A former Khaitan & Co associate has, in a 12-page resignation letter, expressed her concern about the internal prevention of sexual harassment (POSH) committee’s handling of her complaint against a fellow associate.
She wrote in her letter that the POSH committee members should be “made aware of the insensitivity, unprofessionalism and lapses of procedure that they have followed in my complaint”, and in light of the “unfortunate incidents and circumstances, I hereby … submit my resignation to you”.
The resignation letter addressed to Mumbai partner Haigreve Khaitan, from May 2019, has gone somewhat viral in legal circles in the last week and narrates her version of events from late last year in detail, alleging harassment by a colleague in her team, based on his allegedly touching himself inappropriately in her presence while both were working late.
We won’t be sharing all details of the complaint here, due to confidentiality surrounding the process and parties, but suffice it to say, it appears to describe a prima facie case of workplace harassment.
The committee, which included a senior external member, as mandated under the law, concluded its inquiry by April.
It found - in-part based on an admission to the committee by the alleged perpetrator - that the conduct complained of had in fact happened. However, bearing in mind the complainant’s statement, it held that he had not intended to sexually harass her, basically chalking it up to the accused adjusting his shirt and trousers. The complainant disagreed in her letter, noting that “the law does not require establishing intent as a requirement of determining sexual harassment”.
While such cases can be notoriously hard to adjudicate, of particular concern to the firm in the letter having gone viral would be that her complaints of “lapses in the procedure of the POSH committee as per the firm’s policy” appear serious and hard to dismiss.
She noted in her letter that:
- the committee did not follow the law in its eventual findings, by making intent of the accused a relevant element,
- the committee allegedly violated natural justice and the firm’s policy by never asking her to provide a complaint in writing, which she only sent “suo moto” after the accused had made an official written statement to the committee in January 2019 (an earlier written statement by him made in December 2018 “was never forwarded/made available to me and was just shown to me briefly on a laptop”, also violating firm policy);
- the January 2019 written statement had only been “forwarded to me a mere 10 minutes before the meeting with the expectation from me to review his statement and […] to cross examine him on basis of the statement”, she wrote. Due to this and point 2 above, this meant that she had not been provided with “fair opportunity to present my facts and claims or to rebut and highlight the discrepancies in [the accused’s] oral and written statements”, she added;
- she was allegedly never asked by the committee to send a list of witnesses, even though the accused was asked to submit such a list;
- the policy mandates notice of five days to the complainant of hearings. Instead, in January, she allegedly received an email from two partners who were part of the POSH committee, only 17 minutes before a relevant meeting; later in January, a second meeting was scheduled by one of the POSH committee partners only six minutes after receiving an email; later in February, an email was sent by the same partner that the third meeting in the case would be happening in the next one-and-a-half hours that same day, eventually only getting 10 minutes notice of the final meeting time (with the complainant’s statement attached); and
- when she allegedly confided in a partner after the incident, making explicit that the information was confidential, that partner had allegedly shared with the POSH committee “certain facts of my personal life, with certain facts to be incorrect” and “extremely irrelevant” to the proceedings.
She concluded in her letter that she hoped that:
my partners and this firm would ensure that someone who is motivated and committed towards their work shall not be put in such a hostile environment again and that the working environment in the firm is professional and friendly. I also hope that the members of the POSH committee are made aware of the insensitivity, unprofessionalism and lapses of procedure that they have followed in my complaint and I would like to believe that the next instance of a POSH complaint shall be dealt [with] in a proper and professional manner.
(The final paragraph of the letter also concluded on a positive note adding how appreciative she had been of the “mentorship and guidance” she had received from seniors, of the work done at the firm and how she had grown in her career at the firm).
Khaitan executive director of HR, Amar Sinhji, declined to comment on specifics, citing confidentiality obligations, but said: “As a firm we have all the required processes, checks & balances in place to deal with such issues.
“We ensure that they are dealt with in a completely unbiased and independent manner.
“These issues are internal to the firm and confidential under the applicable law. We have no further comments on the same.”
We have tried to reach out to the complainant for comment but have received no response.
Comments
Anyways reading the letter makes it apparent that all hope was lost as the firm decided at all levels to ignore the act and hence her focus on the lapses in procedure is an attempt to establish a basis to be heard at an appropriate forum, if she decides to.
Sound legal strategy. But then again someone like you from KCO won’t understand sound legal strategy.
