Beyond Borders and Heritage: Redefining a Legal Career in Key Asian Legal Markets

In an increasingly interconnected legal world, few careers embody the power of cultural adaptability quite like that of Jayesh Chatlani. Born in Taiwan, raised in Hong Kong within the Sindhi diaspora, and educated in a German-influenced international school, Jayesh’s professional journey reflects the very essence of what Hugill & Ip’s “Bridges to Empowerment” initiative seeks to illuminate: how ethnic minority lawyers navigate, contribute to, and ultimately enrich Asia’s legal landscape.

Now a partner in offshore litigation at Harneys‘ Singapore office, Jayesh’s path from shipping lawyer to offshore disputes specialist offers compelling insights into the intersection of cultural identity and professional excellence. His story is not merely one of personal achievement, but a testament to how diverse perspectives strengthen cross-border legal practice in ways that purely technical expertise cannot.

Jayesh speaks with refreshing openness about navigating multiple cultural identities, the distinct rhythms of Hong Kong and Singapore’s legal markets, and the quiet but continuous process of “translation” that many ethnic minority lawyers undertake — moving between cultural frameworks while remaining authentic. His observations on language, integration, mentorship, and the evolving nature of diversity within Asia’s legal profession offer valuable perspectives for both aspiring lawyers and established practitioners.

What emerges is a portrait of modern legal practice as inherently regional, shaped as much by adaptability and cultural intelligence as by jurisdictional expertise — and a compelling argument that diversity, when genuinely embraced, transforms from challenge into competitive advantage.

Q1. Can you share some insights about your upbringing and how it shaped your identity as a lawyer working in Hong Kong?

Absolutely. I have a fairly esoteric background, whichever way you look at it. I was born in Taiwan, grew up in Hong Kong, and attended an international school with a strong German influence. If that was not cross-cultural enough, I am ethnically Indian and part of the Sindhi diaspora.

As a result, my upbringing required me from an early age to make sense of different cultures, find common ground, and embrace the similarities and synergies between them. That multi-polar influence shaped both my worldview and my professional instincts. I learned early on the importance of discipline, education, and resilience — values deeply rooted in both Hong Kong and Indian cultures — while also absorbing the freedom of thought, expression, and individualism fostered by an international school environment.

As a lawyer, this combination has been invaluable. It allows me to approach disputes not only from a technical legal standpoint, but also with sensitivity to cultural nuance, client expectations, and cross-border realities. In many ways, my upbringing naturally prepared me for an international offshore practice.

Q2. What motivated you in your career in Hong Kong, and how did you find the transition to the dynamic city of Singapore?

It felt like an obvious choice to remain in Hong Kong in many ways. I grew up there, and I have always been inspired by the pace and hum of the city. As a student, and later as a young professional, it truly felt central to everything – a place where business happened and deals were done.

Hong Kong is also uniquely balanced. You can go from pressing “send” on your final email of the day to sipping cocktails by the waterfront, and by the weekend be hiking some of the most beautiful mountains anywhere in the world. While other cities had their attractions, there was (and remains) something unmistakably special about Hong Kong. It is a place where commerce moves quickly, disputes are often complex, and young lawyers receive meaningful exposure early in their careers. That environment sharpened both my technical instincts and my commercial judgment, and it taught me to see law not just as doctrine, but as something operating in real time within global markets.

Moving to Singapore was equally exciting. It is a vibrant, confident city that very much marches to its own rhythm. In truth, the transition felt less like a departure and more like a continuation of a journey. Many of the same strengths are present – rule of law, international connectivity, and a deeply sophisticated professional community – but the cadence is slightly different. Singapore is deliberate, structured, and quietly forward-looking, with a strong sense of long-term institutional vision. I have found the city deeply welcoming. It has been easy to build friendships, develop a network, and settle in. Professionally, the work is as dynamic as ever. As a hub for ASEAN economies, Singapore offers exceptional exposure to pan-regional clients and cross-border matters. More personally, the move reinforced my sense that modern legal careers are increasingly regional in character, shaped as much by movement and adaptation as by any single jurisdiction.

Q3. Could you describe your career path that led you to become an offshore lawyer? What challenges did you encounter along the way?

