‘Healthy detachment’ you say? I thought that was quite the rant that indicates a fair degree of resentment.
But I won’t make it personal. Neither is this an in-house versus law firm debate.
The two operate in entirely different realms. They don’t even compete with each other, but rather serve each other’s purpose.
I would like to refute some of the claims made in the last post and to provide clarity to many a confused associate who may wrongly suffer from similar ‘all is lost’ delusions.
Precedential preference
On using a precedent, I don’t see what’s wrong with that. These transactions emerged from the West and are filled with US concepts; it is only natural that foreign law firms have better precedents. They’ve been at this far longer.
Where we Indian law firms come in is to assist funds / entrepreneurs on how these rights work in the Indian context. And also how these rights, which are taken for granted in the US or other countries, will require quite a fight.
We fight this fight for our clients.
Furthermore, the implications of many rights are yet to be tested. From drag rights to liquidation preference, and even indemnities!
Right now we’re all just trying to get with the program and best safeguard our client’s interests. So it does take more than a few iterations.
Rue diligence
On diligences, how many deals fall through because of compliance issues that come up in the legal diligence? In my experience, not many.
And that’s not because first years ran the diligence and weren’t skilled to dig up some dirt. It’s mostly the same issues that come up in every other diligence. Labour law issues, under-stamped agreements, trademarks not registered in all the relevant classes, some company secretarial issues and a host of other issues on the same scale.
It’s not rocket science. And what a shame that first years can’t pick up on these issues after having gone through a few reports in the first few months.
I too generalise. There are serious issues on structures, FEMA and SEBI compliances in some cases. And that’s when the partner and senior associate involvement changes and also a consultant / specialist may be roped in, depending on the complexity of the issue.
Back to the usual suspects, we all like to scare our phoren clients on criminal liabilities for labour law non-compliances, though I’m not aware of any officer that has gone to prison for not having contract labour registrations. I can safely assume that no one has.
At the end of the day, it’s our job to inform clients of these consequences on paper and what the realities are in India and assist them in making decisions.
Opinionated somethings
On opinions, law firms simply do not have the luxury of concluding an opinion with absolute certainty. But it’s not that partners are not ballsy enough. Many like to be cowboys and go guns blazing to stand out. But the laws in our country are that grey.
Where is round-tripping codified? Which law entitles income tax officers to question capital gains tax exemptions availed under legitimate tax treaties? Tell me the provision that precisely defines “unpublished price sensitive information”. Tell me the provision under law that says just because shares of a public company are freely transferable, shareholders cannot enter into private arrangements to deal with their inter-se rights?
You can’t. Not without a lot of case law to explain the convoluted state of these issues. In any case, we always verbally convey what our opinion is going to be. If its negative, the client drops it. If it’s grey, depending on the need, the client still goes ahead and asks for it and keeps it on file.
Soft skills
If you stayed long enough to appreciate and understand the dynamics of a law firm, you may not have been so pessimistic or jaded. Being technically sound or brilliant isn’t all that it takes. A good managing partner recognises the strengths and weaknesses of each partner / associate and slots them into roles. Sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly.
If you feel you are better, prove it and you will most certainly have the benefit of your actions.
For the others: if you can’t draft or negotiate, then don’t be bitter about being stuck with diligences all your life. If you can’t interact with clients, then don’t complain about being made to work behind the scenes.
Law firms are competitive. And things are not always what they seem to be. A seemingly moronic partner may be bringing in a lot of clients. A partner with no BD skills may be great with his team and possess magnificent leadership skills. A technically sound partner may very well be the leader of some Dothraki clan in another life.
The straight story
Miraculously, it all comes together once you know what you have to contribute and where you want to slot yourself.
For the newbies / associates who feel that their time is not respected or that Mondays are hell on earth –which profession entitles you to a lakh a month (excluding bonuses) straight out of college with no experience whatsoever?
And about being made to “wait” - the associate is not staring at the ceiling while you wait is he? If he is, let’s write to Dexter.
But more often than not, you may be made to wait a little improperly because sometimes the timing can’t be helped. What are you missing out on – the One Directions movie? Skinnier jeans? Sure, money doesn’t justify everything. But every law firm’s reputation precedes it. You made your choice. So why is it suddenly criminal that you spent a few late nights or Sundays in the office?