However, that's not really the crux of this article, which is about the alleged procedural irregularities, which in some ways are a more serious issue than instances of POSH, which sadly happen at all large organisations. But the main thing a law firm and its partners can do is to ensure that the internal POSH procedures are followed properly so that those making complaints at least feel there had been a fair hearing, even if they do not get the result they might expect.
We had also reached out to Khaitan asking in detail about those alleged lapses, and the firm has issued its statement (though without denying or confirming that any lapses took place, but that may also largely be because the firm might be in a bit of Catch 22 situation regarding POSH confidentiality provisions).
If complainants don't feel that, there is every likelihood of incidents of SH increasing, rather than decreasing.
There was a major instance of sexual harassment by a partner from its Bombay office against a junior associate in his team, during a retreat. There were witnesses to the same as well, who came forward to support the complainant. The only result that came out of it was that the complainant got a transfer to Delhi (allegedly at a pay cut). The [...] partner is still sitting happy at Khaitan and continued to harass other women associates. So the HR head’s response is very much in line with KCO’s response to these matters.
1) http://ncw.nic.in/
2) http://ncwapps.nic.in/onlinecomplaintsv2/
3) http://ncwapps.nic.in/onlinecomplaintsv2/frmHome.aspx
Regards
A person who whilst being a lawyer is also a proud father of a girl child.
We have primarily reported on the procedural deficiencies alleged and the firm has given a statement that it has POSH procedures in place. It could be that the firm is taking steps to improve procedures after this incident or it could be that this was an isolated incident where the process didn't work, because partners were extraordinarily busy or distracted - it's hard to say or provide a fuller story than that...
Edit: Also, this is not a trial by media: the 'trial', as it were, was the POSH complaint; no one is named in this story; and everyone who's read the letter already wouldn't really be swayed or influenced by this story.
If anybody bothers to reply to this, then, do with citations please :)
Kian - what you have done is sensationalising an unclear event.
And Yes Facts Are important.
The guy has been acquitted. My heart goes out to him for what he's going through. This is nothing short of a media trial all over again - basis what?
A one sided rant from a woman who didn't get what she wanted. Yes there may have been issues with how the process was run (giving her the benefit of the doubt), but assuming that she's right and the guy did what she thought he did, is ludicrous.
Assume most of you are lawyers. I also assume that you guys are educated and have reasonable IQ. How can one possibly decide that everything written in the letter is gospel truth!
Kian -. Big congrats to you. After the Sam cam split there wasnt much traffic on yout website. This will take care of your revenues for this year.. How does it matter what the consequences are?
More power to this woman.
I didn't have your courage.
But I support you and trust me there are so many more who will.
Respect.
These things are rarely intentional at large organisations and largely, POSH committees are independent of management and not answerable to management. The problem, however, is that these things can get influenced by culture or other concerns, resulting in procedures that may not be robust enough.
[quote]It found - in-part based on an admission to the committee by the alleged perpetrator - that the conduct complained of had in fact happened. However, bearing in mind the complainant’s statement, it held that he had not intended to sexually harass her, basically chalking it up to the accused adjusting his shirt and trousers. The complainant disagreed in her letter, noting that “the law does not require establishing intent as a requirement of determining sexual harassment”.
While such cases can be notoriously hard to adjudicate, of particular concern to the firm in the letter having gone viral would be that her complaints of “lapses in the procedure of the POSH committee as per the firm’s policy” appear serious and hard to dismiss.[/quote]
“However, the main issue from our perspective really are the alleged irregularities in the POSH procedure, which no one has disputed.”
“The problem, however, is that these things can get influenced by culture or other concerns, resulting in procedures that may not be robust enough.”
It seems like LI has supported the version published. You can deny it if you want but it really does seem like it. I have read the letter as well and it is written in a scathing tone which is designed to influence but let’s put things in perspective
That said, if you want to speak about Khaitan specifically, there is often no smoke without some fire so let me share some facts. Only 9% of Khaitan's partnership are women, at the moment. That's half of Trilegal (where it's 18%, with Luthra and JSA a little higher) and CAM-SAM-AZB are all above 35%. That strongly suggests a (probably unintentional and legacy) culture at the firm that is dominated by men, and many management, HR or POSH experts will tell you that unless an organisation takes explicit steps to change such a male-dominated culture, it can have knock-on effects on sexual harassment, female attrition and similar issues.