It has been an interesting journey, and certainly not an entirely typical one. I began my legal career as a shipping lawyer at one of the world’s largest shipping law firms, where my work spanned both contentious and non-contentious matters. A typical day might involve reviewing a ship finance facility, mortgage, registration, and security documentation in the morning, before turning to laytime and demurrage disputes or scrutinising riders to a charterparty in the afternoon. On occasion, the role extended beyond the office such as to arresting ships or attending shipyards to confirm physical closing deliverables.  While the exposure was exceptional, and I had the privilege of working alongside outstanding legal minds, I realised I did not want to spend an entire career confined to a single category of disputes, nor continue indefinitely wearing both contentious and non-contentious hats. I was increasingly drawn to pure dispute resolution. Around 2012, an opportunity arose to join Harneys as an offshore lawyer. It was an exciting proposition, and I quickly recognised that my grounding in shipping law – particularly its cross-border and dispute-heavy nature – was directly transferable to offshore practice.

Both fields are inherently multi-jurisdictional and often sit at the forefront of developing jurisprudence. What particularly appealed to me was the intellectual side of cross-border litigation: the way different legal systems intersect, overlap, and occasionally collide within a single dispute, often requiring genuinely creative solutions. Offshore practice demands more than technical mastery of individual jurisdictions; it requires an understanding of how legal systems interact, how strategy travels across borders, and how commercial realities ultimately shape outcomes. Learning to navigate those relationships became one of the defining early challenges of my career.

There were, of course, further challenges — mastering the laws and procedures of multiple offshore jurisdictions, building a practice, and helping the market understand how offshore litigation strategy can operate in close alignment with onshore proceedings to achieve the best possible result for clients. When I moved into offshore law in 2012, it was a far less travelled path, and the decision was often met with curiosity, if not scepticism. Nearly fifteen years on, however, I can say with confidence that it was not only the best decision for my career, but also essential in keeping my passion for the law very much alive.

There was also a quieter, more personal dimension to that transition, familiar to many lawyers from culturally mixed backgrounds: learning to move between professional environments while remaining authentic. Over time, that process of adaptation became a strength rather than a tension, shaping a practice grounded in flexibility, perspective, and international awareness.

Q4. How would you compare the legal work culture in Hong Kong with that in Singapore and India? What unique aspects have you observed?

Each jurisdiction has its own rhythm and nuances. Hong Kong’s legal environment is intensely commercial and fast-paced, reflecting its role as a global financial centre where transactions move quickly and disputes often carry significant cross-border implications. Decisions to commence proceedings or embark on contentious action are frequently made at speed, and sometimes with a degree of urgency that is distinctive to the city’s commercial temperament. Lawyers are expected to combine rigorous technical ability with strong commercial instinct, and junior practitioners are often entrusted with meaningful responsibility early in their careers. That pace creates a sharpness and immediacy to practice that is quite unique.

Singapore is equally sophisticated, but its temperament feels more deliberate and structured. There is a pronounced emphasis on long-term planning, institutional stability, and systemic efficiency, which subtly shapes both litigation strategy and professional culture. The result is a legal environment that is highly organised, quietly confident, and deeply integrated with the broader ASEAN region. I have also come to value the collaborative and forward-thinking mindset of many legal and professional counterparts in Singapore, where there is a clear sense of camaraderie and shared purpose in advancing clients’ interests.

While I have not practised in India, I work closely with many lawyers from the jurisdiction. My experience is that India possesses an extraordinary depth of advocacy tradition and legal talent, often within a more relationship-driven and courtroom-centred dynamic. Much of the jurisprudence emerging from Indian courts is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and influential, shaping common-law development across multiple jurisdictions, including in the offshore sphere.

Exposure to all three environments has been quietly formative. Although their styles and tempos differ, they are ultimately united by a shared purpose: resolving conflict, enabling commerce, and sustaining trust across increasingly interconnected markets.

Q5. How has your connection with the Indian community in Hong Kong influenced your personal and professional life?

The Indian and Sindhi communities in Hong Kong are exceptionally close-knit. There are relatively few of us with Indian heritage, so it is only natural that relationships are strong and enduring. Despite their size, Indians have had an outsized historical impact on Hong Kong, with many familiar names and institutions carrying an Indian connection, from the Ruttonjee family to the Star Ferry. The community offers a powerful sense of continuity across generations, providing a space where heritage, language, and shared history remain visible within an otherwise global environment.

Many Indians in Hong Kong, particularly from earlier generations, have been entrepreneurs and business builders. It has therefore been a privilege to grow up close to that entrepreneurial spirit and to witness so many families living a version of the “Hong Kong dream.” That connection has reinforced identity and belonging while living and working across jurisdictions, and it has shaped values such as resilience, enterprise, and the central importance of family and community – qualities deeply embedded in the broader Indian diaspora.

