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?
Has to be spice route
2. Sorry to hear you still feel this way. A good number of Indian-educated lawyers have done well for themselves at the MC firms. Therefore, if you are a good lawyer, please do not let that stop you from trying that career path if you want it.
3. Don't know how well the work experience would be received in India considering promotions etc (as I have never worked in an Indian firm), but I assume it would be regarded well? There may possibly be some issues, since the training contract system is slightly different from how things work in many Indian firms. The MC firms, because of requirements that the regulator (Solicitors' Regulation Authority (SRA)) have tended to impose in the past, give you exposure to multiple practice areas ('seats'). So remember you're not a qualified solicitor when you start your TC, the TC is still part of your learning and qualification process to become a solicitor - your 'QWE' (that's why most firms give you a job title such as 'Trainee Solicitor' or 'Trainee Associate'). You'd usually do about three or four 'seats' (random example combo: Banking & Finance, Regulated Payments, Banking and Lending, Corporate and Investment Funds). You'd then 'qualify into' your chosen seat as an 'NQ' (newly-qualified solicitor, specialising in that area), after having done perhaps six months of work in those seats. By contrast, the Indian firms would want you to specialise in one practice area pretty much from the start.
can anybody help me.
I won't recommend it though, it's never wise to close higher studies gates. You will regret later
Work in a law school somewhere teaching the law- GLC or MNLU or NLUD or CLC or something. Dont go to rajya sabha, dont try for president. All those things might put your name in some trivia books, but real legacy- the sort of legacy that H.R. Khanna, K Chandru, Santosh Hegde, Chelmeshwar -all of those people have- will take standing up for something real just a little bit just once.
He will have a tarnished legacy anyway- and he knows it. He didnt step up on babri or kashmir or heck even demonetisation, he didnt step up for gay marriage. He wrote toxic gender ideology into the law that will take decades of undoing so women and children can be safeguarded. He read things into the constitution that werent there at all. But he can at least be known as the judge who stood up to judicial corruption.
Come on! Do one thing right! He doesnt even need another job, he doesnt need to do what judges usually do- its entirely an unforced choice that hes making by following the usual route. If he just retires , lives a smaller life from here on , but makes it morally clear that SC judges shouldnt accept post retirement positions- he would have some sort of legacy that future historians would admire.
His father was only ever known for being a careerist coward who let indira gandhi make a joke out of the constitution. A career of being a great legal mind thrown into the dust because of cowardice and greed. He can at least save the family name somewhat instead of continuing to curse his children with that reputation.
2. I am completely blind. Have been since I was four years old. I work in London. I won't reveal anything more specific, as it may help narrow things down to an extent I'm not quite comfortable with.
3. I rarely have used Legally India, so am sorry if this seems like a very incongruous, random or strange thing to ask on here (as this website deals, as it should, largely with questions about legal practice in India). You, however, have plenty of blind lawyers in India and this website's design is quite accessible. Therefore, I would assume the concept of blind lawyers or law students using LI wouldn't be all that strange for you. You also have some stuff on training contracts, so people asking about work culture outside India wouldn't be so outlandish either, I assume?
4. To be clear, I obviously have spoken and will continue to speak with colleagues in my own jurisdiction about the below idea, but would like the opinions of colleagues from a jurisdiction which is of immense importance to us here, and to which I have a personal connection because of family.
5. Currently, I use a long white cane as a mobility aid (a device that helps me understand information about my surrounding environment such as what obstacles are in front and/or on either side of, me, figure out where landmarks to known places are situated etc). You likely have noticed blind students, interns or colleagues in your own context using a similar device to navigate around university campuses, law firm offices or other spaces.
6. However, I wish, in order to increase my independence and efficiency, to transition to using a guide dog.
7. The matters I hope you will give me your valuable opinions on:
(a) How would you, coming from a country where (unless I am mistaken) assistance dogs (or guide dogs specifically) aren't really a thing yet, view a professional in a society where they were who used one and with whom you had to interact? If you have a fear or dislike of dogs, would that in any way be mitigated by knowledge that the guide (or other assistance, e.g. autism support) dog is there purely to support the disabled professional in question and extremely well-trained (i.e., not to do the typical things that untrained dogs do such as sniffing/licking people)?
(b) This one's really subjective/culture specific, so please feel free to skip this question if you like. Do you think, from any experience you may have had of the UK, that this might in any way detract from my or other peoples' professionalism? For example, do you think people might define me as the blind guy with the dog instead of thinking of me as a fellow professional like themselves?
Look forward to your responses and apologies if these questions seem awfully naive!
No choice...... No option...
Also is hiring done at KCO for 25' Batch pan India? How to know if any Corporate/ Cap Marks team might be looking for or is planning to hire within 4-6 months, I'll connect with them virtually. Please shed some light if there is any hope.
1. The privileges provided to SC Judges are by definition, not ‘freebies’. They have worked hard and risen to the rank to deserve those privileges. These are afforded to them, not because of who they are but because of their rank and achievement and in support of the work that they do.
