This is why we like representing Founders and Investee Companies...

Around six years ago when I started my independent law practice and set up Hreem Legal, there wasn't much choice and there weren't many options for us to pick and choose clients and work. We took up various kinds of assignments that came our way, that we were capable of handling, without bothering much about nature or type of clientele. Call it destiny or good karma, in reasonably short span of time, we struck chords with founders of several early stage ventures. We take immense proud in saying that ALL the relationships we forged then, have continued till date without any hiccups and we have literally lived through various phases of our clients' business... right from incorporation to seed funding to Series [X] to Series [Y] to Series [Z] to exits.

Once the wheel started rolling and we were able to take stock of our practice, we realised that among various kinds of client mandates, we took up for investment/ fund raise related transactions, the ones we really enjoyed were the ones where we were representing the founder(s) and the investee company. Not that, we give investor lead mandates less preference (in fact, most of our investor lead mandates have originated from earlier transactions where we have negotiated against such investors), its just that we do like to walk that extra mile when it comes to representing a founder(s) investee company.

Why do we love representing founders/ investee company? Primarily for the following reasons:

• From a founder's perspective, every transaction is different, if not unique. While there is certain level of standardisation in terms of transaction structure and transaction documentation while representing an investor client (every investor follows a certain pre-agreed pattern of investment), that usually is not the case for investee company clients who deal with different investors in multiple investment rounds.
• Negotiating a transaction on behalf of investee company/ founders gives that kick and rush to the brain. While representing and negotiating on behalf of an investor there are two distinct advantages - (i) superior bargaining power; and (ii) defence of "standard". It's exactly the opposite in case whenever we represent the investee company. The convenience of pushing a provision, clause or a right as 'standard' is just not available and each contest or challenge has to be backed by a logical and legal argument. The luxury of passing of something as 'standard' is just not there.
• Learning experience is the biggest takeaway, when representing founder(s) and investee companies. When representing a founder, in order to defend her/his cause, it is imperative to understand the business and founder's perspective. The real knowledge that one gains during the process can't be compared to knowledge gained from academic reading.
• Satisfaction of getting something done. In most cases, the transaction in question, is a make or break deal for the investee company and the founder(s) and closure is critical. In such situation, getting the deal/ transaction executed and closed feels nothing short of an achievement.
• The cheery on the top lies in the relationships that Hreem Legal as a firm, and I, as a person, have built with our clients and their teams. Knowing persons by their name, and not by designation, matters a lot and makes a lot a difference.

There may be several other reasons that I am yet to figure out myself, that may be attributed to our inclination, and I hope to keep adding them to this list.