To be fair, however, this is not a problem unique to KCo and the firm has been working hard at addressing it - the recent partnership promotion round was more than 50% women, which is a really promising step. https://www.legallyindia.com/lawfirms/khaitan-promotes-11-to-partnership-and-more-than-50-are-women-20190405-9981
Also, on that note, we recently completed a fuller analysis of gender ratios which will be published in our upcoming issue very shortly.
Also, I didn’t extract the two parts of your comment to prove my point. I did that to bring out the relevant bits. Even if you past the whole comment, the intent doesn’t change. What we all now know is that LI has a bias. This is good to know :)
[quote]They weren’t wrong. Amazon seems to be typical of the sort of organization that researchers have found to be particularly prone to sexual harassment and abuse: male dominated, super hierarchical, and forgiving when it comes to bad behavior.
To start with, having more women employees, particularly in leadership roles, can reduce the incidence of harassment. Why? It’s not that women are somehow themselves preventing the behavior—in fact women too can be perpetrators—but that male-dominated organizations are more likely to have cultures characterized by aggressive and competitive behaviors and so-called locker-room culture. In addition, compared with women, men tend to have more trouble recognizing when women are being treated in an unfair or sexist way. This sets the stage for harassment: In such contexts, norms of professionalism can give way to boorish interactions in which women are treated as sexualized pawns rather than as valued and competent work colleagues. And if men are less likely to label what their male colleagues are doing as inappropriate, it can make matters worse.
[/quote]
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/11/organizations-sexual-harassment/546707/
More power to you, girl! You have the courage that I lacked all those years ago!
How about maintaining a common standard? How about showing consideration for your female colleagues? Use the loo. Your bits won't shrivel in the minute it takes to walk there. You'll burn some calories as well, so that you don't become a wheezing mess at forty five.
This public shaming for the deed is disproportionate and frankly immoral.
Dialogue- Warning. And then thin straw. That's the way this should have panned out.
Secondly, why feel bad about the boy? It’s stated in the letter that yes he indeed do what the girl accused him of but just to adjust his shirt etc. He had no INTENTION. Now anyone who has cared to read the POSH Act must know that INTENTION is not required. In fact, forget POSH, isn’t it indecent under any circumstance to pull down one’s zip in a public place ? Tomorrow one may just pull down his pants and say he/she had no ill intention?
Lastly, procedurally lapses were there or not, we don’t know and probably will never know. I hope we do. I hope the girl files an FIR and ensure justice is done to her.
Besides, isn't a POSH complaint fighting head on? Do you think any woman has any trust in our institutional framework with respect to sexual harrassment complaints given recent events? What do you want her to do? Actually, never mind, your recommendation is probably going to be pointless.
Well done girl!
So far as paid off sites are concerned, yes this is an issue in Khaitan. But in only one team. Significant peer pressure to go to these so called team building activities + active participation is a prerequisite for doing well in that particular team.
1. KCO really needs to up its game in walking the walk, when it comes to HR and POSH; the names she names in the letter are well-regarded Partners and leaders at KCO who really should have known better. This woman was not given a fair hearing in the process, that's clear.
2. Yet, the woman does not appear to have a strong case at all; her claim is that she "caught him" doing something, while his claim is that "he was doing it without any sexual intent nor can the action be deemed to be sexual". In the absence of video footage or corroborating witnesses, it's just a case of "he said/she said". I can't blame the POSH committee for not finding him guilty
3. In any case, this whole thing is embarrassing with KCO's own POSH committee noting that this guy was [...] and [...]. Could it just be a case of values-mismatch or elite-mofussil disconnect? I can see this "clash of values" even in my firm, though nothing this intense
4. Or is it a case of this woman lashing out at anyone and everyone, thereby conflating a legitimate grievance (that of KCO having shabby procedures despite all their talk of friendly-policies) with targeting a guy she felt had the gall to attempt to do something he might actually have not done or intended?
All I can say is [...] There are ways and means to seek remedies. This whole thing is rather distasteful, especially the way she has thrown so many well wishers/seniors/partners at KCO under the bus.
[...]
Who’s there?
Its a non empathetic, one sided and sensational LI out here in the rain gunning for some internet traffic.
But, I also believe there are many who may mean well but genuinely not understand the issues, coupled with a lack of available information and discourse, so I feel it can be valuable to provide some perspective and explanations.