“In conclusion”, it’s easier to crib. About the senile managing partner. About time slips. About how overburdened you are. How you’re surrounded by dimwits and how you’re the only one keeping it together. Oh the unfairness of it all. Boo Hoo.
Prove your worth, and you are most likely to succeed. It’s not easy. But it’s that simple.
Voice your concern to the people who matter instead of trashing the people around you over a smoke. Don’t go in bouncing off the walls or like some victim that’s about to be made road kill. And for the love of Batman, please don’t cry. Just say it like it is.
If things still don’t work out, then it’s time to introspect and gauge what your skills really are and accept the facts. This is not idealism. Or sanctimonious preaching. It worked for me. It can for others. This is also not to say that working in a law firm is like a trip to Disney Land. It has its issues – but assess what they are sensibly and then try to resolve them.
Carefully worded opinions on grey areas, using good precedents and such things are not really issues.
The author has worked in a leading law firm for many years and likes to preach to anyone who will listen. But not many do on account of her sanctimonious nature.
Comments
Couldn't agree more. The quality of articles on LI has been dipping by the day. No investigative reports, no big scoops, just press releases from law firms, links to TOI articles and silly write-ups like this.
[b]@ Anonymous lawfirmite: If I may be sanctimonious myself, please read my rebuttals in the comments to the GC's ramblings :)[/b]
GC - care for a surrebuttal or do you gracefully accept defeat?
Dear Lawfirmite
So how many poor clients did you bill for the hours spent writing this boring, insipid defence of unethical management, outright fabrication of billing, blatant poor work quality and sophisticated manual scavenging that goes on in your firm.
The GC opinion was IMHO a much more interesting article with no rancour.
Go waste a few more hours! Peace !
the GC ramblings were far more insightful.
Now, why are the litigators crying?
Go toot your horn about how great you are someplace else.
1. The folks doing litigation essentially keep shuttling back and forth either couriering documents to senior counsel or briefing the senior counsel at their offices. In a few cases they attend hearings but do not contribute as the senior counsel's own juniors will be around for that.
2. In very very high stake matters, usually the litigation partner hogs the limelight (if there is any light at all)
3. Most of the big firms hire some small time small court lawyers who are less of lawyers and more of fixers who can plod the greasy steps for the few instances where some filing, appearance is required in a greasy magistrates court or a registrar's chamber, etc. These guys are usually locals lack posh and talk but are more than happy to do their mandate because the upper class NLU-folks find this job too squeamish.
Make no mistake, these so called 'litigators' also contribute to a firm and in many cases do a fair bit of documentation also. But lets not fool ourselves thinking they are doing litigation.
I would have gotten off my dope if I did smoke. But what's your point?
In the real world...as against the make believe world of NLUs. hmmm.
Another major issue is the intra-firm bickering and office politics. There is too much of it...and younger associates usually bear the brunt of it.
That kind of stress and pressure is not worth it even if you'd pay me in several lakhs!
seems like you belong to the latter category.
Armed with my own experience at a leading law firm, let me burst your bubble. The salary definitely does NOT justify what law firms serve to their associates. This is the reason most of them will quit, at max, within the initial 3-4 years. It's only a question of them realizing this. And, as someone else pointed out, their salaries are no charity. They bill in multiples for their law firms.
The problem with your 'rebuttal' is that it takes a few of these misguided notions as sacrosanct 'facts' and proceeds to then attempt to justify anything a law firm could possibly do, whether right or wrong.
I'm sorry, but in my opinion this is a bit feeble. Law firms in India have a long way to go before they can mature into professional organizations. I say that without exception. The most dangerous ones are those which proclaim themselves to be 'non-family' and 'professionally-run' firms but which in fact are no better than an underground sweatshop in Cambodia.
PS: Nothing grey about that opinion.
How myopic are you? You do realise that not EVERYONE in the world is interested in drafting lengthy contracts and reviewing documents for a diligence?
It's great that you've found something you love to do but that doesn't entitle you to judge others who you deem "quitters". For all you know, they might trump you professionally in the future.