2. Loan Write off does not mean that the loan is ‘waived-off’, write-off means that the loan is written off the books and converted into NPA so they can initiate recovery procedures.
I’ll recommend you to please read critically before presenting your case, not only your comment comes across as juvenile and inept but reeks of the same mindless non-sense that is repeated on social media by ‘influencers’
Honestly prashant bhushan should have refused to justify and simply asked the court why they saw any locus to intervene at all.
RML hardly sees any placements, there is no corporate culture in college. Run as fast away as you can. Won't recommend mnlu too. First choice should be HNLU and then NLUO
If you want a good job by the end of your course, maintaining a high GPA is crucial. At NLS, aim for a GPA of 4.5+; it should not fall below 4. A GPA above 5.5 will likely secure you a job at any Indian law firm, provided you have a decent CV.
Now, addressing your questions:
1. It’s not mandatory to intern during all three breaks. However, in the 4th year, internships are taken more seriously for PPOs (Pre-Placement Offers). Depending on your RCC (Recruitment Coordination Committee) class and firm schedules, you may need to intern in all breaks during that year.
2. For corporate jobs, NGO internships don’t hold much weight. However, it’s worth interning at an NGO in your hometown to spend time at home while fulfilling any requirements.
3. NLS mandates a minimum of 28 days for internships. Most firms offer one-month internships, though some allow two-week durations based on availability.NLS is restructuring its academic calendar, which might result in longer breaks, but you’ll get at least one break per year even if you intern during two.
NALSAR, as far as I know, offers longer breaks.
4. There’s no fixed formula for securing a PPO. Some students land PPOs during their first 4th-year internship. Performance in internships (especially assessment internships) matters most.
In the first two years, focus on maintaining a high GPA, as it’s critical for shortlisting during placements and RCC internships.
Before the 3rd year, intern with a good advocate in the Delhi High Court or your local High Court.
Day Zero (placement day) is held in the first trimester of the 5th year, though you can secure a PPO before that. Keep your GPA in the top 25% of your batch, maintain a solid CV, and ensure strong basics to increase your chances.
5. Connections can help, but you can secure good internships even without them. Apply well in advance and send reminders. Reach out to alumni and ask for guidance from 4th and 5th-year students—they can serve as your "connections."
6. Types of Internships: Regular Internship: A general internship to understand the work culture and quality.
Callback Internship: If you perform well during a regular internship, the firm may invite you back for further assessment, depending on vacancies.
Assessment Internship: Some firms (e.g., S&R Associates) skip the regular internship stage and directly assess candidates during a single internship.
Finally, as a first-generation student, don’t worry—you’ll figure things out once you join law school. Keep researching, and create a LinkedIn account by your second year, but don’t let it overwhelm you. Trust the process, and everything will fall into place.
All the best!
Pros- 1. Work Life Balance (no working weekends/16 hour work days).
2. Benefits like health insurance, fixed holidays which you can take guilt free.
3. Less probability of the office being Toxic. Although this largely depends on your manger, it is likely that the level of toxicity in an in house team will be less than a law firm team.
Cons- 1. Less Pay - Unlike in Tier I law firms, the pay does not increase exponentially. Hence, for improvement in salary, you may have to switch frequently.
2. Not being seen as a "real lawyer"- This is a softer issue and not always true. But some practicing lawyers think that in-house lawyers aren't "real lawyers" and hence look down upon you.
But, if caught, the intern will get belted in open court and let off after a warning but the senior who sent the intern will be in a lottt more trouble.
2. Not backing up junior in front of client;
3. rejecting draft without reading;
4. Reprimanding or shouting at junior over the work even without giving any instructions prior to giving work. Instructions would include expectations regarding work, or how to do and what to do; Just pure assumptions
5. Doing office politics,
6. unreasonable demand for doing office till late night 3-4 am or 1 am from office and then preparing them for heart attack or other lifestyle dises;
7. compulsory work from office when that can be work from home also;
8. Expecting to work fro junior like they are robot;
9. Incessant reprimand, shouting, abusive, taunt, partial behaviour for not reasonble reason, Hyperventilating for no reason ( even though partiality and taunt cannot be justified for any reason);
10. Creating atmosphere of abuse including but not limited to bullying of junior, abusing junior, politics, no leaves or withelding leaves so junior leave before bonus payout time, even not giving credit of work, not giving promotion ( classic tactic). some senior or firm people dont even give work to junior associate then questions why they dont fill their time sheet or not giving ample work so as to fire them.
11.Not understanding junior also have life, they are new to city and fighting their own war in term of getting to new realities of life
Besides junior also have responsibility to work diligently and have balance most compliance wont solve. Point both junior and senior have to understand their responsibility to make legal industry a better work place.
Not being able to push back on the client and having long nights every day and working weekends every week. Being rude and unprofessional in the workplace.