To climb up the ladder, if you are a dude, a sure shot formula to partnership is to play football for the team, no matter how pathetic you might be at law or how low your billing might be or how shady your opinions might be....Beat this...M&A lawyers in non M&A teams hadn't heard of pricing guidelines or what coupons meant in a debenture subscription agreement (no prizes for guessing who this fine partner might be).
On a separate note, it's great to see LI step up with such bold articles. Bravo!
Kian - it's a thumbs up for you and your team. To have no allegiance to any specific law firm is good stuff!
You know what happens when some people chill like kings while others slave - shit happens bro.
KCO's HR and senior management should take note too of what's really the larger problem leading to kids quitting - of pretenders and bullies. Perhaps, the exit interview summaries are a good place to start to identify these problems before they turn into an epidemic. Identify your bad apple at the very beginning.
However, I am of the firm view that female associates are EQUALLY at fault. They realize fully what they are doing and they take full advantage of it. I have actually seen male associates quit law firms because of this - because their hard work and diligence goes unrewarded while the female associate gets the credit for it however ordinary their work might be.
Hey, I am not dreaming this up. I have seen this and I have been a victim myself as well. How about addressing this issue? Dont say this is something that doesn't happen often. Even that's a lie.
Pathetic male partners with inflated ego and self importance who go through midlife crisis are to be blamed for this - not female associates. These idiots would shower attention and praise at anything that is pretty in hopes of getting ***, and then starts the pukish drama of mentoring, coaching, super fast promotions etc.
There is no audi alteram partem in LI too.
And really...audi alteram partem? In LI? Common. You can do better than that buddy. Jesus Christ.
However, some of us have a few doubts on whether the following conduct would amount to sexual harassment:
1. I go to take a leak, while I am on the phone with a client. Forget to zip up and come back to my bay. Female associate comes to my desk and sees my fly open.
2. I am rushing to take a print for my feudal PA, who does not tolerate delays. While I am rushing, I accidentally brush up against my colleague in the corridor. I apologize and rush ahead.
3. I have just been dumped by my girl friend, I am listening to music (sad type) and staring into the distance. A female associate comes into my line of sight - I don't realize and end up looking past her for a few minutes. (True Story)
4. My co worker is crying after a shouting from her seniors, I am unsure what to do. But since she has come to me to share what has happened, I put my hand on her arm to console her.
5. I have been sitting in a meeting for about 4 hours. I have become overweight because of over-working and have not had time to buy new trousers. Naturally my pants are tight and I am getting a wedgie - I feel sudden pain and adjust myself (for a split second).
6. I havent gone home for 3 days (stuck in a conference room negotiating the worst possible DTA)/ got drenched in sweat while taking the local and have been wearing the same clothes. Things are uncomfortable (and it's June time in Mumbai). I cant control the itch and I do it slyly for a split second.
7. I have a skin condition in my upper chest (which I obviously havent announced to the world). Its late in the night and I dont think anyone is around. I put my hand in my shirt to scratch with a pencil and a female coworker pops up.
8. I am really obese - everytime I sit down the last two buttons of my shirt get stretched showing my vest. I am sitting across a female associate in the conference room.
Please dont make fun of this comment or think it is joking. A lot of us have these questions and we want to comply and be respectful. It would helpful if guidance is given.
1. Do your clients know you're speaking to them while standing at urinal? :) More seriously though, I don't think anyone would allege sexual harassment if someone's fly was accidentally and innocently open if we're not talking obscenity levels, nor would any POSH committee make a finding of SH purely on the incidents you describe.
2. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that, unless you're going to make your apology a really creepy and awkward one.
3. If you were literally staring at someone for minutes, this one could be a tough one and could perhaps be misinterpreted in some cases. Again, if it becomes an issue, explaining yourself in a non-creepy way should help (unless there are other factors or the person you were staring at is also the same person that 1 to 8 happened with).
4. I would definitely counsel against touching a colleague's arm, even if they are sad. Touching someone on the arm is for many a pretty intimate gesture that could easily be misinterpreted unless you are close enough friends to ensure it won't be misinterpreted and is in fact welcome. A there-there pat on the back might be better in some circumstances, but even that is arguably unnecessary. Just listening to their problem and being understanding might be a better bet all-round, without leading to potential misunderstandings about your intentions.
