Nobody gets judged, buddy. It's there to be consumed- as simple as that. Many staffers and lawyers (who log in early) rather have their breakfasts in the office only. So be stress-free, it's okay to ask this.

And everybody who is keen on judging A0s can go lick their As. <3

I have been a first-generation litigator for the past 15 years at the Bombay High Court , after beginning my career at a Tier 1 law firm where I worked for approximately 6 years. The experience has been somewhat mixed. The notion that you earn relatively less initially but then see a significant increase in income is a generalization.

I know first-generation advocates who began earning well, comparable to corporate salaries, within just 2 to 3 years. Conversely, I also know hereditary advocates practicing for over a decade who earn less than a senior associate at a Tier 1 firm. Much depends on your ability to attract and retain highly litigious clients.

If compensation is not a primary concern for you, I would recommend practicing at the Supreme Court in Delhi, where the potential for high fees is considerable. I chose to start at the Bombay High Court because I am from Mumbai and could initially stay at my parents' house.

Some people say litigation has become oversaturated, while some say there are greater prospects in lit., if one can hang in for 15 years. Low pay is not a concern for me if I can expect to earn fat fees after 40. Is it a gamble? Should I instead be content with my corporate job.

So, to make India a hub of arbitration, all it takes is for a bunch of people to get themselves appointed as office bearers of a self-created body and then use their juniors, law firms, partners and/or cronies to shout from the rooftops about how this is a game changer for Indian arbitration. How very juvenile! Jhumlas and PR stunts are all very well for the “office bearers” who have spared no effort in marketing themselves on this “momentous occasion” but will do absolutely nothing for arbitration in India. Get real, chaps although I would love to be proved wrong

I think firms want freshers to join soon if they have a lot of work. I was asked by a partner, after my assessment internship in January, if I will be able to join as soon as my final exams end as their team had so much work. But then, the partner also asked me if I wanted a break before joining.

I have an AIR 67X(UG CLAT) and have gotten NRI-S provisional admission in GNLU and i think will be able to get into WBNUJS as well. My dad thinks GNLU would be better as it has a good infra and kolkata is affected by politics, although I have a different opinion. Moreover GNLU is charging a significantly higher amount in the NRI fee and I am not sure if it is worth it. My dad is worried I won't be able to adjust to the hostel in NUJS as it is not in great form. I think I should not let the opportunity go if I do get admission in NUJS,what should I do?

Two years ago, I had a falling out with my partner at a T1 firm in Delhi because I chose to stand up for myself after constant abuse.

I have since then worked at another reputed mid sized firm and greatly upskilled myself and am recently thinking of applying to my ex firm but for a different partner in Bom office. Can my ex partner block my application? Partner is pretty senior and can’t imagine them being this petty, but Ive been surprised before.

As a Georgetown alum, I can assure you that your mental health challenges and the resulting impact on your grades should be sufficient to convince the Admission Committee that you faced extenuating circumstances.

Regarding your second question, Georgetown primarily considers class ranks rather than grades. However, it's worth noting that most other schools do focus on grades instead of ranks.

Incoming final year at a T1 NLU here. Could someone who's gotten acceptances for an LLM (preferably from excellent universities that are likely to help someone get good foreign law firm jobs but aren't Ivy level - like LSE/KCL/UCL/UPenn/Duke/MIDS/NUS/Georgetown/UCLA etc) please elaborate on what are considered extenuating circumstances for lower grades that may look good on one's SOP? Specifically, if you could evaluate whether it's a good idea to reveal - and if so, how to bring up - some major issues that I've mostly kept hidden over the course of my T1 NLU journey for the risk of backfiring & stigma:

(1) Familial income <2LPA

(2) Mental health disorders of the kind that could arguably meet the M'Naughten threshold at times (3) on a related note, admissions to an asylum

(4) clear illustration of my mental condition in marks — some semesters, I've scored about 90% & others as low as 45% and that too with multiple repeat exams.

Also separately, do these colleges consider just your grades - or rank, too? Because while my ordinary CGPA to percentage conversion comes out to be >80%, my rank is somewhere in the middle of the batch for now (I'll try to get it higher but who knows).

Please don't troll my conditions. Any serious advice on any of the above points is deeply appreciated so that I can figure out whether it's even sensible to try for an LLM at this (or later) stage.

Work culture highly depends on the specific partners, but suffice to say that there's a bunch of established partners who meet their yearly targets well in advance so that they can continue minting money and keep the rest entirely with themselves. This naturally piles on the work far more. Try to stay away from such teams as a fresh associate - two prime examples being the teams of a husband-wife duo.

However, new partners are generally better - so at the end of the day, it depends.

It did bring a few for the final year students. But I agree with you in that they could have done much better. They could have hired some HR working in a T2/T3 law firm who would have some idea about the legal field. Instead they hired a glorified Clerk who is good at faffing.

