From my very limited experience working in a promoter driven firm so far, a lot of policies can be influenced by the promoter. Perhaps not in big firms but in smaller ones. Another example I’ve seen is the issue of succession - when the promoter passes, the person succeeding them determines where the firm goes. An example of this would be Luthra.

Absolutely. Fundamental rights are paramount. You said 'bastard' didn't you? Now if someone who finds that offensive (there are plenty who do) complained and you had to do the rounds of police stations and courts which just went about lecturing you on morals and standards that were arbitrary and did not reflect actual societal reality you would be oppressed. Sadly the wisdom of the judiciary reflects the intellect of those in power.

The SC which was a champion and preserver of fundamental rights has now turned destroyer.

Disagree with your last point. The process of how someone is hired matters because the process is supposed to be a professional evaluation of the candidate. The whole point of providing discretion to the competent authority is not to enable them to do as their will it but to use it with care and without deviating from existing standards without first providing a cogent reason. Besides, an unfair process is more likely to select an inefficient employee. The power of discretion is a function of trust and responsibility that is placed in an office.

Not casting any aspersions on the university and its governance here, but it is worth stating that, in general, the law/rule can permit anything. But that is not the same as due process. Questions of whether due diligence, fair representation, and competition are ensured in a particular process, say that of recruitment or admission, cannot be wished away by citing rules. A rule permits you to undertake an action but it is not an excuse for incompetence or discretion applied arbitrarily.

My dear fellow, how wise is it to blame others for your own incomprehension and incompetence? We are not your parents or teachers who owe it to you to entertain your crude remarks or your inability to read and write a coherent sentence. The poverty of your intellectual imagination is not an excuse for the rest of us deny ourselves the same. Good luck and take care.

urgency isn't the same as round-the-clock availability at ALL times. Urgent situations arise, yes, but they aren't as frequent as you are making of them.

When litigating, one has the privilege to act upon their will. You needn't virtue signal someone to make them understand how the profession works. They do them, and they are good enough to look after them, which is part of the reason why they are litigating in the first place. But older people like you who are as acquainted with exploiting free labour can't gulp the fact that people can be doing well in life while not dragging their ass at all times like you did. It isn't advice that you offer, it's jealousy that you inflict.

beloved old hag ji, before expressing your concern to that beta about their inability to punctuate appropriately, do check out the Linkedin post and comment on the punctuating ability of the senior partner. I am sure kids in their 5th grade have a better grasp over English and are more aware of incorrect punctuations.

Leave our generation alone, we are sufficient to fend for ourselves. Its only your insecuirty of losing your hold over underpaid labour that triggers you and forces you to argue with us. Please don't waste your time doing it on an anonymous platform, i am sure your client must be getting disappointed since you aren't picking up their call and playing a keyboard warrior.

Dear uncle- I will do so by pushing back on false deadlines & by not delegating things to my juniors at the last minute. ALSO, if my generation collectively pushes back on false/unreasonable deadlines (which they will. Believe me they will coz all of us collectively believe in WLB)- then no client will have their unreasonable expectations met. Infact, clients will also be one of us- so no unreasonable expectations at all. Think about it- with you guys, shouting and abusive/toxic culture was the norm. Things have substantially changed now. Similarly WLB will also come one day.

Playing devil's advocate here; it is evident the OP/commentators here haven't seen what the post actually says. This is solely for those engaging in LITIGATION. It's evident that people here are mostly corp lawyers.....I'm a junior lawyer and in places like Delhi, seniors often get briefed late until night and you're expected to be available 24/7. As this senior partner says, there are many, many lawyers in a country; if you don't wake up at 3AM, someone else is willing to. Not supporting this practice, but in crowded nations like India and China, this is unfortunately how it is.

What a disappointing and evasive reply. Either you are being insincere or just trolling. In any discussion/debate, it is perfectly natural to make arguments and then be expected to justify the basis of those arguments. But according to you, a person can make all kinds of wild and extraordinary claims (and who is also not a court, by the way, as you so eloquently put it) but others cannot even dare to request them to provide even a shred of evidence for their claims? You ought to be ashamed of yourself if you are really a student of law.

I think the page I cited above states clearly that what is essential is an LLM degree in order to apply. The guidelines are silent on specialisation. So, yes, one can apply irrespective of their specialisation in LLM. At the same time, the question and relevance of your specialisation may come up during the interview.

Hi, a student from GLC here. All of this is unfortunately true. The ground reality is starkly different from the rosy picture painted by the College. All the College and does for students since AV’a arrival is introducing “5 certificate courses” so that “when students graduate from the government law college, they leave with 7 (or whatever her arbitrary number is) degrees”.

The whole NAAC thing was a sham, it was all a farce, the “gymkhana” of the College is covered in bird poop. The library is poorly stocked, the teaching is sub-par, and we definitely should not discuss the infrastructural issues with GLC.

