgment. And if this principle were adopted across the world, if lawyers became judges, a lot of people would not find any counsel.
So, the basic tenet of my profession is that I have to represent my client knowing the facts to the best of my abilities. Now with that came the protection for the lawyers that you cannot be forced to testify against your clients. That is true for courtroom lawyers. But across the world, the scenario is changing, now this is not true for the boardroom lawyers. I have seen in different jurisdictions where the boardroom lawyers get called by the government authorities to testify. So that is why this is very important for your own practice also, that everybody in the firm understands that that protection that you have is available for the court matters, it is not available for boardroom matters. And that is where you need to draw a line and you need to be very stringent about it.
Lindsay: Absolutely. And that goes back to your point about the firm needing to be involved with the boardroom lawyers because as you say, then that needs to have the full protection of the firm and the full advocacy of the firm because you can’t just send in a young lawyer to be there because you don’t know what’s going to be discussed. And if it is a question of the client having a greater appetite for risk than the firm would have, and then the firm is going to get called in to discuss that risk at a later date, then that’s really concerning.
Alishan: And at the same time, you have to be constantly in touch with your… And this is not the challenge that I’m facing. I speak for and on behalf of most of the friends that I have who are my legal colleagues who was in a partnership position or leadership head of the practice position. So, this is the general feeling in India. So, I’m talking about from the Indian landscape.
Alishan: This is a challenge, not within my firm alone, but this is a general challenge that India is facing when we talk about judicial landscape. It’s an external challenge, which we have to face.
Lindsay: Right. Right. Wow, that’s a lot. Well, on that note, can you talk more generally than about the current state of the market and what that means for you and your clients?
Alishan: Well, India is a happy place to be in. We have started the form, I mean pretty much around the world, it is understood now that India is fairly recession proof. We are an autonomous place where demand and supply is automatically met. We have lots and lots of work from domestic when I started practice. In fact, the best of the clients were from abroad because you could build them well, they were different rates of billing. But today, there is a lot of significant inflow which is coming from outside of India, also into India because India is the place to be. We have a lot of startups which have become unicorns in terms of funding. And funding, I frequently hear it from my friends who are in the industry who source funding, who are themselves investors or who had the funds, venture capitalist stock hedge funds. They say funding is really easy in India because India holds a promise.
So, India is a very good steady story. India is a very good place to be. In fact, India is the new lead of opportunity. And a lot of things are going on for my country, including the language skill, including the stringent and more stringent framework of law that we have, which is giving comfort to a lot of foreign investors. We have a good regime of protection of intellectual property. So, all those things and plus the understanding of law plus the court system. So, I’m very happy to be in India that way. Another thing that in India is happening right now is, and which makes the job of a lawyer like us who deal in litigation and in corporate law a little more difficult because India is also undergoing a significant change in the laws. So, we had the laws… Most of the laws came from the time that we were under colonial rule.
Our penal code for example, our criminal laws, except for the criminal procedure code. That Indian penal code was drafted in 18th century, late 18th century. So those laws are now being rewritten. There are insolvency law which has been rewritten sometime back which has come into being, company law was rewritten. So, what happens with that under a common law country, we follow a precedent system, our judicial precedence on binding orders. So, there is a law and there’s the interpretation of the court of that particular law that is called judicial precedent. When the court interprets a particular law, it is binding within the jurisdiction of that court. So, India is a huge country, we have a lot of high courts.
So the challenge as a lawyer also is to keep yourself aware of all the judgments and also when you do litigation strategy, because my firm practices across India, but in some part of the country there could be one judicial precedent coming from one high court, which may be binding, which may be slightly different in a different court, which is a different high court, unless the Supreme Court decides whose judgments are binding across India. So, while laws are changing, older precedents don’t work with the new laws to some extent because new law may have new precedent and when you have a problem, there may be no precedent. Then you have different high courts. It’s a very large judicial system in India. So that is one thing which is quite challenging, quite interesting. Thankfully with the online libraries and all judicial… The access to judgments as I said earlier, has become easier. Nevertheless, it’s a constant task for the lawyers.
Lindsay: I can imagine. And with things ever-changing, it must be you never know what you’re going to get when you go to court as a litigator.
Alishan: Yes. It’s a constant knowledge announcement process and sometimes the other opposing party or a client or a senior advocate, we have a system of senior advocates where are the advocates, which is special knowledge of law and special contribution, are designated by the court itself to be a senior advocate. They wear a different type of gown and their dress slightly different, black and white, but slightly different. So, they come across and they also tell you some judicial precedent maybe of 20 years back where the same legal principle can be applied and then you go back, and you check it and then you apply to it. So judicial precedent system makes the Indian legal practice and common law legal practice very interesting. It’s not only the law, but also the law, how is it read by the courts?
