We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
Example 1: My firm JSA has strong rules regarding things like this to prevent upsetting teams, unlike some other firms which open allow office dalliances, to cut attrition.
No Golden handcuffs of a different kind.
Example 2: In JSA if Partner married inside, one left. The corporate head in mumbai married someone inside who was an SA and then the SA / wife, left the firm 'as per' policy.
Internal liasons are frowned upon in JSA.
Example 3: In JSA newly hired teams who had family in the team could not be onboarded together. These things would never be permitted in a strong HR environment.
Star teams does not offset the firm policy
Ultimately, things like these matter for team cohesion in the long run. Firms like JSA thrive because these are rigorously implemented and we do not have these issues.
Having to read what is just dressed up victimhood when what fuels this is just simple craven ambition with zero accountability when in power - gives most of us a headache. Just another poor excuse of an argument.
Listen - we noticed how how you systematically pushed the conversation towards women's discrimination in a thread that began with women engaging in questionable conduct. Its a classic but its sure getting old.
Your response has been nothing short of cover up and another ignonimous look away. Most of us are tired of this uninteligent shtick. Too bad it barely works and glad some women here called it out.
You should be politician, but then I guess you probably are where you stand right now.
Apparently, the profiles of selected candidates are placed before the sitting judges and they get to choose from the list.
Bhat sir is an amazing arguing counsel and watching him argue is a treat and since he is an AAG, work is predominantly in the High Court of Karnataka.
Along with this, he essentially still handles AZB Blr's disputes practice even though not officially, so lots of disputes work of that kind.
Its a team of three people and they're all professional and nice to work with.
Esplora Legal
White and Brief
FRee lunch every Saturday!!!!
You get to leave after all partners leave
Hardly any work most times
Cons-
Unprofessional office environments
Partners vape through and through the office meetings
Delayed salaries nd bonuses
Salary cut for every mistake u make, they dont forget this
PS - I am from a t1 college and work here !
I’m currently working with a Data Privacy team, with prior PQE in general compliance, and actively looking to move to Tier 1 teams. At the moment, I assist A1s in making our clients DPDP-compliant, including drafting various website policies and related documentation.
Would really appreciate your help with any pointers on relevant teams/partners (city-wise) that are actually doing this kind of work, and who might be worth reaching out to. Thank you.
I’m currently working with a Data Privacy team, with prior PQE in gen corp/compliance, and actively looking to move to a Tier 1 firm.
Would really appreciate your help with any pointers on relevant teams/partners (city-wise) I could reach out to, and also a more practical sense of how things are actually playing out right now. Thank you.
The Registrar of HNLU had earlier indicated that taking more than three members would not be an issue during the SBA board meeting - a rare occasion when the Vice Chancellor interacts with students, though often only to speak at length without meaningful engagement. However, just two days before the end-semester exams, the administration abruptly decided to enforce the member cap. Poor hnlu kids after winning so many moots this year, this is what they are getting in return from admin.
This repeated pattern of last-minute decisions seems designed to leave students with no real opportunity to question or resist.
Furthermore, when the Student Body President raised a reasonable request to reshuffle faculty convenors to ensure smoother functioning of committees, the response from faculty members was unexpectedly hostile. They all started aggressively yelling on sba members like they are some criminals and the concern here is that this has been the case since forever. Whenever anyone goes to admin for even a small work, they would 1st enjoy bullying the kids.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that HNLU students seriously need to take a stand and address these ongoing issues.
About the MCC rules, it's almost as if the faculty convener is keeping close track of what happens on LI - sudden praise of the university mooting culture and bam release rules that will make mooting so so much more difficult. 3 member Vis teams don't stand a slightest chance against 15 member contingents that actually make a citation - oh and mind you, this rule was notified just a week or two after the HNLU contingent (6 member team) placed as runners up at Vis east - for the first ever time!
This institution needs a full fledged cleanse where professors that put their egos above student welfare are ousted. There are so so so many things wrong with how things are done in HNLU - I really wish someone reading this can suggest a way for us to report this to authorities that can look into it. I know firsthand of people that have considered ICC and UGC complaints - but the fear of career ending consequences is what stops them. Every day of living in HNLU is not too far from living in hell.
