In Conversation with Poorvi Gyanchandani

Poorvi Gyanchandani’s journey from law school to global financial services has been shaped by her interest in the intersection of law, finance, contracts, and regulatory compliance. A B.B.A. LL.B. graduate from Karnataka State Law University, she built her early foundation through experiences in legal research, contract drafting, case analysis, and corporate documentation.

Her professional journey at Goldman Sachs saw her work across legal, financial, and analytical functions. As a Legal Specialist, Financial Analyst, and later Senior Analyst, she worked on ISDA agreements, OTC derivatives, futures, Share Purchase Agreements, M&A and novation agreements, while focusing on regulatory compliance, contract review, risk mitigation, and operational efficiency. She also collaborated with cross-functional teams and contributed to automating drafting processes.

With earlier exposure to legal practice through organisations including Neeraj Associates, LexAnalytico Consulting, Rally Mark Legal, and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Poorvi brings a distinctive perspective to the evolving role of lawyers in the corporate world. Her journey reflects adaptability, continuous learning, and the ability to combine legal expertise with financial and commercial understanding.

Your journey has taken you from law school to two leading global financial institutions. What first sparked your interest in corporate law, and how did that shape your career choices?

My path to corporate law wasn't a lightning-bolt moment — it was more of a gradual convergence. Pursuing a BBA LLB gave me a dual lens from the very beginning: I was learning contract law in one classroom and corporate finance in another, and I kept noticing how deeply the two were intertwined. Business decisions don't happen in a vacuum — they carry legal weight, regulatory consequence, and risk that someone has to understand and manage. That intersection fascinated me. By the time I was in my final years at Karnataka State Law University, I knew I didn't want to litigate. I wanted to be inside the engine room of commercial activity, not outside it. That naturally pointed me toward corporate law, and from there, toward financial services — which is arguably the most complex, fast-moving commercial environment a lawyer can work in.

Looking back at your law school years, were there any experiences, internships, or mentors that significantly influenced your professional journey?

The BBA LLB structure itself was formative. The business curriculum gave me commercial instincts that pure law graduates sometimes have to develop later in their careers on the job. Understanding how a balance sheet works, what drives corporate decision-making, and how markets function — that background made me a more useful lawyer from day one. I would encourage any law student to take every business, finance, or economics elective available to them. That fluency pays dividends for the rest of your career. I would like to also give a shout to to one of the best mentors i got in college and this mentor changed my life and way to approach over corporate nuances, here i mention my most favourite Prof. Ms Jharna Jagitani who shaped me to the professional I have turned into today.

How did you prepare yourself to secure an opportunity with Goldman Sachs, and what advice would you give to students aspiring to work in similar organizations?

THE GOLDEN RULE : MAKE LINKEDIN YOUR BEST FRIEND.

Goldman Sachs doesn't hire legal professionals who are just technically competent — they hire people who can think commercially under pressure. My preparation was deliberate on two fronts. First, I made sure my legal foundations were strong — contracts, securities law, regulatory frameworks. But equally, I invested time in understanding the business: how global investment banks operate, what drives their legal risk, and how in-house legal teams function differently from law firms.

My advice to students: don't wait until you are applying to start that education. Read financial news consistently. Understand what an ISDA Master Agreement is before your interview. Know the difference between a legal risk and a commercial risk, and know when to flag one without killing the other. And build your communication skills — the ability to distill complex legal analysis into a clear, actionable two-sentence summary is rarer than most people think, and it's exactly what these organisations need.

The transition from law school to the corporate world can be challenging. What surprised you the most during your first few months in the corporate legal environment?

THE PACE - In law school, you have the luxury of reading a case entirely, considering every angle, and constructing a thorough argument. In a corporate legal environment — particularly at a global financial institution — the world doesn't wait for a perfect memo. Business teams need answers quickly, and those answers need to be right and usable. The shift from "here is a comprehensive analysis" to "here is what you need to know and here is what I recommend" is significant, and it takes deliberate practice.

The other thing that surprised me was how much relationship management matters. Legal advice is only as effective as your ability to get business teams to actually act on it. That requires trust, credibility, and the ability to communicate in their language — not always in legal terms.

What are some common misconceptions law students have about working in the legal teams of multinational corporations?

The biggest one is that working in MNCs is somehow "easier" or less rigorous than law firm work because you're not billing hours or managing large client files. In reality, MNCs legal teams at global financial institutions carry enormous responsibility — often with leaner teams and broader mandates than a law firm. You may be the only lawyer a business team speaks to, which means your advice shapes real decisions in real time.

Another misconception is that corporate lawyers just review contracts. In financial services, your work spans regulatory compliance, transactional advisory, product structuring, dispute management, and increasingly, technology and data governance. The scope is wide, and the expectation is that you'll develop depth across multiple areas while staying commercially sharp.

Having worked at Goldman Sachs and now Société Générale, what differences have you observed in the expectations from legal professionals at global organizations?