5. If you have to adjust yourself in the office rather than taking a bathroom break, try to look around you first to see if you're being observed. If you are (or if there's only a single female colleague around whom you do not share close friendship with), then maybe suck it up and deal with the discomfort for a while. Ask yourself, how would male (and female) colleagues react if a woman started overtly adjusting her tight pants in the office? (perhaps it's less likely a POSH complaint would be filed, but it probably won't help her career).
6 & 7. If you're sly about it, no problem. If you're rubbing your chest suggestively while making eye contact with a woman, it's probably a different story. Again, how would you feel about a woman putting her hand down her shirt and scratching around her bra in the office with a pencil? Appropriate?
8. No one will allege SH if a vest is visible through a shirt, unless you're also leering at someone and doing 1-7 above at the same time. If you're an A2, you can probably afford considering a new wardrobe, if your old clothes aren't fitting well anymore. This will help with generally professional demeanour as well as your comfort levels.
Hope this helps :)
That, coupled with the fact that neither the accused nor the firm seemingly deny the act, only the intention behind the act, does make it look like the girl has a strong case.
Any wonder why we don't want foreign firms in India? With captive options of few Indian top firms, everyone at all of these firms will kind of remain silent at all that is wrong there or not upto modern HR standards. And there is no pressure or any of these firms to improve their processes and systems to compete with a benchmark of a good foreign law firm.
I am questioning your belief that a reasonable person will admit to an event only if it acquits them.
Whether that was appropriate to do in a shared workspace (considering the context, it was late night and the floor was sparsely populated so he might think no one's around and it's fine VERSUS it was late night, sparsely populated and a woman colleague was in somewhat close proximity, so he really should have taken more care to avoid, even inadvertently, causing discomfort) is the crucial issue to be addressed. The firm should invest in some soft skills training, and make it mandatory for everyone.
I think I would have arrived at the same conclusion as the POSH committee did, but definitely not the way they did.
I think HR should be taken to task by top management, immediately, considering that top HR people are directly involved in screwing this up. This isn't just a failure of systems, but also of people themselves. For all the emails, letters, policies and publicity, HR itself has behaved absolutely inappropriately. [...]
Many of my reputed seniors who were not partners have expressed disgust in this new practice.
I dont mean to generalise all Khaitan lawyers. I have met many outstanding individuals there. But its time to call out what is happening in the so called “firm with a heart”. This is not an isolated incident and nor this will be the last. Unless the management starts cracking the whip things will get worse. The problem is these people are so obsessed with meeting target realisations they have butchered every sense of morality in them.
Kian, LI should study gender wise placement data. May throw up some interesting insights after 2020 season of placements
Wonder if it had anything to do with the guy acing it at work [...]
[...] What’s really impressive is that the firm stood by the guy and didn’t make hasty decisions thereby ruining the guy’s career. Kudos to Amar and his team.
There have been some people here who have said a lot of things about the firm. I do not wish to counter them, for I have not been in their place. However, there are brighter stories as well, which is why I am writing this.
The firm is really doing a lot to promote women. I think that side requires some credit, just like the bad side, if any, has been highlighted and condemned (and rightly so).
This is not the first time that the HR has behaved like this.
promiscuous tactics on part of females is very objectionable. It is because of such "graces" that the perception is created where in order to excel professionally, all sorts of unwarranted and inappropriate conduct manifests.
It's high time that merit and merit alone is rewarded, and diligence and sincerity does not have to fade away in front of flirtations and favouritism that stems therefrom. Having said this, one can only hope that these comments and this complaint sensitises people of something so blatant yet so institutionalised in the lawfirm culture, where you cant expect fair professional assessment without being in the "good books" of some people, irrespective what the "good books/looks" entail.
Even the courts have seen many instances of frivolous #MeToo allegations. Let’s give the guy a chance!!
Shame on you..the rot starts from the HR itself...
1. Unreasonable standards of working- You are expected to show 13 hours of work in their timesheets with division as minimum to replying to an email 10 mins in this particular matter. Filling those time sheets take one hour a day but you cannot mention that in the timesheets. You need to work for 13 hours and then fill timesheets and be imaginative so that your pee, sutta, lunch and snacks breaks also become billable. Because honestly, no one can work for 13 hours each day. Unless you are a partner, and they add their gossip sessions as partner meeting in their timesheets and that can go one for hours.
