Contractors and Advocates – Part 3: Why Purely Legal Advice Often Fails on Construction Projects

Theme: Business Framework; Module: Contractors Strategy

Author: Dr. Pradeep Reddy Sarvareddy

Published Date: 25 Jan 2026

Note:  This Article is a part of a 3-part series on the attitude and perception and interactions between Contractors and Advocates.  The content is illustrative and based on general professional experiences, not on any specific individual or case.  It is not to criticise or stereotype any profession.  No offence is intended.  In today’s world where everything is taken seriously, read this jovially. 

Advocates know law.  However, the Contractor is willing to take risks for project survival and financial reasons.  If the legal opinion is provided without understanding the infrastructure projects, site conditions, engineering aspects or the functioning of the Government Departments, then the Contractor would consider such legal opinions as theoretical.  Let us explore a fictitious situation where the Advocate is only legal minded and oblivious to the rest of the reality.

Prologue: In the Part 1 of this series, we talked about some areas where legal expertise in required, and therefore, an Advocate could be engaged by a Contractor.  The Part 2 was a very idealistic approach, too good to be true.  Some of the timelines magically appeared to complete the work overnight or in one day, which realistically make take several days or weeks.  But then, this is just to understand the perspective of the Contractor.  The question is how do I write this Part 3 without offending anyone?  Therefore, this article is not about incompetency, but about lack of engineering knowledge and facts, and how the things could go wrong.  The intent is that Contractors should explain more facts to their Advocates so that some Engineering knowledge is imparted to the Advocate and over time, the Advocate also becomes techno-legal expert.  At the same time, Advocates need to learn the domain in which they work so that they can provide domain specific advice.  Understand that we are talking about several Lakhs of Crores in Construction disputes.  So, take time, learn and then work.

Once again, the phone rings before the Contractor wakes up.  The Contractor is already irritated for being woken up earlier than his routine.  His Advocate is on the other end and informs in a very serious tone that we need to reply very strongly to the notice received from the Department yesterday, and shares the three-page writeup.  The Contractor reviews the said notice only to find it to be a routine intimation from the Department about a Chief Engineer’s inspection.  But his Advocate’s reply, that too 3-pages long, is aggressive and making allegations against the Department.  This reply could lead to termination of the Contract.  All the Contractor wanted was a simple reply, rather he is now looking at something that looks like a court argument.  This day suddenly feels shaky.

Once again, before the Contractor has entered into his office, there is another document from this Advocate.  This Advocate had reviewed a variation on a pipeline project but wants specifics, and demands that all the work be stopped until the Department provides a perfect written order.  There is no such thing as perfect in the Construction world, only practicalities, and the Contractor knows this very well.  But this Advocate is showing him all the risks, however theoretical they may sound.  The Contractor is worried that some of his permissions will expire, the impact of the idling costs, the potential negative reaction from the Department, and the future blame that the Contractor was responsible for the zero progress.  Good intentions by his Advocate but not practical.

Once again, just as the Contractor tries to enjoy his lunch, this Advocate now calls and wants to file an injunction against the Department in relation to some comment on the poor quality and potential demolishing of the work.  This is another routine matter from the Department.  Sometimes, the work gets done poorly and that is why inspections are done so that such work can be rectified.  It will take only a few Thousand Rupees to fix the defect, but this Advocate wants to spend Lakhs of Rupees in Court litigation.  This Advocate does not understand the synergy between the Contractor and the Department.  The Department routinely threatens action against the Contractor without actually meaning it, and the Contractor routinely take corrective actions against such notices.  Each of them, i.e., the Department and the Contractor, are doing their job.  This is the field reality.  There is a synergy between the Contractor and the Department, but this Advocate is missing the point.

Once again, just when the evening seems to be quiet, the Contractor receives a bundle of documents from his Advocate.  There are issues related to RA Bills that one small item was not recorded or approved, but is only for now, let is go my friend, I am interested in the Crores that will be released if the RA Bill is passed.  There are issues with a show-cause notice for termination, but it is because the new officer did not refer to the correct documents, and a simple phone call will clear everything, and then a follow-up letter, rather than a court case.  There is a very aggressively drafted legal notice to another Department, which spells the doom for the Contractor and his future, where a simple report was required now becomes a complicated technical battle.  This is technical my friend.  There is a highly red lighted Joint Venture agreement, but if everything in life was so simple, but it is not, and some amount of risk is necessary.  Instead of a settlement for 40% of the Claims, which means money in the next month itself, this Advocate wants to fight legally for 100% plus interest, which may take a few decades to materialise.  Today’s 10 Rupees is much better than a speculative and litigious dependent 100 Rupees a few decades away.  How do I survive until then?

Once again, before he sleeps, the Contractor notices more messages from this Advocate talking about Environmental Laws, Forest Act, Labour Laws and many legal jargon which the Contractor does not understand.  With great effort and several hours of sleeplessness, the Contractor realises that these are all not a problem, because by the time the approvals expire and other issues arise that have been identified by this Advocate, the project would be completed.  The existing approvals are sufficient.  Unnecessary proactive measures are not required, especially if they require lots of money and time.

Once again, the Contractor is thinking.  The Contractor likes his Advocate, as his Advocate is trying his best to save the Contractor.  But this Advocate does not understand construction, engineering or the field practicalities.  This Advocate does not understand risk vs benefit and other financial strategies that are not even taught at the best business schools.  By this Advocate’s definition, a honeybee is not designed to fly at all.  The Contractor is having nightmares about this Advocate.