Both institutions operate at the highest levels of global finance, but they bring distinct cultures to how they deploy their legal teams. Goldman Sachs has a particular emphasis on precision and commercial alignment — legal professionals are expected to be deeply integrated with the business and to have a strong point of view, not just a legal opinion. There's an expectation that you speak the language of the deal.

Société Générale, as a French institution with a strong European regulatory heritage, brings a different dimension — one that's equally rigorous but perhaps more process-oriented, with a deep awareness of cross-border regulatory complexity, particularly across EU frameworks. Working across both has broadened how I think about legal risk — I've had to adapt my approach to different ways to negotiate striking a balance between client’s ask and organizations standards.

Your work involves balancing legal precision with commercial objectives. How do you ensure that legal advice supports business growth while maintaining compliance?

The key is understanding that legal and commercial objectives are rarely as opposed as they seem. When a business team pushes back on a legal concern, it's usually not because they don't care about compliance — it's because they don't yet see a workable path forward.

My job is to find that path. That means understanding what the business is actually trying to achieve, identifying where the genuine legal risk lies, and offering structured options rather than a flat "no." In derivatives and financial markets, this is particularly nuanced. You are often working with complex instruments, multi-jurisdictional counterparties, and regulatory frameworks like ISDA that have significant commercial implications. The lawyer who understands the trade economics — not just the documentation — adds far more value than one who treats every transaction as purely a compliance exercise.

Can you walk us through a typical day in the life of a corporate legal professional working in the banking and financial services sector?

No two days look exactly the same, which is one of the things I value about this work. But there are consistent rhythms. The morning often begins with reviewing any overnight regulatory developments or market-sensitive news that could affect our activities — in global financial services, something is always moving somewhere in the world.

From there, it's a mix of transactional work — reviewing or negotiating ISDA documentation, Master Confirmation Agreements, or other trade agreements — alongside advisory work where business teams seek input on new products, structures, or client situations. There are internal meetings with risk, compliance, and front-office teams, and increasingly, conversations about how new regulations or market developments should shape our approach. Afternoons often bring the more detailed drafting and analysis work. And at any point, something urgent can come in that reshapes the rest of the day. That adaptability is essential.

Which areas of law should students focus on if they aspire to build a career in the financial services industry?

Contract law is non-negotiable — everything in financial services ultimately rests on contractual frameworks. Beyond that, securities law and capital markets regulation give you the regulatory architecture you need. Corporate law, banking regulation, and an understanding of cross-border legal frameworks are all valuable.

But I would add something that isn't strictly a "subject" — develop genuine financial literacy. Understand how derivatives work, what a swap or an option is, how clearing and margining function. You don't need to be a trader, but you need to understand what your clients are doing well enough to advise them meaningfully. That combination of legal knowledge and financial fluency is what separates good financial services lawyers from exceptional ones.

Beyond legal knowledge, what technical and professional skills have been most valuable in your career?

Commercial Awareness — the ability to read a situation not just legally but through the lens of what the business is trying to accomplish and what the market context is. That takes deliberate cultivation, but it transforms the quality of your advice.

Precision in communication. In financial services, imprecision has consequences. Whether you're drafting a clause or sending a two-line email to a business head, every word carries weight. I have invested significantly in being clear and concise under pressure.

And stakeholder management — building credibility with people across functions, seniority levels, and geographies. Legal advice lands very differently depending on the trust and relationship you've built with the person receiving it.

How important are communication, stakeholder management, and commercial awareness for corporate lawyers?

Foundational. I would go so far as to say that technical legal knowledge gets you in the room, but these skills determine how effective you actually are once you are there.

A brilliant legal analysis that can't be understood by a non-lawyer is, for practical purposes, not very useful. A lawyer who can't build trust with business stakeholders will always be working around friction rather than with the grain of the organisation. And a lawyer who lacks commercial awareness will flag risks without seeing solutions — which eventually means business teams stop consulting legal until they have a problem, rather than before one develops. The most impactful corporate lawyers are those who are genuinely embedded in the business, not viewed as gatekeepers.

Technology and AI are transforming the legal profession. How do you see these developments changing the role of in-house legal teams?

The administrative and volume-intensive aspects of legal work — contract review, document comparison, regulatory horizon scanning — are already being meaningfully assisted by technology. That's a genuine efficiency gain, and in-house teams that embrace it thoughtfully are getting more done with the same resource.

But I think the more interesting question is what this frees lawyers for. When routine tasks are automated, the expectation shifts toward higher-order judgment: strategic advice, nuanced risk assessment, stakeholder navigation, and cross-functional decision-making. In financial services specifically, where regulatory complexity is only increasing, the demand for lawyers who can think across legal, commercial, and regulatory dimensions will grow — not shrink. AI will change how we work. It won't change the need for sound legal judgment.

Every career comes with challenges. Could you share a professional challenge that significantly contributed to your growth and what you learned from it? 