Lindsay: At least it means things are never dull.
Alishan: Never dull. Yes. We can’t have a dull, we are so many people in India, we don’t have a dull day. Never.
Lindsay: That’s true. That’s true. You are so many people in India. So, what’s the biggest area that’s related either to your practice area or the legal industry in general that you’re curious about?
Alishan: I’d say one thing that has intrigued me in the recent time is the role that artificial intelligence will play. And we have two lines of thinking. We have the likes of visionaries like Elon Musk famously saying that AI is going to make a lot of job and almost all the job redundant recently. At the same time we also have viewpoints where they say that the strategy and analysis with the accumulation of knowledge of law is something which is specific of a particular lawyer. In the given situation, two lawyers may think differently. So, to what extent would AI help us? To what extent will AI replace us? To what extent will AI replace the lawyers at different level? I mean, would AI replace me for my clients, or would AI only replace the lawyers in the bracket of zero to three years in their practice? That means research and drafting, but analysis.
Now, if you see everybody in every jurisdiction, every lawyer goes through the same qualification. They read the same law. Still some lawyers are successful, some aren’t. And when we go to lawyers and we go to doctors, we always give preference to experience. Why? Because the study of law is one thing, but experience of that law and how it’ll pan out in the poll, how the judges will be sensitive about it, how the society will perceive it, how your action will be accepted at the board level, at the shareholder level is something that does not come from the pure study of law. Now whether AI will be able to replace it at any point of time, this judgment is another area which I often think about. Now, let me take a step further. We have a precedent system. I feed in all the precedents we already have online, all the precedents I feed in into the AI system.
Can I say that the courts can be eliminated? You just feed in your facts and the AI writes the judgment for you. So, I was reading somewhere that AI works at three levels, and we have to decide at one point of time, and this is what makes me curious when it comes to legal area as to at what level should we or would we permit AI? And before that, we also assume that we have an ability to permit because AI may automatically just take over without asking for our permission because there are time a dozen companies selling their AI products to law firms every day. So, there is no single body which is today controlling as still what extent AI shall be permitted in legal industry. But when it comes to permission, AI can work in three levels. One is ChatGPT, type where it assimilates all the information with some intelligence and follow up questions and gives it to you. That is the first level.
Second is where AI can solve small problems, for example, traffic violation. Those kind of orders need not be written by the judges because now there is a documentary evidence, there is a photograph of somebody jumping a traffic light and there is nothing to be done in the trial, there is a fixed penalty you paid. Then there come the complex disputes like shareholder disputes, like murder trials where the life and liberty of a person or financial significant financial issues may be at a state, whether AI can go at that domain also and in both the second and third domain, whether the human intervention shall be required.
So, it may happen that in traffic violation cases, AI writes the judgment or AI passes the order, but on a random sampling basis, the judge checks them random, this is like chartered accountants do audit. But when it is a higher dispute or a life and liberty matter, the AI can be used to write a judgment, but at the same time all the judgments and every judgment must necessarily be approved by two or three judges. So, their time of writing a judgment and assimilating the precedent is reduced but is still checking review. So, I don’t know where it will stop, where will it go? But ultimately it’s not on that. The debate of AI is not about eliminating the job of zero to three years. AI, artificial intelligence will grow more intelligent. It’ll go up from three years to senior associates, to councils, to partners, to judges. And whether it’s… That is what I’m curious about Lindsay.
Lindsay: It’s a really interesting question because it starts to… You’re right because the areas that it, as you say, it gets more complex because as you are discussing the complexity of it, I’m thinking about murder trials in particular because I have a secondary interest in true crime. And so, you can talk about the trial and inputting all of the evidence into AI and then letting it decide. But what you’re talking about when you talk about evidence, a lot of that evidence is fallible because the evidence itself is gathered by people and often it’s not accurate because I mean in the US, one in nine capital murder cases is overturned because the evidence itself is fallible. Not even so much the judgment.
And those statistics are terrible because when you think about putting someone to death, just to be transparent, I don’t believe in capital murder for those reasons. And so, if you think about what you would put into an AI, if you are dealing with people putting it into a computer, the computer itself isn’t gathering the evidence. So right there you’re already dealing with fallibility and so the judgment itself would be flawed because you’re dealing with flawed humans putting in evidence that is gathered by people who might have flawed motives and all of those things. So, I think that’s really an interesting case.
As you say, things like maybe traffic tickets where you have something that’s a little more clear cut because you have computers that are gathering the evidence and then computers that are dealing with the evidence is a little different. But as you get to more complex issues, same thing with boardroom discussions where how do you know that the AI is getting all of the relevant information? You don’t. And then the judgment that they’re deciding on, they may not have all of the information to make the correct judgment.
