Not only that, I've seen that certain threads have earlier comments that have not been posted, not marked trollish but just not moderated for over two days, and then new comments asking for publishing the old comments have been published, but not the old comments themselves. That's frankly bizarre. Don't the mods get to see the old comments after a while?

mods, there are a lot of comments that aren't published even though they are not against the above stated guidelines. Please publish the comments quicker than you do, or maybe get someone to help you all. A lot of posts seek help and advice and require wider visibility, and your laziness to not publish them does not do any good the users of your platform. Please be more considerate. Thank you.

Dear LI community,

We have summarised and re-articulated our community guidelines here and hope to update these regularly based on your feedback in the comments below.

If you have any suggestions, we'd love to hear from you.

Much love,

LI

1. Commenting guidelines

We want LI to be a friendly place 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.

There are a few simple principles and rules that you must agree to follow in using this site:

Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.

Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.

Assume the best intention of other persons.

Particularly, this means but is not limited to the following:

1.1. Report any comments to moderators that do you think do not meet these commenting and moderation policies with the '⚠ / report' button next to each comment. Reports will get looked at and processed within 24 hours (and we try to do so faster). In your report, please specify why a comment should be unpublished and/or redacted.



1.2. Don't defame or be malicious towards others. E.g. calling someone 'toxic' is not actually helpful or verifiable.

1.3. Don't sensationalise (such as in headlines by using CAPITAL LETTERS, known as shouting).

1.4. If your news item or argument can be backed up by evidence, please include a link to the original source or a screenshot (pasting into the comments box usually works).

1.5. Don't attack or question the moderators' decisions or motives. It is rude and off-topic, they have a lot to do and try their best. If you disagree with a moderation decision, use the 'file appeal' or 'report' button next to each comment.

1.6. Don't hold ideological or political battles on LI, including battles about another issue that you are really making to hold a proxy battle about something else.

2. Moderator guidelines

To those community members who are also moderators: it might feel frustrating not being able to publish everything. But do bear in mind: moderation is the only thing that stands in the way of LI being a cesspit of misinformation, untruths and trolling, versus a helpful resource that encourages intelligent and helpful debate.

Here are some general guidelines that may be helpful.

2.1 Do publish:

2.1.1. Thoughtful comments that engage intelligently on a subject matter that lawyers might find interesting

2.1.2. Interesting comments that cast new light on a problem or situation and that might make lawyers think

2.1.3. Comments that are helpful and aim to assist someone with advice.

2.2 Don't publish:

2.2.1. Comments attacking a person, not their argument, or insinuating that someone anonymous is actually someone else (ad hominem).

2.2.2. Comments where someone, who is not a public figure, is named or fundamentally identifiable because it includes a description that leaves the pool of eligible people very small, and something is said about them you don't know or is impossible to know potentially defames them, such as by questioning their legal accumen or skills.

2.2.2. Comments where in all likelihood you don't know what something means (e.g. in-jokes, slang, a language you don't understand).

2.2.3. Comments that are NOT in English (alas, it's the Indian legal profession's main lingua franca).

2.2.4. Comments making fun of someone else's level of English spelling or grammar (it is exclusionary: not everyone will have had the same educational or language background, and dyslexia is real).

2.2.5. Comments where there's even a small risk that the comment is cyber bullying or trolling or doxxing someone by making personal details public: especially keep an eye out for likely intra-law-school rivalries.

2.2.6. Comments about the physical appearance or other physical characteristics of someone else, even if complimentary and not negative.

And remember, if in doubt, don't publish a comment. You can call for help or opinions from other mods and more senior mods anytime by clicking the 'SOS' button to report a comment.

I have interned and got a ppo from this firm. I am already planning to shift as soon as I hit 1PQE. I used to scoff at the NLU supremacists but the quality difference between their very few NLU graduates and others is wider than the Grand Canyon. Working hours were insane in both of my stints and they didn't even pay.

I interned at a Big 4. Good office, nice colleagues, prestigious brand, good world-life ex, chilled overall. But limited possibility of becoming a partner unless you do an MBA.

Depends on what you want in life. Go-getter bros aiming for a Merc, a high-end 3BHK, Patek watch, and a high-maintenance wife/gf still aim for an equity partnership at a tier 1 -- but be prepared for crazy work hours and stress,

you have to choose between an in-house counsel and an associate. Pay is lower, so is scalability. In a t-1 firm you'd be paid higher with a hike in every 2-3 years. But a very poor work-life balance. Depends on what you want to do in the long run and how much you love law. If you're passionate, law firms is obviously the better call. But if you want to explore other areas too, Big 4 would let you do that.

Abhaya’s father: “Pages from her diary were torn.”