Just on that last bit. Here are some links for your education. Dont say it doesnt happen if you choose not to read them/ watch them.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_5FFGrGzJw&amp;ab_channel=MagdalenBerns

https://www.reddit.com/user/KatnissXcis/comments/190mz8v/genital_preference_isnt_valid/

https://womensdeclarationusa.com/why-are-lesbians-hated/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhWyo9iYQNE&amp;ab_channel=PeterBoghossian

Here are some ways in which some people on tumblr fantasize about correcting this transphobia. If you can swallow it. You swallow it. Dont tell us its not happening though. Thats just gaslighting. Its really really graphic and disgusting. But dont tell me its unhealthy/bigoted that I know this because I have bothered to actually look stuff up. I wish I didnt have to know this- I wish this didnt exist. But Im forced to prove it exists because you refuse to believe women.

https://www.tumblr.com/runawaysiren940/749563581300883456?source=share
https://www.tumblr.com/barbarian-lesbian/745346296204886016/radfem-who-used-to-get-angry-when-she-saw-trans?source=share
https://www.tumblr.com/barbarian-lesbian/725123857978130432?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/subnosis22/726990172837888000/a-prestigious-college-exclusively-for-transwomen?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/puppygirllaika/749592038536806400/last-chance-to-back-out-are-you-absolutely-sure?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/dawn-the-breeder/748657264529932288/im-convinced-that-there-are-few-things-better?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/hormone-of-babylon/738904519454392321/i-love-it-when-conservatives-and-terfs-freak-about?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/butch-patriarchy/722417869667893248/personally-i-think-trans-men-should-be-allowed-to?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/butch-patriarchy/720177077837578240/trans-men-are-the-masculine-ideal-were-whove?source=share

https://www.tumblr.com/superiorineveryway/731004003876552704/the-ftm-need-to-smother-a-cis-man-with-my-ass?source=share

the "crap" was in reference to the medical scandals, the sterlisations, the destruction of womens rights and safety, the child abuse. That you choose to tone police over that instead of seriously re-evaluating your world view and expressing shock that the problem was so bad indicates that youre the person who has to consider whether theyre being open minded.

i get that its upsetting to see all this evidence that is very bothersome and shattering to the world view. I dont go to reduxx every day even. I cannot bear to keep looking at that news. And heres the rub- there is a lot more disturbing stuff out there I havent even started talking about because I honestly dont want to think about or type that stuff out. But ask yourself if any group you didnt particularly feel sorry for- if white nationalists or israeli defence forces or the taliban or hindu facists were committing all those crimes. And they were not being reported in mainstream media or were being misattributed because of "identity". Then would you chide and scold women who put that information together? Do you think people who keep sex offender registries are unhealthy and out to be hateful and bigoted? do you think reporters who broke news on catholic priests were dog whistling and unfairly targeting catholics?

Women have historically had to do this for themselves because men don't believe them and dismiss them and say crimes against them do not happen, and if they do those crimes werent that bad, if they were bad its not a big deal because its a few bad apples, if its not a few bad apples, its still not all men, its not individual men -who shouldn't have to feel guilty about themselves, and if the argument is still not won- then they say oh those women must have deserved it anyway for being stuck up/ prudish/ easy/ a bigot. Whatever. Why don't we believe women who are showing evidence over men who are asking you to just accept what they say because its the "kind" thing to do. How is that kind to these women?

People absolutely deny that trans people commit crimes. They think "oppressed groups" cannot turn around to hurt women.The person is literally accusing me of projection! They think someone rejecting masculinity is also rejecting male pattern violence its not true! there are studies! 19 % of all men in some prisons are sex offenders - compared to almost half of trans people in the same prisons who are in there for sex offences.

Dog whistle? which specific crime reported in there do you think is untrue? its not dogwhistling if its true just because you dont like it.

Its not disrespectful to say that. You find all the time to lecture me about respect but when the other person is literally saying "shame on you" you sit quiet. What even? I havent denied that trans people are victims of crimes or that we shouldnt do something about it. Its the what we do about it where we might disagree.

Crimes committed by gay people or black people are not under-reported or reported as crimes committed by white people or by straight people. Once you give up sex based language it becomes really really hard to keep data about "transwomen" reliable. Look up alice sullivans work on this if you like.

show us evidence of all these crimes! They dont happen! Youre projecting! No wait why are you showing us websites that are dedicated to documenting these crimes that dont happen or are blacked out of traditional mainstream media ? why are you even looking at this? so bigoted! so unhealthy!

Sorry- but as long as you all keep insisting that these things dont happen- we have to make you face the uncomfortable facts that they do in fact happen. Crimes from other groups arent being misreported and not reported because of sympathetic traditional media. Some of these crimes are literally reported as "womens crimes" because trans women are women.