GC: 1 Lawfirmite: 0
PS: You didn't add any value but just used a few billable hours
GC: 1 Lawfirmite: 0[/quote]
Also, GC has a bonus score of 1 (it's an inalienable part of corp culture, man!) so it's
GC: 2 Lawfirmite: 0
The problem is law firms in the present age in India are less focused on practicing the profession of law as being super profiteering businesses. The trend is securing the big deals and glorifying exorbitant hourly billings. Priority is to get more work irrespective of whether there are adequate skilled hands to turn around things. Networking, family and affiliations becomes important. Very often mandates flow because of extraneous reasons than just skills that the law firm may possess as a body. Corporates and GCs are also to blame partly for the downward movement that has sabotaged the growth story of the Indian law firms.
Many may come out with drawn swords but the truth is that the emphasis in a law firm is more often than not the greenbacks. This is not good for the clients nor for the junior members. Not that I say billings are not important. What I say is focus on practicing the profession of law, become leaders in your field and the green backs will follow you. in fact, most of the senior members in Indian law firms grew up professionally in an environment that laid more emphasis on learning and honing lawyering skills. Therefore, amongst the old school of law firm partners, you will find people with rounded skills, comfortable in addressing complicated issues. However, the same is not true for the present generation of law firm entrants, who are trained more as sweat shop workers. This process must be reversed.
As far as the specific issues raised in the article under comment, it appears that the law firmite is pretty casual in her approach on "rue diligence" and "opinionated somethings". The importance of a good diligence is not only to see the deal through but to ensure that the client, especially a purchaser does not wake up some couple of years down the line with nightmares. The ability to flag potential life threatening issues comes with experience not only in law but the industry in which the buyer and seller operate. It also requires a holistic view from the top as much as it requires a reading between the lines of a contract or other instrument. True that a large number of deals may not involve any such potential hazards, but the ideal approach would be to do a thorough check and not treat the deal as just one of the many on plate. That is the reason why the client did not go to any X, Y or Z lawyer or law firm but chose the Tier - I city firm. Forewarning the client on issues that anyone else will simply brush aside pays when the flagged issue become live.
Secondly, I completely disagree on the author's views in respect of opinions. The provisions of a statute or a clause in a contract may be grey, that is why the Client has approached you. You are to form an opinion based on your understanding of the law and the facts involved. You may be right or wrong but you have to be clear, one way or the other. The client does not pay you for sharing your confusion with him/her. In this context, I would like to share a passage from Lord Denning's "The Discipline of Law":
"Seek to make your opinions clear at all costs. Make them positive and definite. Not neutral or vacillating. My pupil master told me early on of the client's complaint: 'I want your opinion and not your doubts', and of Sir George Jessel's characteristic saying: 'I may be wrong and sometimes am, but I am never in doubt'."
I may make it clear, I am not taking any sides here for I am neither a GC nor currently a member of any law firm.
Law firms have a lot to do and offer. There are indeed some brilliant individuals. Yes, and many enthusiastic and budding lawyers. They only require a enabling environment to produce their best. The GCs may rant and complain but they cannot do without external help. The GCs in turn work under a lot of pressure being directly in the line of fire. Law firms and GCs are two sides of a coin and both work broadly for the same cause to see that deals do not go sour.
If this is the quality of a simple comment, I can't imagine how the drafts and opinions of these lawyers are turning out. No wonder they all sound so bitter about law firms and bitter about being treated badly.
We've all been through the mill.. It's part of the process. Stop whining and get back to work. Or quit. Each and every one of us is supremely replaceable by lawyers with better skill sets and better attitudes.
We've all been through the mill.. It's part of the process. Stop whining and get back to work. Or quit. Each and every one of us is supremely replaceable by lawyers with better skill sets and better attitudes.[/quote]
Since when was being 'professional' in your actions a requirement before the right to b***h and moan about being battered and abused?
And what in the world is this 'mill' that you've been through that you think is a part of the 'process'. These generic tiny words thrown around by big mouths is such a relative topic that simply make no sense in a general context. (OH WAAAAAIIT. That was a Corporate Counsel and his/her world ended right there.)