Gets murkier and murkier. Obviously a giant conspiracy involving EXTREMELY powerful people.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kolkata-rape-murder-rg-kar-what-murdered-doctors-father-said-about-a-torn-page-from-her-diary-6368882#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll

This is the only thing y'all need to see. An interview of one of the counsels in the case, Senior Advocate and Left MP Bikash Bhatacharya. What he says is just spine-chilling. It's in Bengali, but you can ask a friend to translate or use AI.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69-UbdqOblI

Oh come on GNLU PR Society president, we have enough trouble as it is. We really don't need Ganloo trolling added to the mix, please. Your institution isn't, and shouldn't, be or thought of as a joke, but this constant promotion/validation in a very troll-like way is giving it that reputation. In the name of god, stop, and leave.

Social effects apply to all law schools. How different law schools are responding and their effects- it is honestly too early to tell. You will only probably be able to tell at the end of Sudhirs second term if even then. Universities are big ships and it takes a lot of time to turn one around.

The first few batches under Faizan Mustafa at NALSAR were fine. Graduates had good outcomes, even a Rhodes scholar, many going on to graduate schools, and many steadily climbing the corporate ladder. But the last few batches after FM has been at the helm for a while? Not the same thing at all.

Also, "everyone else is also bad at the law so lets not even try to get better" is not a compelling argument when youre talking about the best law school in the country.

Correlation between screen time and mental health is only one way of measuring that. Haidt explains this on twitter. Quoting him:
A review in Nature, by

@candice_odgers

, asserts that I have mistaken correlation for causation and that “there is no evidence that using these platforms is rewiring children’s brains or driving an epidemic of mental illness.” Both of these assertions are untrue. https://nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2…@zachmrausch

and I have been collecting the published studies on both sides since 2019, organizing them, and making them available for public viewing and commenting, in multiple Google docs available here: https://anxiousgeneration.com/resources/collaborative-review-docs… In the “social media and mental health” doc, we currently list 22 experimental studies (16 of which found significant evidence of harm) and 9 quasi-experiments (8 of which found evidence of harm. Odgers cited only the 9th one.) We also examine the many meta-analyses and review papers. I lay out the evidence for causality (not just correlation) and walk the reader through the Google doc in this post at After Babel: https://afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic… People really need to stop saying that the evidence is “just correlational.” Sure, there are a lot of correlational studies (79 in our Google doc, of which 64 found significant correlations with variables related to poor mental health.) But there are also many experiments supporting my claims of causation. I’ll write a post at http://Afterbabel.com in April responding more fully to the arguments of the skeptics (including Odgers). For now, I point interested readers to a post in which I laid out 6 problems with the way that the skeptics have conceptualized the debate: https://afterbabel.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong… I just want to note two more problems with Odgers’ review. First: She says that I am offering a simplistic one-factor explanation: it’s social media! But I am not. My story is about two major factors (end of the play-based childhood, rise of the phone-based childhood), each of which has many components that bring a variety of harms to different children in different ways. My book is full of lists of causal pathways. There is no one causal pathway that, on its own, explains “the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt.” Yet when you add up all the different ways that the phone-based childhood is harming different kids, some of which we learned about in that Senate hearing on January 31, you end up with a lot of kids being harmed in many ways, and these many harms combined can easily explain the “large effects” even though most pathways affect only a subset of kids. Yet Odgers and the other skeptics focus intently on studies that operationalize social media in one crude way (total # of hours per day), and then correlate that number with some measure of anxiety, depression, or other mental ailment. When the correlations turn out to be around r = .15 for girls (which is actually a number we agree on, as I explain in the previous link), the skeptics conclude that this is not large enough--by itself--to explain the epidemic, so social media must be only a trivial contributor to the epidemic. This is an error caused by an overly narrow operationalization of a complex phenomenon: the radical transformation of daily life that happened for teens between 2010 and 2015. Only a sliver of the story is captured by the crude measure of “hours per day” on social media. The skeptics’ skepticism would be more compelling if they had an alternative explanation for the multi-national decline in mental health that happened in the early 2010s, but they do not. Odgers claims that the “real causes” of the crisis, from which my book “might distract us from effectively responding,” are the lingering effects of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, which had lasting effects on “families in the bottom 20% of the income distribution,” who were “also growing up at the time of an opioid crisis, school shootings, and increasing unrest because of racial and sexual discrimination and violence.” I agree that those things are all bad for human development, but Odgers’ theory cannot explain why rates of anxiety and depression were generally flat in the 2000s and then suddenly shot upward roughly four years after the start of the Global Financial Crisis. Did life in America suddenly get that much worse during President Obama’s 2nd term, as the economy was steadily improving? Her theory also cannot explain why adolescent mental health collapsed in similar ways around the same time in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, as Zach and I have shown: https://afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-part-one… Nor can she explain why it also happened in the Nordic countries, which lack most of the social pathologies on Odgers’ list: https://afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-part-two… Nor why it also happened in much of Western Europe: https://afterbabel.com/p/international-crisis-europe… Nor why suicide rates for Gen Z girls (but not alway boys) are at record levels across the Anglosphere: https://afterbabel.com/p/anglo-teen-suicide… I just can’t see a causal path by which America’s school shootings, lockdown drills, inequality, or racism caused girls in Australia to suddenly start self-harming or dying by suicide at the same time as American girls. In short: There is a great deal of evidence for my claims that something terrible is happening to teens in many countries, and that a major contributing factor is the sudden international arrival of the phone-based childhood. I lay out this evidence––with hundreds of footnotes––in chapters 1, 5, 6, and 7 of The Anxious Generation. I have also laid it out in many posts at http://AfterBabel.com. All along, Zach and I have “shown our work” in public Google Docs and Substack posts, and we have invited others to critique it. Zach has made supplemental files for every chapter in The Anxious Generation, which give links to the datasets and data points that he used to create the graphs in the book. We invite you to check our work: https://anxiousgeneration.com/resources/supplements-for-each-chapter… Our work has benefited from cordial, normal, academic debates with the skeptics. We will continue to welcome their critiques. But please, everyone, stop saying that the evidence is “just correlational."
Link:https://x.com/JonHaidt/status/1774571680511508601