2. Unrealistic timelines- When a client approaches them with work, the timelines they give are hilariously unrealistic. I have myself experienced my partner telling a new client that we will complete the filing in one hour although the deadline was 3 days later. Now what happens when the deadline is so charming, the associate has 15 mins to draft, 10 mins to wait outside the partners cabin, 15 mins for humiliation for making silly mistakes because honestly, how does one even proof read in peace in such a timeline? 10 mins of making corrections and 10 mins for online filing. This happens with every client, every day, every matter. This is life at KCO. Always on the edge.
3. Working hours- Apart from the 13 hours of work you show on weekdays, you have to work on weekends. And make sure you mark all the partners in your emails on the weekend. Because showing that you worked over the weekend is more important than actually working. You are expected to work on sick leaves, even when you doctor has aksed you not to work, hospital bed of you are hospitalized because then you are obviously free so make good use of your time, on vacations whether you are in Thailand, Goa or have come to meet your in-laws, the mandap of your weddings because weddings take up so much time!!!!! They are unreasonably long as per KCO standards. The client can't wait till your saat pheres are done. And your partner definitely can't (KCO partner not your life partner, he/she has signed up for waiting for you for the rest of your life with KCO). Your KCO partner will get 7 heart attacks by then. And maybe the HR is also informed about your inefficiency by the 4th phera if you haven't responded to an email.
4. Work life balance- At KCO, this urban legend phenomenon of work life balance does not exist. With reference to the pheras and weddings in the above paragraph, KCO HR may also request [...] to add one more vachan for the the non KCO spouse that work of my KCO spouse comes before our marriage and family because that's how it is. I am not even exaggerating on this. I was myself given a tough time by my partner because I was late to work as my mother was in the ICU and I had to go see her. Taking a leave on probation is not a good thing. Having a hobby, a peaceful weekend trip, playing a sport is all a farce for associates.
5. Threats- There are constant threats given to you about a bad bonus and extending your probation if you don't work as per their standards which change as per the whims and fancies of the partners on each matter. You have to be fast as Hussain Bolt in drafting which is nothing but making changes to their pre existing precedents. Don't be fooled that you can research or make any value additions to it. It's not just not appreciated but also that you will take 1 hour more than the desired timeline of 10 mins to complete the 6 page draft. The drafts are apparently so standard that you don't need more than 10 mins to make a new one from the old one and if you need more time than that, then my friend you are not fit to work in KCO. You dont reach office by 9:30 (despite working till 2-3am the previous night) you will get a bad bonus and probation extension threat. You don't work on weekends, holidays, sick leaves etc. you will get a bad bonus and probation extension threat. If you don't fill the time sheets daily, you will get a bad bonus and probation extension threat. If you make a silly mistake you will get a bad bonus and probation extension threat. Basically they start building a case against your bad bonus and extension of probation from the day you join. So that when it goes down, you are brainwashed into believing that yes, you deserve the bad bonus and extension of your probation.
6. Extension of probation- This is a sacred move that is made on most of the new associates to crush their confidence and to make them vulnerable about the job security. They will extend your 6 months probation by a month or two. It helps KCO to crush the confidence of the associates and also to send a message to the entire team that anyone can be fired at any time. Technically they don't fire you, but they create such a hostile environment for you that you will only quit.
7. Fee schedules- Their fee schedules resembles the daily wages chart of a Chinese factory producing matchsticks. Peanuts. Huge volumes of work is taken up for peanuts. The associates are then pressurized to finish the work in less time (read para 1 again) and then when they are not able to deliver they are mentally harassed and made the scapegoat (read paras 5 and 6 again). The associates are also paid peanuts Because that's what the clients are charged. KCO also has year long discounts, offers and sales going on. You just have to ask for it. (Ek suit pe ek appeal muft! Offer can be clubbed with any other matter across teams!) And because of this the clients do bhaav-tol with other firms. That if KCO can churn out legal work for so cheap and such little time (Chinese factory) why are the other firms taking so much money and time? What the clients and KCO both don't under is that satisfying the employees and keeping them happy is also a thing that they need to do. But that's another urban legend in the firm. You read about how much money the firm made and the handsome turnovers. Those articles on the internet make you feel like Amitabh Bachchan is asking each associate 'kya kijiyega aap itni dhan raashi ka!?' And then when you see your salary and much threatened bonus, you wonder what's going wrong and if it's the firm or you. The general feel of the place is that the associate is always wrong.