Professionally, the network has been equally meaningful. The Indian business and professional community in Hong Kong is remarkably interconnected, spanning law, finance, trade, and industry. These relationships foster trust, mentorship, and collaboration, often across borders and generations. Just as importantly, they create opportunities to contribute in return—whether by guiding younger lawyers, participating in community initiatives, or sustaining the informal support systems that make international careers possible.

I am also a proud member of the South Asian Lawyers Group in Hong Kong, founded by two inspiring lawyers of Indian origin, Kajal Aswani and Kapil Kirpalani, both close friends. The group represents a meaningful way to pay forward the kindness, support, and sense of belonging that many of us have experienced along our own journeys.

Q6. In your experience, how do firms in Hong Kong and Singapore approach diversity and inclusion, particularly for lawyers from different cultural backgrounds?

Both cities are inherently international legal markets, where diversity is less an aspiration than a practical reality. Clients operate across jurisdictions, cultures, and languages, and they expect their advisers to reflect that complexity. Law firms and professional organisations in both Hong Kong and Singapore have, in many respects, responded to that expectation.

Meaningful inclusion, however, extends beyond representation. It is reflected in mentorship, opportunity, and genuine pathways to leadership. Singapore is notably forward-looking in this regard, with racial harmony embedded as part of its national ethos – an approach that naturally influences companies, institutions, and law firms. The visibility of different ethnic communities across government and the judiciary reinforces the sense that inclusion is structural rather than symbolic.

Hong Kong likewise counts men and women of varied ethnic backgrounds among its senior judiciary and professional leadership. This reflects a broader recognition that the legal system is strengthened by the nuanced perspectives that diverse cultural experiences bring. Across both jurisdictions, the trajectory is clear: diversity is increasingly understood not only as a social good, but as a professional and institutional strength.

Q7. As someone of Indian origin working in a predominantly Chinese environment, how do ethnic minorities balance cultural heritage and language skills with professional identity?

This can be a complex subject, particularly because language and culture are often so closely intertwined. In some instances, what appears to be tension or misunderstanding around culture or race is, in reality, more closely connected to questions of language and integration. Balance therefore begins with recognising that cultural heritage is not something to be set aside in professional life, but something that can meaningfully deepen it. Perspective, empathy, and adaptability – qualities often shaped by multicultural experience – are invaluable in cross-border legal practice, where understanding context can be just as important as understanding the law itself.

At the same time, integration is essential. Developing sensitivity to local language, business etiquette, and professional norms is fundamental to building trust and credibility within any jurisdiction. For many ethnic minority lawyers, this involves a quiet but continuous process of translation — moving between cultural frameworks while remaining authentic in both. Even acquiring a working familiarity with local language, rather than full fluency, can represent an important and welcome step in a profession as inherently people-focused as the law. In Hong Kong, for example, government-supported language upskilling initiatives reflect recognition of this need, although continued progress will inevitably depend on individual initiative as well.

In practice, the most sustainable path is not choosing between heritage and professional identity, but allowing the two to coexist and reinforce one another. When that balance is achieved, diversity becomes not a challenge to be managed, but a strength that enhances judgment, communication, and ultimately the quality of legal advice delivered to clients.

Q8. Looking ahead, what are your goals for your career, and how do you see your experiences in Hong Kong and Singapore shaping those aspirations?

Looking ahead, my ambition is to continue building a cross-border offshore disputes practice that meaningfully connects Asia with key offshore jurisdictions. Hong Kong provided the foundation in high-stakes commercial litigation and fast-moving international disputes, while Singapore has expanded the regional and strategic dimensions of that work through its deep integration with ASEAN and broader Asian markets. Together, those experiences have shaped a practice that is inherently international in outlook and collaborative in execution.

Beyond the technical aspects of practice, I am increasingly mindful of the importance of mentorship, knowledge-sharing, and contributing to the wider professional community. I am deeply grateful to the many people who have shaped my journey and helped me become the lawyer I am today, and it feels important to pay that forward. As the legal profession in Asia continues to evolve, I hope to play a small part in supporting the next generation of internationally minded lawyers, particularly those from diverse cultural backgrounds, by demonstrating that meaningful global careers can be built through adaptability, perspective, and sustained curiosity.