Also, this retort made GC's column look much better than it was. (Which mind you was still good(awesome?)(I'm confused) (notwithstanding this terrible terrible follow-up).
And more importantly "battered and abused"?! no one is forcing these associates to be battered or abused. No one is even forcing them to stay employed. if the associate can't handle a law firm's requirements (or rather meet the law firm's expectations), then staying on and 'moaning' about it to anyone who will listen is just making it worse.
and lastly, no one denies that law firms have crazy time lines. if an associate objects to such timelines or the way he is being treated and the partner in charge doesn't want to do anything about it, then please leave. please find a law firm that is more apt for your priorities. Or suck it up until you find the right one. this endless victimization is what is wrong. and can unnecessarily influence others who may not even feel the same way.
i doubt there's any profession that doesn't eat into Sundays or take up a few late nights. agreed that in a law firm its more than just a few sundays or a few late nights, but its cyclical. its not at all a 365 days a year situation. like someone above said, there is just so much negativity without even appreciating what the negativity is about!
Spare us for not wanting to be another brick in the wall.
Have a great working weekend.
Please, go ahead write 'us' a thesis on the 'mill' or 'process'. I can assure you I'm more likely to catch your cut-copy-pasting, childish editing and incessant paraphrasing than make sense of anything you might 'discuss' in your thesis.
*Thinking - Need to be a corporate lawyer he/she says! Bah!*
I'm not sure how much you know of corporate lawyer across the globe - this is the job, my friend. If you want it or want to be anything but a forgettable associate who used to work in any law firm. I'm not saying all partners everywhere have worked that hard to get where they are (we all know that's not true), but all partners worth emulating or respecting have definitely only gotten where they are with sheer hard work.
The problem is that no law school in India will prepare you for what is in store in a law firm - and for whatever reason, most associates think their days of hard work are over the moment they step out of law school.
And once again, I would like to invite each and every associate who believes they are being exploited - please leave and find another job that pays you as well. Some have been lucky in this regard, you may be too. In any case, if you hate your job that much, you definitely will NOT be good at it.
You spell well.
I hope you don't actually draft opinions/ contracts. With your spelling, I would be surprised if any associate took you seriously.
I'm not sure how much you know of corporate lawyer across the globe - this is the job, my friend. If you want it or want to be anything but a forgettable associate who used to work in any law firm. I'm not saying all partners everywhere have worked that hard to get where they are (we all know that's not true), but all partners worth emulating or respecting have definitely only gotten where they are with sheer hard work.
The problem is that no law school in India will prepare you for what is in store in a law firm - and for whatever reason, most associates think their days of hard work are over the moment they step out of law school.
And once again, I would like to invite each and every associate who believes they are being exploited - please leave and find another job that pays you as well. Some have been lucky in this regard, you may be too. In any case, if you hate your job that much, you definitely will NOT be good at it.[/quote]
AND WHAT/WHO ARE 'PEOPLE ASSOCIATES'? Are they any different from the regular associates who, as far as I'm aware, have always been people!!?
Wow, you are clearly the guy whom the associates would love to hate! Enjoy torturing them much?
Let's face it, everybody wants the money and for all you know the associate whom you must be mistreating is slaving it out for you to repay a loan. Agreed that corporate law is not for everyone but basic respect and decency is. If you cared to read thoroughly, the complaint isn't about the work - it is about being treated in a callous manner.
Most Indian law firm partners generally don't have the backbone to set their own deadlines or stipulate reasonable ones with the client which leads to hectic schedules and heaps of frustration. This eventually trickles down to heaving all of it on the junior associate. Further, not only is the junior associate not made to feel responsible/ trusted, he/she is expected to wait up while you conveniently, at your own time, decide to review work or delegate at your whims and fancies.
I would go on but it is evident from your comment that you don't read so I wouldn't waste my time.
Hope the contracts you've reviewed still hold good.
The point is - this is how it works. The deadlines, the crazy hours, the working weekends and yes, even some (definitely not all) terrible seniors. You are expected to take life and professional lessons from these things (often, learn what not to do rather than what to do). Unfortunately, this realisation needs to come from you and is not going to be spoon fed to you. No one is going to sit down with you and say 'tell me, oh troubled associate, what ails you?'