8. HR -[...] They do exactly what the partners want them to do. If the partners want someone out of the firm, toh puri qayanat usko quit/resign/fire karne ki saazish mein lag jaati hai. Everyone in the HR team had graduated from the National School of Drama taught by Mr. Amitabh Bachchan I suppose because they act so well to make your believe that KCO is a family built on 'Parampara, Pratishtha, Anushasan. Yeh iss firm ke teen stambh hai. Yeh woh aadarsh hain jinse hum aapka aane waala kal banaate hain.' but actually they will make sure that you lose confidence in the entire management and quit so that they don't have to fire you!
9. Billing - Associates have to make the bills. There is no accounts team to do it. And no one is there to follow up if the bills are paid or not. So end of the financial year, the office bevomes a call centre for wasooli. The associates only call the accounts teams (see the joke) for clearing KCO bills or else you receive a threat of bad bonus, probation extension and cancellation of leaves which were earlier approved.
10. Office offsite - Did you know that you have to pay for yourself to go on the office offsite? Like seriously man. You should be paying me to waste my leave to still be discussing if my billing in done or not on a weekend which is wasted. And instead toh are asking me for money??
11. Overall firm culture- One word- Pathetic!
To add on to that, even when a matter is referred from a foreign law firm, even though the foreign law firm is chilling over the weekend (while they are working on the main leg of the transaction and you are just assisting them with random due diligence reports), a CAM associate is made to slog over the weekend. You ask why? Coz we have to demonstrate how good we are by making client deliverables over the weekend.
And yes, law firm job is not for the smart people. It's for the mediocres who are willing to just slog hard.
I joined one of the top 7 law firms about a year back with high hopes, and today I am here in my room thinking what I am doing with my life.
Simply compared the lawyers with fellow peers in other professions, as a comment was made in this regard (that no other profession pays equally). Never meant one should go to IIT. Lol
Also, I may leave the firm for other prospects. Paise shayad thode kum ho, but at least I will enjoy what I will do. :)
Engineers dont get anywhere near law firm salaries. Just a handful of 1Lper month packages at the IITs where 4000 engineers compete. Most salaries are 20-40k and less than 50% of a batch is placed. At lesser known colleges its far worse. In contrast even a tier 2 law school like NLIU or NUJS place 60% of their kids with salaries of 75,000 and more a month. Obviously these salaries are not being given to enjoy your life. Work hard, learn the ropes, become a boss and then enjoy :)
Branch toppers , and those with excellent hustling skill basically achieve whatever they want. Others, many opt for higher education (IIMs still recruit disproportionality from IITs, and the intake of foreign universities isn't bad either). The best an NLS graduate aspires to with respect to high salaries are training contracts with a foreign firm. An IITengineer on the other hand if hired by Big Tech makes about 100k+ in USD starting out. Startups aborad pay more, and within 3 years, many make nearly about 300k. Those not in tech (many drift to commerce), make tons in consulting companies like BCG and financial services companies. It's of course a completely different matter when it comes to those from the lesser IITs.
Not too many IITs get foreign jobs either. Here is a TOI report from 2017 that says less than 200 out of 10,000 graduates got foreign jobs, cutting out half the new IITs that still only 4%. While older NLUs typically have 3-4 students out of 80 get foreign jobs (despite engineering being more portable as a skill set than law).
And all this after an insanely harder entrance exam and tougher course workloads as well as more rigorous academic standards at IITs (last year failure rate per year at IIT Kanpur was 1.7% after all the clemency cases were disposed off).
Whether IIMs choose to take more IITs or not is not relevant. I think the payoff of better chance at IIM with the extra 25lakhs paid for IIM is difficult to outweigh a lawyer who earns 25lakhs in that time and is well on the road to SA and PA by then.
There are many other cons in IITs but lets not get into that.
NLUs are much easier roads to a well paying job. The admission, studies or placements are easier than IITs and more number of NLU graduates routinely get 75000+ a month jobs (which is a low figure). In IITs there are many students from the uncool branches who struggle to land even sarkari jobs. So when firms pay such high salaries they will obviously expect more work. If a NLU grad complains he or she should go to IIT and see the fun there.
In one of the comments that popped up you also say and I quote ........ "However, the main issue from our perspective really are the alleged irregularities in the POSH procedure, which no one has disputed." (sic).
1 :- How do you know the alleged irregularities are undisputed? By reading a 12 page letter that has been leaked and is doing the rounds on WhatsApp?
The firm is never going to be able tell its side of the story or offer a rebuttal as it is bound by confidentiality to protect the alleged victim.
