I have been working at Tatva Legal Hyderabad for the last 3 years and can tell you confidently that all the hatred laced allegations against Tatva are entirely false. Tatva has zero tolerance to lawyers who breach integrity or POSH policies and has made many enemies because of this.

I switched In-House after roughly 3 years of experience in litigation and then a law firm so I am qualified (experience wise) to answer this question.

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.

no. this would be a serious serious breach. If its just- go take an adjournment or tell them your senior is on the way or might be late- theres some judges who might look away but anyone telling you they argued in a court of law without a license is either lying or confessing to crime.

1. Creating false urgency or fake deadline which are not even near client deadline;

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.

I generally think young folks apply the toxic label to everything nowadays. Here is what I think is okay and what is not.

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.

Two factual issues here

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’

Ugh. Why is the court saying any of this? It is not the courts job to comment on politics or decisions made by the executive or parliament unless they are unconstitutional. You are not elected! You have neither the legitimacy or competency to decide what "freebies" are and what adequate welfare schemes should be run by the government. You are in your cushy government job where you get much more money than any of those women getting 1500 a month will ever see and servants at your beck and call and official cars and chambers and bungalows and the rest because we need people to interpret the constitution and the law. No one appointed to elected you to run economic policy. We are supposed to live in a goddamn democracy.

Honestly prashant bhushan should have refused to justify and simply asked the court why they saw any locus to intervene at all.

There is legitimate criticism that can be made about this interview and how it was conducted. This, however, is not it. Very immature behaviour - commenting anonymously like this using ad hominem instead of arguments. Let me see you actually say all this to that guy's face? I bet you'd never dare.

I think the interviewer used very tried and tested interview techniques on a person on whom those wouldn't work. Among other things, he should surely know that Chandrachud could push back with arguments about conventions and processes. Take the commenting on judgments thing: if he had asked a judge in his own country (the UK) about it, there are similar understandings around not commenting too much on judgments there as well. As somebody who has some acquaintance with the UK legal system, I will say Chandrachud was good in that he didn't use the what-aboutary pushback ('what about in the UK?') too often. This interview largely seemed like he drew from a manual of techniques and just threw up whatever he knew to apply well. As somebody who heartily supports good journalism (especially the kind that questions the Modi government), this kind of an effort is both disappointing and unhelpful.

Hi Guys, just wanted to know that is there any chance for an intern (BO-2025) at KCO Delhi to get a PPO or a long term internship that could convert into a permanent position. The HR said it is not possible. Knew a person that got PPO from KCO Mumbai office.

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.

There's this left YTber by the name - The Deshbhakt. He has brought up UK's denial of bail in countless videos wherever he felt the need to. I was always pissed at the system for this.

Now I come to know that UK's team are seeking adjournments. That's so not what is being peddled in the media.

Firstly trimester is a bad idea in law school. It creates unnecessary workload and stress. Plus reduces time for internships. NLS should think moving to semester system with two rigorous teaching semesters of 4 months each followed by 2 months of internships in winter and summer.

NLSIU this NLSIU that bro shut up. This is Legally India, not National Law School Forum. Stop posting every little thing that happens in NLS onto LI. It's a forum for all lawyers and all law students, don't turn it into an NLS Circle-jerk.

Sincerely,An NLS Student who uses LI for a break from NLS but is disappointed to find half the threads being about NLS because all its students have a superiority complex about their institution and feel the need to tell everyone about it on an online forum.

What happens when a fresh grad chooses a uk based high paying firm? Is the money they pay (60 lpa) good enough after deducing taxes when compared to Indian firms pay? I heard that prospects of making partner is bleak and shifting is not an option since they prefer oxbridge candidates. If he/she decides to return to India after working in the magic circle firm, what position will they be offered at sam, cam, ..?

OP, if you feel strongly about the issue, make sure to write in. I've only had a quick overview, a few good provisions, some tolerable, and yes, some which leave me scratching my head as why even?

I intend to send my comments, as do few of my colleagues and seniors. Glad to note that this issue is being highlighted on L.I.

I m a male A0 in lit team of a firm based in Delhi. Should I be only vacating my seat for designated sr. counsels or also for old unknown advocates as well. These oldies are usually very rude if u do not get up for them nd threaten to call the bar assoc. and create a scene. Please shed some light on the tradition to be followed.

PhD (law) from NLSIU without LLM.

1. do they even admit LLBs (2 yr PQE) for PhD -genuine data would be helpful

2. will it be difficult to enter academia aafter completing phd wo LLM

3. where can one get place with such degree after completion

4.is 1 yr LLM +ugc net +becoming Asst prof and puruing phd better OR the former option (point 1)-pls share pros of both.

Pls share this message as i am in dilemma as i have clat pg rank and thinking to apply NLS phd.

In Corporate Litigation the requirement of designated senior is mirage. Niche and knowledgeable designated seniors are in scare. Abhijeet Sinha used to charge 2.5 lks without gown. Mr. Mitra charges 1.5 without gown.

It’s now only a thing for SC and Hc where designated senior may be available at 33k also. NCLAT NCLT works very different now.

As of the past two years, even a foolish won't compare CLAT with JEE. CLAT is throwing childish textbook passages. It's not difficult at all. It's just GK was difficult, but that too is changed now, passage based. So likely we have nothing to do except concentrate for 2 hours.

NLUD now has to contend with NFSU Delhi. As a state university with no relative location advantage, it can never compete with a national one. DTU (as DCE) was established 20 years before IITD. In the first 2 - 3 years, everyone scoffed at the idea of IITD being ever able to compete with DTU. We know where they are now. So, it is what it is. NLUD's relegation is a process in motion.

Just found out of the judges in the finals of the moot is a ex senior of one of the members in the finalist teams. And the entire moot court association know about it. Not only that 2 of the members of the finalist team were ex moot court members. This is the tip of the ice berg of how shady the GLC MCA is.

Cause LI is rife with college students, not actual practitioners. Saraf is one of the best law firms to work at. Their renumeration scale is at par with most tier one firms. Most partners are experts at their practice areas, and the level of mentorship they are willing to provide their juniors is unparalleled.