I agree. the first day of university as a Rhodes scholar- you get invitations from big companies to parties which is their way of offering you fancy high paying jobs. Anyone who comes back to trawl in the muck of indian academia is by definition a patriot. You can still dislike sudhir for any number of reasons- but he is a patriot.

I don't know how this is a debate, but Sudhir indeed is a patriot, and, if I may quote Hagrid (I know references to J.K. Rowling are controversial in these times), "a thumpin' good'un". He chose to come back to a country which frankly isn't a fantastic environment for people like him (or for quite a lot of people, if we think about it), but he chose to. He made a deliberate choice, when the world was his oister, to come back to the toxicity, the trolling and other nonsense that was (and remains) the best the country can offer to its talented citizens.

They do. It's very exploitative of them to do so, but they still do it. At A3, you'll join at A1 salary mostly. But for you, that A1 salary of 21/22 LPA will be a significant upgrade over your previous salary, right? So it doesn't matter that much in terms of the money, only time you'll feel left out is when there are promotions.

Your performance was likely so bad that you were consistently underpaid at all levels. Thus, securing a 34% increment over the nothingness you were in, you live in a mirage that your performance was outstanding. Maybe, the others were always paid pretty high given their performance- unlike you.

No. You are right to the extent that diversity in and of itself doesn't. Mindsets like yours do, however. How? When people consider diversity over all else, quality is bound to be compromised to some extent at least. That leads to insecurity among people at those institutions who chant so much about diversity. And that insecurity leads to people like you, the sources of all the painful trolling.

If you knew anything about LNAT, you'd know there's only one essay question that has to be answered, they have (if I remember rightly) a multiple choice section marked out of 42 which are completely objective. So please either educate yourself, or take your sour grapes elsewhere.

Hi! OP here, I took up a boutique firm job that’s wfh but the workload is quite high. Further, I am convinced that UPSC is what I want to do and really want to take an attempt next year (2025). When is a good time to quit my job so as to create a PQE safety net to come back to Corp law if things don’t work out? Is 6 months okay at a good Boutique firm?

Can’t agree with you more, however in my case, add to in lack of clear instructions, a lot of passive aggressive behaviour and the anxiety caused by the same. Always dreamt of landing a high paying T1 job and now even my best efforts go under appreciated. The “growth” so many people talk about simply doesn’t exist and I don’t know how to leave after less than 2 months in and if I’ll be able to find something else even.

I am also an A0 and trust me, most non-toxic teams expect you to take some time to catch up. The other day my partner asked me to research on something. The topic was new for me, not for him. He is a FEMA expert. By the time I understood a few provisions pertaining to FOCC, he had already drafted the responses. Till the time you are putting in the hardwork, people will appreciate.

Forgive me folks, but a quick question (just to be clear, this is a perfectly legitimate demand, and ideally there should be no restriction at all, but obviously that view of the ideal has to be balanced with the knowledge and evaluation of the on-the-ground reality). What exactly does posting on Legally India do to further your cause? You have comments with excellent (perfectly valid) arguments, but admin could argue that those were just one or two students repeatedly posting.