Im not trying to prove which side suffers more- you keep saying that because you wish it were true. Im trying to prove that despite your side not choosing to see the facts- there are in fact harmful effects from buying into this.

Please mind your language and how you put your arguments across - this thread has long veered from wanting an open and respectful conversation (though it could have been worse and thank you all for trying).

Tldr: both sides believe they are morally correct and on the right side of history and can show harm that's being / been done by policies but can't agree on several issues which historically have no easy answers. Now the argument, as expected, is rotating on which side is suffering more, who is historically and at present getting censored more by which part of the media, and calling the other sides arguments 'crap'. This is not productive.

Unfortunately in this thread there has been little talk of substantively what policies or compromises could exist that accept both camps' concerns.

Sharing things like that website is not helpful to be honest. No one denies that trans people sometimes commit crimes - all people do. But a website about every crime and dog whistle headline about trans people is not journalism or anything more than fear mongering that is not helpful.

Imagine a website that is exclusively populated with headlines about crimes committed by X ethnicity, religion, immigrants or sexual orientation? A doomscrolling website with headlines of all crimes committed by gay people or women in the world? A website that only carries crimes or violence committed against trans people now or historically?

Consuming such media is not part of a healthy media diet and does not lead to constructive debate and constructive outcomes but only to embittering and hardening lines between both camps.

That said, no solution here other than, thank you all participants in this thread for trying to engage but sadly it seems to have run its course in the present format.

So, the answer is based on the info i collected during my college's placement cycle.

The industry standards are 25K. there are certain small firms usually started by young lawyers who have undergone the misery of a first gen lawyer, these guys still have a better pay going upto 35K. One of my friends will be joining a small firm situated in rohini and will be getting 15K. Another one is joining a firm in Lajpat Nagar, they'll pay 45K after clearing BAR. Sr. Adv. are paying peanuts, wohi 25K.

i have personally interned under a Sr. Adv. who pays 25K, 2 Boutiques firm who pay around 30K and an AOR who pays around 40K.

Most of the AOR's are paying well, like till 35K to 40K.

I know my answer was not that helpful but also mentioning this here that a lot of my friends who went for interview were not told about their salaries, even after sending them confirmation, they claim ki the salary will be based on your performance.

Oh, the irony. So, according to you, it's perfectly acceptable for The Wire to parade its "independence" while airing softball interviews with opposition politicians, but heaven forbid anyone point out the glaring conflict of interest. Let’s call a spade a spade—journalistic integrity doesn’t mean tiptoeing around biases under the guise of "real journalism."

If The Wire’s role in a healthy democracy involves being a mouthpiece for one political side, then we might as well toss the term "independent media" out the window. And please, spare us the sanctimony about "legitimate journalism" when what you're defending is selective scrutiny and convenient outrage.

Maybe instead of dodging the critique with rhetorical questions, you should actually address the point: how does The Wire’s cozy relationship with opposition figures square with its claimed impartiality? Now that would be a real discussion about the fourth estate.

Again the argument is disingenuous when the majority of media by revenue and readership has become commercially and editorially a propaganda extension of the government. By your metric independent 'liberal' media can not publish softball interviews with the opposition without getting cancelled? What kind of media ecosystem would you prefer? Do you think there's any role for the Wire in a healthy democracy? Do they ever do legitimate journalism? And, all actual and not rhetorical questions, are there any non-corporate news sources that you deem allowable?

Talk about journalistic integrity and demanding liberal outrage in this context seems to be a figleaf, rather than a genuine interest in discussing the fourth estate.

How difficult is it to transition to a Technology Law practice from Trade Law? I have worked in the Trade Law space for the past 2 years. I have worked on few advisory mandates that lie at the intersection of International Trade, Export Control and Technology Law, but now I want to make a complete transition. Is getting a foreign LLM the only way to get into Tech Law? Looking for some honest advice.

Your retainer shall not have deductions with regards to PF and Gratuity among other things. The TDS component stays though.

With regards to the income tax - there are plenty of threads on the application of Section 44ADA on retainers. A little bit of research should help you - given that you are a lawyer I presume.

Layman's version would be, you can claim a 50% deduction on the retainer that you get which means only the remaining 5L (specific to your case) shall get taxed basis your tax slabs and the regime of taxation that you are using. If it is the old regime then you also get the advantage of the old 80C benefits.

So, I have an AIR rank of 67X (UG) and have applied to GNLU and WBNUJS through NRI-S. I got provisional admission in GNLU and even though WBNUJS hasn't published its result I think I will get admission there too. I am not able to decide which one to choose. I will be paying a higher amount at GNLU but my father thinks it is better because of the infrastructure and kolkata is disturbed by lot of political movements,but I think if I am getting a chance to get into WBNUJS I should take it, even though I would have to adjust to the hostel there...what should I do?