Even after this online anonymous outrage by students, which is hardly a respite, we know for a fact that a protest or any sort of actual outrage is not possible in an institution like ours because the chance of you making enemies from the administration is invariably higher than even the slightest chance of a decent and honest dialogue between the College and its students.

In short, the novelty, legacy,

Accept your responsibility. Apologise to those whom you inconvenienced. Identify where and why you messed up. Improve so that you do not repeat the same error again. Ensure your reliability by being consistent from hereon.

Every professional has a bad day. But there is a reason they are called professional. Sincerity of purpose and a willingness to introspect will always hold you in good stead among your peers.

You can do it. All the best.

“What is the moral? Who rides may read.

When the night is thick and the tracks are blind,

A friend at a pinch is a friend indeed;

But a fool to wait for the laggard behind

Down to Gehenna, or up to the Throne,

He travels the fastest who travels alone.

. . .

“Wherefore the more ye be holpen and stayed,

Stayed by a friend in the hour of toil,

Sing the heretical song I have made–

His be the labour, and yours be the spoil.

Win by his aid, and the aid disown–

He travels the fastest who travels alone.”

—Rudyard Kipling (from ‘The Winners’)

4th year student, feeling lost and lonely, about to step into Corp Law in a new city, have little to no friends even in hometown, not the best relationship with family, no partners, does it get better? Or at least, do new avenues open up? My head hurts. No negative comments, I already have a dozen better of them thrown at me daily.

Thanks for the reply. What you say is not rooted in reality and is itself a product of a certain kind of discourse that justifies its consensus by pretending that disagreements always lead to better and inclusive decisions. That is a noble mirage. You are like the president in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove who cannot accept the fact that the discourse in which he participates and which establishes his sovereign power to nuke enemies can be so easily discarded by others.

Your own unspecified example of the same ideology succeeding in one context while failing in another only further proves my point. Details matter. Process matters. Rhetoric is only an indication of intent and has little to no bearing upon the consequences that a policy promulgated in its name produces.

People can and do disagree in good faith. I never said otherwise. But there is a point beyond which disagreements cease to be useful in widening a conversation and end up limiting action itself. Not for nothing did CIA come up with a handbook on how to use civil methods to effectively obstruct any discussion.

Sometimes disagreements do lead to better decisions and sometimes they don’t. But that has little to do with the fact of disagreement itself. It has more to do with the implicit acknowledgement among the decision-makers that what matters is how something gets done and not whether it satisfies the vague purity of an idea. This is what enables compromise and collaboration, for better or worse. Mathematics is neither socialist nor capitalist. And you do not need an ideology to end famine or reduce poverty. Ideas are a fundamental part of how humans cogitate and rationalize. They are necessary and they are things of wonder. But ideas are not enough.

No. Youre wrong. Majority of reasonable disagreements are not always over details, planning, or execution. The slight of hand youre trying to pull is equating the value of teaching mathematics in primary schools with whether or not a welfare state truly works to reduce poverty. One of those things is not like the other and all the evidence is not in yet. Far left communist governments in many instances did not alleviate poverty and in many instances they did. Capitalism did work to elevate people suffering from extreme poverty but it certainly doesnt lead to an equal outome society and neither does it lead to a society where there are equal opportunities.

I'm a leftist, but im not conceited enough to think that anyone who disagrees with me about socialist policies is being unreasonable. Theyre being manifestly reasonable. I just think theyre wrong even when theyre being rational and reasonable. Just like its possible for me to be wrong even when I'm being rational or reasonable.

I dont know about you- but I have found that its less than useless to approach disagreements with the idea that anyone who doesnt at the end of the argument agree with me is only doing so because theyre silly or petty or spiteful. People can disagree with me. No one has a claim to the complete truth. In disagreeing with each other we might actually find some common ground that actually would be the best path forward.

3-4 years? Try 15-20 years AT LEAST before you become a partner who MAY have interactions with 'relevant' and powerful people. Most corp partners liaise with GC of companies, so not exactly very 'powerful'. Networking is independent of this; making such connections in a country like India will more often than not require you to exploit family connections. If you really want to have 'connections' and 'setting' in the future, I'd rather recommend litigation. PS- If this is why you are getting into corp law or litigation, I can assure you that you'll burn out within a couple of years.

UGC guidelines on how eligibility, categories, remuneration, tenure, etc. for PoP can be accessed at << https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/3659158_Guildeline-for-engaing-Professor-of-Practice-in-Universities-and-Colleges.pdf >>. There is also a portal at << https://pop.ugc.ac.in/Home/Advertisement >> but the advertisement notices linked there are inaccessible.

For debt investments/transaction - our job as corp lawyers is to 1) draft the documents which eventually lead to the transactions 2) advise whether the structure/aspects of the transaction are legal or not 3) negotiate with the opposing party on certain terms of the contracts and 4) sometimes do legal due diligence

Investment bankers structure the whole transaction. They’ll advise the clients what’s the best mode of investment based on their financial analysis. IBs also help clients find the counterparties and financially advise them throughout the transaction.