Time to start acting like the adults we pretend to be when we get out of law school. Man up, grow a pair and work!
You revel in the system because it provides you free internet, free food (at the cost of the client), a comfortable chair, an AC and other perks, hence, the disappointing and sad plea of this is how the system works. It is one thing to cry hoarse about the Government being inefficient, another to feel the same way in a privately run organization.
And who is to be blamed? People like you who believe that this is how the system works and should work (You are no trend-setter/ leader hence 0 points if you ever want to be a ‘great’ partner. You might just become a partner, hated albeit.).
Kindly, as a lawyer, do not feed us your philosophical bullshit about life-lessons. 5 years in a law school and constant interaction with enlightened souls as your great self teaches us enough and more about life.
Guess what I just learnt from you? (Since I am a bad corporate lawyer and understand only when points are bulleted.)
a) How NOT to treat my juniors;
b) How I should NEVER ever compromise on my weekends; and
c) How I SHOULDN’T be judgmental.
And trust me, while there are helpful seniors in a few organizations who hear you out and help make the place bearable, no associate in his/ her right mind would approach you.
I’d suggest a recreational activity for you to help cope with all the frustration but then again it might just be wasted on you.
Oh boy. You've completely missed the point even when it's jumping right in your face like Morgan Freeman on cocaine in a bright yellow tux riding a pogo stick.
I'll explain.
It's not a question of one just [i]'getting with'[/i] this system. Most 'quitters' I've known were the blue eyed associates who 'handled it' rather well. They decided to stop putting up with the nonsense. Most of those who've managed to stick around longer aren't exactly hanging on because they possess some supreme skill sets. Some are unarguably clunk-heads. Some are just confused and lack a better idea. Most are just chasing the money. And yes, a few of the good ones have stuck around.
Your [i]if-you-don't-like-it-stop-whining-and-just-quit[/i] argument is hardly ingenuous; unfortunately it is a commonly made [i]ad hominem[/i] argument relied on by people who lack an insight into what the issues are. It is born entirely out of convenience to shield every inch of what is rotten in the system. That's what you'd expect to hear in a tyrannous autocracy, not any professional and meritocratic organization. I suppose we don't need further introductions because, clearly, you belong to the higher echelons of an Indian law firm, alright!
Would it blow your mind to know that I love what I'm doing, but the way my firm functions [i]makes[/i] me want to quit? Would it wreak havoc in your myopic world to know that I'm pretty good at what I do (something my partner, seniors, clients and colleagues have never shied away from telling me) and I'm not afraid to work up a sweat, but the negativity I face at my firm, sadly, has very little relation to actual 'work'? Since when did being terrible people and incompetent managers become validly justified by an argument that I have an option to quit? If I handle the work pressure at my end well, is it wrong for me to expect the seniors and the partners to be better at managing the work demands and to keep the atmosphere congenial instead of every day needlessly being a hostile and panic-struck war-zone?
Corporate law is not for everyone? Agreed. Yet, many 'able' and 'disillusioned' candidates quit. After acing the first couple of years at any firm, it is unlikely that an Associate would not have proved that they have the ability to 'handle it'. If they look at an alternate career option, it's because they've found a more compelling career call, or maybe they decided to stop putting up with a pile of horse crap being fed to them.
Nobody expects to get paid for turning up at the office. We are assigned work, and irrespective of whether it's an hourly matter, pro bono or a fixed fee matter, we do it. At the end of the year, no matter how much pro bono or fixed fee work we did, each of our firms still recover in multiples of our salary. We work hard for our salaries, and you'd be naive and poorly informed to think otherwise.
Corporate law pays well because the work is often demanding and the clients can be unreasonable. Speaking for my firm, at the very least, 95% of what an Associate would genuinely complain about are [i]not[/i] related to the clients or the work but some absurd policy or some ludicrous way of doing that work at the firm.