Alishan: Correct. And also, Lindsay, the trial, as you said, trial. It’s very interesting and I’m happy you said it because it’s not about the facts and the judgment. There is a lot which goes in the court in between, there is a cross-examination. Cross-examination is of a witness by a lawyer, both sides. And cross-examination plays a very important part in ultimate decision-making by the judge. So, part of the process, which means that part of the process will be AI, part of the process won’t be, and part of the process will lack in AI. That’s not possible. Now when I discuss it with some of the colleagues, lawyers, they say, “No, that’s never going to happen.” I said, “It’s very good to assume that that’s never going to happen.” When I started my law, studied. And before that I did graduation decades back, I’m an old man. There was no mobile phone.
I used to write a letter to my mother because I came to a different town and it used to reach her in seven days, six to seven days. Then we had phones available in India and it wasn’t in every home. So, we used to book a call and we used to wait. At that time, if somebody would’ve told me that you would have a device on which you will just type a letter and it’ll be delivered like a telegram or an instant message, I would’ve not believed it. So today, if somebody tells me that this is never going to happen, they are just ignoring the truth. If technology can process from a handwritten letter to instant messaging across the world and I and you talking to each other in different time zones on a real time basis when I talk to you, I’m actually talking to future or talking to the past. You are talking to the future because I’m adding to you in time.
Lindsay: That’s right. That’s right.
Alishan: See, we are talking at the same time, but in different… So, this is the marvel of technology. This is the reality. So today saying that AI will not go up to that level is I think ignoring what has to happen. If we have to think of a problem, we have to think now rather than having a problem and then trying to correct it. As I said, there is no body today governing the role of AI into the legal industry. And there are a lot of companies who are centered around infusing AI into legal practice.
A lot of law firms for profitability reasons are also adopting it to some extent. Where will you stop and who will you stop it? Because I have the sole decision over the profitability and revenue abilities and the discharge of work of my client, I don’t need to take anybody’s permission if I want to take a software for contract management, which has a little bit of AI. So, these are the questions. So, you asked, what am I curious about? My curiosity these days is centered around this. I ask myself questions, I give myself answers. Some of the answers don’t answer the questions. Some of the questions are never answered. I’m just going in these circles.
Lindsay: And now you’ve given me a lot to think about, which is always a good thing, I think. But yes, it’s important to think about these things because as you said, things are going to change and where do we stop? So, AI does lack nuance. So, it’s important to begin to think about these things and where we’re going with it before we get to the point where we can’t stop it.
Lindsay: Yes. Yes. Okay, so let’s switch gears a little bit. Now that we’re afraid of our robot overlords, tell us something interesting about yourself that most people don’t know.
Alishan: A lot actually. I read somewhere a phrase on the funny side. They say, I may be an open book, but a few pages are missing.
Lindsay: I like that.
Alishan: So no, not really. That was joking. I’m fairly transparent, but something that people will not know that I had this passion of going into armed forces all the time and during my law or graduation before that in India, this recruitment process takes, it used to take two, three years because it was an elite exam. So, I have served in Indian Armed Forces, which is in the Ministry of Home Affairs. It is paramilitary force for a small-time as a commissioned officer.
Lindsay: I did not know that.
Alishan: It was very short extent. I resigned and came back after six to seven months after enrollment because there was some constraints for which I had to come back and then rejoined the legal practice in the same firm from where I had left. Before going, I had asked my head of the firm at that time whether I should go or not go. It was the first year of my legal career. So that person said that “You are just starting to be a lawyer, and there you will be a commissioned officer appointed by the president of India in the Indian Armed Forces, it’s extremely prestigious. If I was at your place, I would’ve gone. But the additional comfort that I can give to you is that you can come back any day you want.” That made my decision so easy. And I think today if I would’ve gone, I would’ve perhaps lived in regret at some extent that what if I would’ve lived that life?
Now I know I went there because of some reasons at my family, I could not pursue it any further, so I had to come back. But there’s a great satisfaction, but this part of my life, people don’t know. Other than that, I love spending time, I love monuments. I love seeing ancient historic sites and monuments and we started… I’m based in Delhi. Delhi is a city which is full of monuments. Even if I see a monument every week, I can’t complete all the monuments in my lifetime. There are so many of them spread across India, across Delhi. So, when my daughter is free, the Sundays or Saturday she’s free, visually go in the morning we visit one monument, we identify a monument, read about the history, go there, walk around, and then we have lunch together and come back. That is the sweetest time that I have during the week.
Unfortunately, with my daughter growing up, she’s not allowed to have that time every week because she has her projects and assignments. But whenever I do that, I just love it. And during winters, because winters in our part of the world are more pleasant than the summers. So, during winters of course we try and do it more frequently.
Lindsay: I love that. That’s so great. What a cool thing to do.