The Mumbai office takes about 40 interns every month in peak months (June, July, Dec, Jan). Not sure about other months. No idea about how the BLR office works either. My PPO process was pretty standard as per what AZB Mumbai does. In the last week of your assessment internship, you have to present on an assigned topic to your partner and probably 3-4 other partners of the group you're interning in. They ask you questions throughout the ppt and then there is a short interview afterwards. They reserve a 1 hour slot for the PPT and related questions + general CV / company law / contract law questions. No tips really on how to prep for the internship. Just be good at researching well I guess. The associates giving you work will explain what they expect and how you need to do it. Make sure you ask enough questions so you don't end up doing something they didn't want/need.

With respect to the ppt and interview, just be well researched on the subject you're presenting and thorough with everything in your CV. PPOs can be through RCC or if you go through a contact as well, you just gotta do good work. No idea if they take individual applications.

1. The Big 4s range from 6-9l PA depending on the location, the team you are joining and your school.

2. German companies are better at paying but since those opportunities are practically non-existent, I don’t even have a ballpark figure to give. Maruti on the other hand offers somewhere around 35k to 45k in hand.

3. Adani - depends on the vertical. If you are in land acquisition/title verification or HR compliance then it’s somewhere around 35-40k in hand. If you are in HO and doing gen corp then that is pushed to 60-70k.

4. I don’t really know what are WITCH companies. Sorry.

5.Investment firms don’t really hire law graduates unless you have CFA or CA cleared at some level. Plus they like someone with an engineering and science background. Insurance companies pay around 35-40k in hand provided if you are in the claims department. Lower this if you are in the branch offices. If you are in gen corp team at HO you can expect around 50k.

Hope this helps.

The best way to go about it is to go through the LinkedIn profile of a person who can get you referrals by contacts. This can be a close friend who is from a good college alumni network. You go to these companies’ individual career pages and apply. Do not worry about experience requirements as such. Companies are flexible with those.

Usually the opportunities which are posted online are also floated internally as “Internal job postings” and that is a much quicker way of drawing an interview.

Hope this helps!

What even is the nature of a Law firm in India. How are these firms "created" and given legal recognition.

The obvious answer for me would be that all firms are setup as a Partnership, but that doesn't seem to fit the way these firms work. Partly because, seemingly "partners" are added and removed on the drop of a hat (I understand salaried partners would be one only in name, drawing a set retainer.).

If the firms were LLP's that would make sense, but it's a pretty recent development in India so I don't believe many firms exist as a LLP.

In any case I'm slightly befuddled by this question and ask any in the know-how to answer it.

What is the organizational setup of a BIG law firm and the corresponding compliance requirements?

I don’t know where the good reputation comes from. People there work long days (and nights) as well as weekends. How does it matter if people are nice if you have no life? All matters are marquee transactions - all blackstone deals etc. May not be published because no client permission to publish, or perhaps too overworked to draft a press release.

Hello friends. Some of you are saying that the NUJS SJA is silent on the issue. I would like to clarify that a statement has been issued on 15 August itself. Link below.

https://www.facebook.com/NUJSKolkata

Popular legal influencer and NUJS alum Ashish Goel has criticised the Supreme Court for taking suo Moto cognisance of this case. In his view, the court should not have done so.

https://x.com/ashish_nujs/status/1825173408918679989

https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-suo-motu-cognisance-rg-kar-rape-murder-resident-doctor-west-bengal

So that CM Kindness does not become next Hasina? To stall domino effect in other states?

After the recent terrible murder and rape of a medico in Kolkata, I have come across news of rapes, assault and molestation in Uttarakhand, Bihar and Odisha now. Crimes against nurses, minor girls, patients in hospitals...I am really despairing about our society and future. The opposition party in Bengal that is rightly trying to hold the state government accountable for the Kolkata case, has itself been accused of assault and molestation in another part of the state. The party in power in the state has been accused of multiple such incidents throughout its tenure in power. Where are we going this way? Is it that difficult to control one's urges and not attack people around us? Then what's the benefit of all this pretense of education and law and civilisation and culture etc.? I know that this is not a problem limited only to our country, but somehow we are getting desensitised by such news everyday, and it always hits one harder when it's about one's home.

Because that's what people who are paid to give "advice" on matters that should be possible to research relatively simply on one's own and/or get inputs about from people who've experienced it first hand for free do. It's their business model to pretend like they are the fountain of human knowledge and have some intreaguing or dark secret that nobody else does, just by virtue of being in that position to play god.

the firm majorly does only indirect tax - both litigation and advisory, and they have a startup like system - no secluded practices like gst litigation, gst transaction, etc., they do all forms of indirect tax matters, a small proportion of direct tax seemingly exists, i do not know the pay, i would love to if someone would be open to discuss about it, so i go by the assumption that it would be around 50k max for freshers, for those interested in these areas, surely a good place to work given the closely knit taxation space