This past month, the admin has decided that the best way for a uni to represent in a moot is to have the minimum number of members. Under the guise of reimbursement, they have decided that any moot, national or international, would have the least number of members required. You will soon see HNLU at Vis with three people because, well that's the golden number to moot successfully.
All of this so that they don't have to reimburse the entire team. Now, reimbursement has always been for 3 members only, no matter what moot. However, now to "protect the uni's image", instead of - I dont know- supporting students in their endeavours, they will send the exact number of people they will reimburse.
What this clearly and embarrassingly depicts is the lack of awareness and knowledge of this administration. While everything is money, sometimes it feels like most of this has to come out of their individual pockets. What is more embarrassing is that HNLU boasts of receiving Rs.100 lakhs every year solely for moots and conferences.
Where is this money going? We will never know.
But what we do know is happening, in a campus where basic amenities are often ignored, is the inauguration of the "Inner Circle", a faculty only area. A circle whose outer circles keep getting renovated and inaugurated.
Moreover, HNLU - State as per Article 12 - has suddenly found the urge to look into the attendance schematics of students I. e. 2 days before the end semester examinations. While the DHC judgement on attendance stays, what is the HNLU's creative solution to disturb students, you may ask? Fill undertakings where you waive your rights away. You have to note down your reason and sign that it would be a conditional permission and that you can never claim equity, right, or relief. All of this two days before the exams actually start.
We haven't received our admit cards for the exams, but have been notified about all the changes at a point where our hands are tied.
Now I wish this is where things ended, but students have also been honoured with proctorial proceedings for having a plate from the mess, calling the ambulance, and many more😌
Further, our hostel wardens have also made it their mission to visit us at 3 AM in our rooms and break windows if we do not wake up to them knocking. Our dear Registrar has also highlighted that wardens do not have to apologise for breaking windows of students rooms.
Seems like Administration has a clear plan towards how this esteemed educational institution will function.
There are butcher apprenticeship in Germany. You can try that
Chalo koi baat nahi, getting called pjet IRL by some deranged wignat will clear your cloudy senses.
All I'm saying is, if you are someone affected by working under younger people in-charge (nothing wrong with it) or have issues with putting in the long-hours due to your age, you will not get hired. Not because of anything else, but simply because you are not compatible with a law firm life anymore. If you are willing to work regardless and are okay with working under those junior to you, I'd say no harm in trying. You may not make partner, but even with the advent of AI, law firms remain in need of work horses.
You sound like someone who has made up their mind and is only looking for reassurance to validate the said choice. So based on my experience, I'd suggest that you should go for it, since at present you sound quite stuck. Its up to you to decide if you're okay with making this choice or remaining where you are.
Also, at the risk of repeating what others have already said, your background in economics and political science won't do much for you if a career at a law firm is what you're looking for. Law firm work, at least on the transactions side, is largely about due diligence, legal research, and drafting, in that order. So the only way to learn these skills is to intern, since even law schools rarely teach these skills well. Hope it works out for you!
Rules are just being made out of nowhere. No explanation, no logic, nothing.
On one hand, they’ve capped the number of people who can be part of any national or international moot at 3. This very clearly shows they have no idea how mooting works at all. They have also asked students not to seek sponsorship from outside for moots.
On the other hand, they are busy inaugurating things: new research centres, new faculty chambers, a café inside the academic block called Inner Circle, and extra seating called Outer Circle, again inside the academic block.
All of this, when the WiFi does not work.
At the same time, there has been a sudden increase in surveillance and restrictions on students.
The library, which is the only place with proper AC, shuts at 11:30 pm. Even during exams, we cannot access it beyond that. This is a residential campus. And then people are getting emails asking them to justify and pay fines for entering their own hostel late at night. Not the campus, the hostel, while already being inside the campus.
Why is all of this happening? Mind you, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Please feel free to elaborate on what else has been going on.
How is the administration getting this much discretion?
Can someone please explain?
I completed the 1st test and now, am moving towards the second assessment. Can you tell me what practice areas should I choose ? And how to proceed with the assessment?