As to the question of [i]'why don't I just quit'[/i], it's very presumptuous of you to think that you know anything about what goes into me making that decision. Like I said - I love what I do, and I'm good at it. Maybe I don't want to burn bridges this early in my career. Maybe I'm an orphan supporting my siblings through their education. Maybe my firm has a lock-in policy. Maybe it's not the right time for me to get a better place to work. Maybe I'm married with kids and have old parents and can't relocate to another city. Maybe I have loans to pay off. Once I've factored these in, yes, I will quit. And that will not change the fact that I will be good at my work and that I 'handled it' well till the day I don't quit.
As for you, instead of battling a minefield of personal questions about me you aren't capable of answering, let's just stick to one that you could attempt. Why don't Indian law firms just run more professionally with focus on actually retaining and promoting talent?
- A Disillusioned Associate
Why leave out Luthra or Trilegal? All the same!
Why leave out Luthra or Trilegal? All the same![/quote]
you forgot JSA, D&D, Link and Tatva!
You must understand that your mistreatment to Junior Associates have resulted in destruction of value for client, which prompted a GC to pen down his frustration over here. Wake up and smell the coffee before you spoil the beauty of this otherwise noble profession any further !!
The very fact that you refer to 'Jessica' and "Lewis' to make your point is a dead giveaway that you're not a serious corporate lawyer (if at all a corporate lawyer) but more of someone who believes everything they see on TV. You probably also think that Iron Man lives is LA (spoiler alert - he doesn't)
The very fact that you refer to 'Jessica' and "Lewis' to make your point is a dead giveaway that you're not a serious corporate lawyer (if at all a corporate lawyer) but more of someone who believes everything they see on TV. You probably also think that Iron Man lives is LA (spoiler alert - he doesn't)[/quote]
The screw up in India is with this concept of "seniors" - how can a lawyer who has worked for two years become a senior and start giving instructions to a fresh graduate? The two year old lawyer barely knows a thing - this is where the problem starts and the bullying gets institutionalized!
I think [b]THE REAL ISSUE[/b] here is [b]WHAT VALUE[/b] do Law Firms bring in, that in-house lawyers cant do themselves.
Speaking as an in house lawyer myself btw.. Cant say Ive had years of experience, but I have seen a very very big name (firm) make some pretty basic errors (not just typos, but actual fundamental conceptual errors) and these were not first year associates.. This was a partner... Yet I wouldnt mind being paid a Lakh a month even if the work was demanding and the seniors malicious...
But this post shouldnt be about that.. Its about [b]WHAT VALUE[/b] the Law Firms bring in, that we need them.. I want the Law Firmites to answer that question please...
Law Firm: what matters is your billing hours and ur contacts...!!!
Nothing Offensive just shared the view ...!!!
never mind buddy.. will take English lesson from you some other day ...!!!!
till then..
Cheers !!!!!
sincerely
LT
People should stop acting Harvey Spector, let him be in Suits only...!!!
Cheers .!!!!
Mike Ross
http://www.legallyindia.com/wiki/Zia_Mody
why all this fight..its difficult and wrong to compare 2 different types of work. in-house and law firms require different work skills. it's like saying indian chef is better than italian chef. nopes though both are chefs the ingredients that make them to become indian and italian are different and unmatchable :).
so please stop this comparison. I am tired!
http://www.legallyindia.com/wiki/Zia_Mody
why all this fight..its difficult and wrong to compare 2 different types of work. in-house and law firms require different work skills. it's like saying indian chef is better than italian chef. nopes though both are chefs the ingredients that make them to become indian and italian are different and unmatchable :).
so please stop this comparison. I am tired![/quote]
Not that it means anything but these 'awards' are just paid PR for the most part. In house GCs would also win if their employers would sponsor the awards, which they dont want to as inhouse is a cost centre.
The people you name have sponsored a million awards and shows dedicated to the objective of featuring themselves so I say winning ET / BT etc proves jackshit.
The question is which law firm has EVER won an award for being the Best Place to Work in? There are hundreds of such compilations and awards - best Indian companies to work in, best companies across the world, best employers etc. rated by ET, BT etc. You have big companies, Govt PSUs, small startups all shades of employers making the cut, but all law firms miss this!
As for GCs, any such sponsored award ceremony also has awards for GC... obviously more law firm members get such prizes, because sponsorships for such award ceremonies come only from the law firms and not from GCs.