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?
I am expecting a job offer from a boutique firm with offices in Delhi & Mumbai called Curiam Legal.
I would appreciate if I can get some advice whether I should accept the same or not. Also, please feel free to add to the pros and cons list below. It would really help me decide.
Pros:
1. Decent paycheck for a 2 year old firm with 7-10 employees.
2. Partners and most associates are from tier 1 colleges.
3. Has a decent mix of work.
The bad:
1. They penalise mistakes in the form of deductions from salary. From what I have heard or read, salary is deducted for arriving late to the office, making typos etc.
2. Most of the work is insurance related advisory, and thereby, mundane (at least to me!).
3. Disputes work is exceptionally limited.
4. Exceptionally high attrition rate does not augur well for the reputation that they already have.
5. ▮▮▮
P.S.: Most of the information has been gathered through various threads on legallyindia.com
Both these tribunals are, in their functioning, a poor reflection of the Modi Sarkar. Spend a week in these forums and one quickly realises that the Companies Act and its accompanying rules are effectively toothless, rarely—if ever—invoked with meaningful consequence against fraud and corporate malfeasance. Relegating corporate disputes to these forums amounts, in effect, to granting bad actors a free pass to run companies in whatever manner they deem fit, with little fear of consequence.
And now the NLUs have become a place to perish. Let's not get there. This is not a trivial matter.
https://theleaflet.in/leaflet-reports/they-have-not-come-here-to-die-an-epidemic-of-student-suicides-plagues-indias-national-law-universities
Regulatory sector only ask for your LLB degree. Masters is only listed as preferred everywhere. I mean it might give you an advantage in your interview if you did your LLM from a reputed university but it's not a big enough factor.
Joke is on the leadership for being delusional as always, having all wrong kind of advisors !
When you don’t learn, life will keep teaching you till you learn !
what will azb do with this influx of infra partners
Akila. Won't care.
▮▮▮. To engrossed in ▮▮▮ retirement plans.
IMO - the graduating batches from JGLS have a bit of an uphill task ahead of them to shake their alumi's sterotypes. Again - my sample size is not very large and I am speaking from the experience of a small circle of T1 PAs in Bangalore. May be the comments section will validate my experience or help me think otherwise!
- Was the academic pressure as high as today, or was it less?
- Was the crowd in your law school more elite than today, given that there was less reservation and most students were from big cities (unlike today)?
- What was the dating and hookup scene like?
- Were mental health problems as commonplace as today?
- Was there less inclusivity of LGBTQIA++ people?
- How did you do research and write projects with primitive internet and no AI tools?
- How did you have fun on campus?
Also, while this assessment internship is ongoing, would appreciate any pointers on specific partners / teams (city-wise) at Tier 1 firms who are currently hiring, or may be open to hiring for privacy, AI compliance, or allied work.
Your candid inputs, ballpark figures / recent experiences would help a lot.
Another comment here accurately describes hurdles from a partnership PoV but that assumes people think that far into the future - which no one does when hiring a fresher. The other thing that’s relevant is that a 34 year old has lived live a fair bit and will be presumed to not put up with the garbage behaviour many partners engage in. Young adults who’ve never made money before are much likely to put up with that kind of behaviour.
Additionally, while most law firm partners lack emotional awareness, they also will know that hiring you will be a recipe for friction that will likely be unavoidable - a 27 / 28 / 29 year old SA or PA will direct your life more than you can think right now. Call you at 10 or 11 PM asking for a draft by noon the next day. No matter how much one denies it, egos will come into play when you work the hours law firms do.
I won’t bring up the reductions in hiring due to perceived efficiencies from AI - and yes, they have begun no matter what people tell you. Legora and Harvey aren’t cheap. The money has to come from somewhere.
All of these factors can only be overridden or dispensed away if you get a good partner who is open to unconventional thinking about how lives are lived - and law firm partners like that are exceedingly rare. So, this comes down to the question - are you willing to spend 3 years going you law school when your only chance of success will require immense luck, in this context.
Also, your diplomas and understanding of economic theory will not help your cause. Law firms don’t care about that stuff, much. I’m sorry if my phrasing is a bit blunt. This is not to discourage you or downplay your achievements, knowledge and lived experiences - which I am sure will be more rich and will have helped build more character that most law firm ghouls have. This is an honest opinion of someone who is over 30, and has experienced multiple firms including having a say in hiring exercises.
If you really believe women and men should be held to the same standard in a society such as ours which is deeply patriarchal and continues to be extraordinarily discriminatory towards women, you have merely confirmed yourself as yet another misogynist, insecure, failure of a man. Perhaps this is the problem with your generation. Also explains why women find many of your ilk completely insufferable. Which is why they gravitate towards older men. If you do not understand such basics, you are already beyond the point of redemption. Continue barking up the ridiculous tree of equality and continue being a woman hating failure.
So throwing around words like 'patriarchal insecurity' and moralising after calling me an irredeemable dolt (with horrible spelling) doesn't make your position on this issue any better. Rather, it just deflects from the real issues. We have all seen enough 'where there is smoke, there is fire' comments from women. Women set those standards. Here, someone has spoken about the smoke. Look for the fire.
Your rush to defend the unnamed woman in this unnamed team without an inch of uncovering what may have happened speaks volumes on how you would adjudicate gendered disputes. It's prejudging it. In simple terms, women too should face a process of scrutiny rather than squirming out of their responsibility. All of this should actually trigger a talk with HR. Again, women set those standards.
Finally, someone with power over someone else and the larger team is, by default, to be held to a higher standard. The optics of a team and disaffection shown by a team should be something a partner should have a reasonable idea about. That comes with the territory of being a partner. At least a good one.