Not okay behaviour:
-Verbal abuse, shouting, screaming your head off, degrading, or humiliating based on immutable characteristics.
-Demanding that every single deliverable be "due yesterday" at the time youre assigning it.
-creating a false sense of urgency especially when the timelines for deliverables are flexible.
-Sexual harassment of women. Repeatedly and unwantedly propositioning coworkers , forcing yourself on them, demanding sexual favours in exchange for concessions at work. When you do date someone at the workplace- automatically treating them more favourably than other coworkers at the workplace. If you must date- keep that outside of work. They should have to earn every single thing other associates do.
-A culture that encourages young new joinees to date and get into relationships with older colleagues.
- assuming that because someone is female or is a certain caste or whatever means that they will be worse at their work. The opposite is often true in the law field.
-Micromanaging to the extent that you demand coworkers sit in front of you while they do their work. -Trust the people you hire or dont hire them at all. They can work in their own space in office as long as they send in their work on time.
-Not paying on time. Not paying the amount promised. Not giving credit for the work done- if you have to present research done at a conference say- put a slide in that adequately acknowledges contributions of everyone involved. Cutting a half a day or a full days pay for being with 15 minutes late- traffic exists. And if you cut the pay, the employee would be fully justified to leave the office and not return for the day. Probation periods that are extremely long and pay less than if you were a full employee.
-not providing sick leave or leave when family is sick, or at least work from home when family is hospitalised.
-Not allowing your colleagues to do their work well by limiting their access to resources or burying them in meaningless paperwork that doesnt actually solve problems.
-assuming that the people you hire owe you their lives or loyalty. Loyalty is built over time brick by brick. Assume that anyone who joins your organisation will leave if its not a good fit. Do not assume anyone should be grateful or feel lucky that you have hired them.
-refusing to provide references/ letters of recommendation especially when the employee has worked hard- simply because you are resentful that they want to move on.
-opaque processes for evaluation and appraisal.
What is okay but I have seen described by others as "toxic"
- Sternly expressing disappointment or disapproval of a colleagues work ethic. harsh evaluations. Sternly worded emails that talk about how employees are failing. Dont shout you can often make more of an impact speaking in a low voice but speaking sternly than you can shouting abuses.
- Tight deadlines now and then that can require a person to work more than the 8 hours they are obligated. Your employees should still be able to be out when theres sunlight a significant portion of time.
- Asking out a colleague on a date once, politely, and not broaching the subject again if denied. Not pressuring that colleague by having others in the office talk to her. Not punishing a colleague for denying your advances. Dating colleagues if consensual and it doesnt adversely affect the workplace performance and appraisals of the lower ranked colleague or others in the workplace.
- disagreeing with other colleagues about political or social issues. just try to not discuss it at all at the workplace, but if you must- you should be mature enough to disagree with each other without ruining the professional relationship.
- refusing to pay for extended leaves away from work. If someone is gone for a whole month or more than a month, and they havent asked for approval of such leave and they havent worked with you long enough to establish credibility- go ahead and refuse to pay them for the time they have been away.
- demanding that deliverables be turned in on time and demanding as many revisions as it takes to get it right.
- not buying every excuse for shirking off work possible. If someone is constantly in crisis, constantly talking about burnout, constantly talking about mental health and anxiety and depression, if theyre doing this more than they are working. It is reasonable to ask the person if they would like to take a few months off, pull themselves together, and then return to work. And you can make clear that their behaviour is not contributing to a productive workplace.
- not preferring for promotion employees who have done less work because they wanted greater "work life balance." actions and choices have consequences.
- demanding clear and sufficient communication on any planned leave and sufficient notice for when a person wants to exit. maintaining friendly relations after and not burning bridges by denying f&f etc.
- clearly explaining your reasons for evaluations and promotions.
At the end of the day- your goal should be to hire the best people possible and to make it possible for them to stay. Most people hate quitting jobs and joining elsewhere. They want to be at one job with one company as long as possible. They only leave when they feel theyre being subjected to unfairness or unprofessionalism. And people who are good at their job know their worth. They will not be grateful or loyal to you unless you give them a reason to.
Your goal should not be to extract as much work as you can from very junior employees, make the workplace unpleasant, and drive them out only to replace with a new crop every year. If your attrition rates are high- you need to think about what youre doing wrong. Your HR should be geared not to simply hire as many people every year as possible, but to hold on to good people as long as possible. It will cost more money to hire 100 people every year and find out the 20 that can do reasonably good work only to lose them every two three years, than to hire 50 people a year, find 10 that are good- keep them for 5-10 years. When a good employee wants to leave- ask what it is you can do to make them stay, let them depart on good terms and keep a good professional relationship going.
Now I come to know that UK's team are seeking adjournments. That's so not what is being peddled in the media.
1. #
2. unsafe environment
3. ego (male)
4. junior = number
How is it any different from the present set up? DC can impose fines, cause suspension etc. even right now na?