Lindsay: That’s so cool. What would you say is the most important lesson that you’ve learned over your career?
Alishan: Well I have learned not only one, but several lessons. So, what is that? A client can always leave you, but a friend can never leave you. So, what I have thought over a period of time and what we have started doing is a form also. And it’s automatically because if you watch out for the client, the clients become your friends. Some of our longest lasting clients are who weren’t our friends before they became clients. They came on an arm’s length basis and over a period of time when we delivered them legal services in both litigation and corporate area, they slowly started becoming friends and they are continuing with us. So, for the clients and also lawyer, our profession is a profession of comfort and trust. It’s not only a profession of legal acumen, but also understanding the need of the client. It’s also delivering, but at the same time, there is also personal touch.
So, my first lesson is, which I tell everyone in my firm and others have told me also, that a client will leave you, Frank cannot leave you. Second thing that I’ve learned is I have the right to decide the fee for my professional services. Now in India, what has happened is that we are a big country, a lot of lawyers, a lot of law firms are also assuming now, and that has always been the case. But with now global aspirations and all, of course today’s generation more enterprising, more financially secure from home. So, a lot of law firms are coming up and sometimes we do face this situation where the fee comparisons happen. The clients also get three fee codes. I mean, that’s fairly standard across the world that you get two or three fee codes. So again, to understand that I am the sole deciding factor of what my fee would be, and a client may remain with us or come to us at that fee or may not come to us that fee, but we have to stick to whatever fee is.
Now, on the funny side, I’ve also learned that clients who pay you the least give you the maximum amount of sorrow. I was just joking, but somewhere that’s true. From the Indian landscape, Lindsay, I’ve also understood, because I started this firm and I have had friends who went to some of the bigger law firms, went to the competition law practice group or went to the intellectual law practice group, went to the stock markets group and do listing. Now I put a startup firm after six to seven years of practice, five to six years of practice because I practice in all the areas of law. Now, when a client becomes your friend and their client has business across India, he will have requirement in tax, he may have an employment law, he may have in litigation on different funds recovery to insolvency anything, bank loans, shareholder disputes.
So, if you are only specialized in a particular area, you may be called a specialist. But in India, to be able to start your own practice, a journalist law firm set up, a journalist with a very good and grounded understanding of law and landscape in India, practicalities of the Indian landscape is better as compared to only a specialist. Now with these specialists, when they have a aspiration of setting up their own farm, they end up setting up a law firm, which specifically in competition law, now their scope, their fishing net is not cast very wide.
Alishan: They can only catch some of the competition law clients because competition law clients will also have issues and will also have preferences of not going to a freshly startup law firm, they would want to go with established name. It becomes much more difficult. I often tell lawyers because the profession of law gives you this unique advantage of working in-house, working with law firms as also being able to set up your own practice and which is a very important ingredient of practice of law. You can be independent.
So, I tell mostly the lawyers who are willing to listen to me, not all of them also want to get lessons from seniors, but those who are willing to listen to me, I say never say no to work. If you get an apportion to go to the court, go there. Your experience never goes to waste. Just don’t have this idea that I am in this practice group, so I’ll do only this work. You are limiting your potential. You are doing no harm to the firm. The firm nevertheless will pay for your work and get paid. But for you to grow in practice and be proud of the work that you have done after 20 years of practice, you need to take every opportunity of working in different areas of law as you can get. That is the last one of the few lessons that I’ve learned in my life.
Lindsay: Those are good lessons. Those are really good lessons. So, to wrap up, I always love to ask this question, and that is outside of practicing law, what is one thing that you’re really enjoying right now?
Alishan: What I’m really enjoying right now?
Alishan: I’m enjoying being in India. I’m really enjoying being in India, and because my work requires me to travel around the world, but seeing the firm group, seeing the practice stabilize, seeing the practice, seeing the… Now we have some name in India, so seeing the clients approach you on their own without your pitching for work, somebody calling you from some reference, which gives a sense of satisfaction that you have really worked. Sometimes the news comes that you have won a particular award or some of my partners have won a particular award because of independent work market research. That’s a joy. When you submit a nomination, of course you win. That’s also a pride, but the pure joy is when you haven’t even applied for and you have won an award because of word of mouth. The clients who are coming from good entities, invested by companies from US, Japan, Korea, and they say that we have been recommended your name and we want to come and talk to you, and we want to collaborate with you, that gives a pleasure and a deep sense of satisfaction.
Lindsay: Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, this has really been wonderful. Thank you so much for joining us, and I really appreciate it. Thank you so much to all of our listeners as well. We’ll be back next week with another guest. And in the meantime, please take a moment to rate, review, and subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you so much.
Alishan: Thanks a lot, Lindsay. Thank you. Goodbye.