The most formative challenges in my career have come from situations where the right answer wasn't clear, the timeline was tight, and multiple stakeholders had competing priorities. Those moments forced me to develop a framework for making decisions under uncertainty — which is, ultimately, what senior legal professionals are paid to do. The lesson I keep returning to is that clarity of reasoning matters more than certainty of outcome. You can't always be right. You can always be rigorous.

If you could go back and give advice to yourself as a first-year legal professional, what would it be?

Speak up earlier. In the early years, there's a natural tendency to defer — to assume that because you're the most junior person in the room, your observations carry less weight. They don't. Fresh perspective has genuine value, and the instinct to stay quiet until you're certain costs you more than the occasional imperfect contribution ever would.

I would also tell myself to invest in relationships as consciously as I invest in technical skills. Your network inside and outside your organisation is a professional asset that compounds quietly over years, and it matters enormously when you're navigating complex situations or thinking about your next move.

How do you stay updated with rapidly evolving regulations and legal developments in the financial sector?

It requires a genuine system, not just good intentions. I follow key regulatory bodies and their publications — SEBI, RBI in the Indian context, alongside ESMA and global bodies relevant to our work. Industry associations and ISDA publications are essential reading in the derivatives space specifically.

Beyond formal sources, peer networks are invaluable. Conversations with counterparts at other institutions, legal industry forums, and internal knowledge-sharing within the firm all contribute to staying current. The volume of regulatory change in financial services is significant enough that no single source covers everything — you need breadth of input and the judgment to know which developments actually require action.

When reviewing applications or interacting with young professionals, what qualities immediately stand out to you?

Intellectual Curiosity — genuine enthusiasm for the subject matter, not just the credential. I can tell very quickly whether someone has actually thought about why financial services law interests them or whether they're pattern-matching to prestigious organisations.

Commercial awareness signals strongly too. A candidate who can connect a legal concept to its business implications — without being prompted — stands out. And intellectual honesty: the ability to say "I don't know, but here's how I'd find out" is far more impressive than a confident answer that's wrong.

What are the biggest mistakes you see law students making while preparing for corporate legal careers?

Focusing exclusively on academic performance at the expense of practical exposure. Grades matter, but they are not sufficient. Internships, moats, client-facing experience — these develop the instincts and communication skills that the classroom doesn't.

Underestimating commercial literacy. Many law students arrive knowing their black-letter law but having little understanding of how a bank or a corporation actually operates. In a field like financial services, that gap shows — and it's entirely avoidable.

And writing generic applications. Global institutions receive significant volumes of applications. The ones that stand out are specific: specific about why this organisation, why this team, why this area of law, and what the applicant brings that's distinctive.

If a student wants to build a profile for global organizations like Goldman Sachs or Société Générale, what should they start doing during law school?

Start building financial literacy now — read the Financial Times, understand basic market instruments, follow regulatory developments in your jurisdiction and globally. This is free and available to everyone; the gap between students who do it and those who don't is significant.

Intern strategically. Aim for experience that gives you exposure to transactional or regulatory work in financial services — even adjacent experience at a law firm with a strong banking and finance practice is valuable groundwork.

Develop your drafting and communication skills relentlessly. Write concisely. Practise distilling complex analysis into clear recommendations. These institutions operate at pace, and the ability to communicate crisply under pressure is consistently underrated by students and consistently prioritised by hiring managers.

How do you see the future of corporate legal practice evolving over the next five to ten years, especially in banking and financial services?

Three shifts stand out to me. First, regulatory complexity will continue to increase — across jurisdictions, across asset classes, and increasingly across the intersection of financial services and technology. Lawyers who can navigate multi-regulatory environments will be in growing demand.

Second, the boundary between legal, compliance, risk, and technology functions will continue to blur. In-house legal teams will need to be genuinely cross-functional — not just legally expert but conversant in data governance, cybersecurity risk, and AI policy in ways that were optional five years ago and are becoming essential.

Third, the expectation of lawyers as strategic advisors — not just technical experts — will deepen. Boards and senior leadership are increasingly looking to their legal teams for commercial insight, not just risk management. That's an opportunity for lawyers who have invested in breadth alongside depth.

Finally, what message would you like to share with aspiring lawyers who dream of building successful careers in the corporate legal sector?

The legal profession rewards patience and persistence in equal measure. The skills that make you exceptional — sound judgment, commercial instinct, the ability to communicate clearly under pressure — take years to develop, and that's not a flaw in the system. It's the point.

Don't optimize only for the prestigious name on your CV. Optimise for learning. Choose environments where you will be stretched, where you'll have access to complex work early, and where you'll be surrounded by people who raise your standard.

And stay curious about the world beyond law. The best corporate lawyers I've encountered are people who understand business, markets, and human behaviour — not just doctrine. That breadth is what allows legal advice to truly serve the organisations and people it's meant to protect.