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?
Is this very normal and prevalent?
Halp!
A desperate junior
Kids, focus on an MBA.
FYI mine is a 10 to 6 weekday job, paying 50 lakhs a year before tax -- no rental costs.
The facts about team and firm name are changed just a little bit to be anonymous omg, can you imagine the repercussions.
TO verify this is me, please reply to my mail ID I will confirm the comment.
Guys I am wiling to send written proofs to prove my word on mail.
Bro why will I make this thing up, I have written proofs to back all this.
As per the website, the firm focusses on international dispute and was started by an ex NDA. However, everyone apart from that is really junior or just starting their careers (max PQE 5)
Can anyone throw light on their work culture, nature of work, salary and the kind of clients they have?
Why so much surprised?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et1KVNhNebM
His knowledge of law is at another level.
Well coming to point, most university whitewashes the character certificate to avoid the tarnishing the institute .
For reference:https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/Law-School/the-quiet-burial-of-a-sexual-harassment-case
How will finance become more complex pray tell? AI will take over what exactly? Will humans stop creating things or doing things or having disputes? How will the world become more technocratic? will we no longer need generalists in any space? do you see the downside of siloing experts into specific fields and not having generalists?
Honestly this is borderline incoherent and vague enough to indicate to the viewer that you have no idea what you want to say but really want to appear smart by throwing jargon around. No hate, just feedback.
And until law students do not grow out of the habit of writing in this manner and thinking with such little clarity- there will always be a need for a liberal arts degree. You cannot run before you walk. And you cannot think about how technology will change the global economy before you think about how to form a clear sentence.
Only right answer here.
If yes, how?
If no, then still should the A0s try for it?
Also, how to approach changing the team within the firm?
What is the right time to make a move, when A0 or after becoming A1 or A2?
If yes, how?
If no, then still should the A0s try for it?
Also, how to approach changing the team within the firm?
FYI quoting from a recent NYT article:
Her opinions, sometimes joined by no other justice, have been the subject of scornful criticism from the right and have raised questions about her relationships with her fellow justices, including the other two members of its liberal wing.
“She’s breaking the fourth wall, speaking beyond the court,” said Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University. “She is alarmed at what the court is doing and is sounding that in a different register, one that is less concerned with the appearance of collegiality and more concerned with how the court appears to the public.”
Her slashing critiques sometimes seemed to test her colleagues’ patience, culminating in an uncharacteristic rebuke from Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the case arising from Mr. Trump’s effort to ban birthright citizenship. In that case, the majority sharply limited the power of district court judges to block presidential orders, even if they are patently unconstitutional.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the principal dissent for the court’s three-member liberal wing, including Justices Jackson and Elena Kagan.
Justice Jackson added her own dissent, speaking only for herself. She said the majority imperiled the rule of law, creating “a zone of lawlessness within which the executive has the prerogative to take or leave the law as it wishes.”
That prompted an extended response from Justice Barrett, the next most junior justice and the author of the majority opinion. It did not stint on condescension.
“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Justice Barrett wrote, in an opinion signed by all five of the other Republican appointees.
“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain,” Justice Barrett went on, referring to Justice Sotomayor’s opinion. “Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/05/us/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson.html
Shows how much access to owned property costs in Delhi, and how much easier it must be for the Sibals!
Wyyssl, Xiimba etc - how's the work etc
1. How is the disputes work at Solaris Legal (breakaway from Phoenix)?
2. How much do they pay their associates from A0-SA1?
Any other helpful information about the disputes team at Solaris.