And since everyone is going on and on about "procedure" and not merits.....
2. Which "procedure" permits dirty tricks?
Any complainant is reasonable to want maximum punishment against alleged offenders because he/she feels wronged. Obviously she didn't get the result she wanted and was probably advised to bang on about procedure. Which is also fair advice.
Then you go ahead and leak a letter knowing fully well it is salacious enough to go viral? Or is it a tried and tested way of taking the moral high ground and establishing your bona fides?
Well, pardon my institutionalized patriarchy and toxic masculinity if I think of this as a last ditch attempt at swaying public opinion and pressurising firm management.
The letter is very detailed with specific instances recorded in a chronological manner. Have a read and you'll understand why this article has garnered this bunch of public comments alleging procedural impropriety. There is no smoke without a fire.
Leaked or obtained otherwise through whatever means, for a girl to resort to public support (if she did that in the first place) against a firm with such massive muscle power, she would have been pretty sure that she had a good case.
Imagine the call she'd have taken before taking such a step, knowing well enough that there would be people like you who would try and point fingers at her and make desperate attempts at salvaging khaitan's murked reputation.
My issue was "undisputed" nature of irregularities - "How do you know the alleged irregularities are undisputed? By reading a 12 page letter that has been leaked and is doing the rounds on WhatsApp?"
Apparently that's all required, along with pearls of wisdom such as "there's no smoke without fire".
An incident clearly occurred. A procedure didn't occur as per law (Undisputed fact of course). But it is irrelevant that the alleged offender was admonished and apologized.
Go with the nuclear option.
Oh silly me. This is not about merits but "procedure", so the goal post shifts
"However, that's not really the crux of this article, which is about the alleged procedural irregularities, which in some ways are a more serious issue than instances of POSH."
At one point of time irregularity is undisputed. Then we get another gem, saying the lapses are more important than POSH itself !
And why the heck should I read her letter?
Those who have been circulating the letter on WhatsApp are already the accomplices on the dark side. They aren't serving any journalistic messenger of truth purpose. But that is a different issue.
You want to spread masala and media trial, do it unabashedly. Spare the moral crusade.
Plus, the letter itself is so specific about the procedure, with respect to timestamps of emails, receipt of emails, etc, that it would be very very easy to disprove (and discredit) those allegations.
Regarding your second point that the letter was a "last ditch attempt at swaying public opinion and pressurising firm management" - sure, this could theoretically be true, though it's equally if not more likely that different motivations were at play. From the tone of the letter, she had already very firmly decided to leave the firm at that point, and it wouldn't be a reasonable interpretation that she would have expected the firm to beg her to stay, ignore the (independent) POSH finding and punish the alleged offender.
Much more reasonable is that she would have seen this letter as a warning to management that there is a problem at the firm, while whoever leaked the letter could have equally seen this as something akin to whistleblowing.
Even otherwise, is it not reasonable for any employee who is essentially claiming constructive dismissal, to also have their say about why they left and that it's not just about pique about the POSH process having gone against them?
First of all I am not questioning the reasonableness of any associate to be piqued, write letters or have any number of grievances about a place of work, whether or not it is about sexual harassment.
When I mentioned swaying public opinion / nuclear option - I was talking about the leak. Not the letter itself.
But your interpretation of different motivations is not worrisome? Write a letter and expect the firm to beg her to stay, ignore the (independent) POSH finding and punish the alleged offender?
So basically seek a reversal. Are you sure? Your interpretation makes her sound rather venal and manipulative.
Also,
Plan A - Procedure / Rule of Law.
Plan B - Scorched earth.
Am I the only who finds this problematic? It's not about procedure then is it? It's about favourable outcome.
At the risk of repeating myself, you can't claim inadequacy of proceedings and go on to leak yourself.
Kyunki hippocrisssy ki bhi seema hoti hain.
Although, it was probably her "friends" and "well wishers" who leaked.
Finally, "whistle blowing" by third parties? Sigh. Let's have a test of proportionality shall we?
Regarding "Write a letter and expect the firm to beg her to stay" -- my comment was completely hypothetical. We don't know the full reasons for why she wrote that letter, but there are numerous reasons I had outlined that make more sense than her wanting the job back that she had resigned from herself.
But I was also saying that even if she wanted her job back, is there much wrong with explaining your grievances in calm and rational letter to top management? If I was a boss in a big organisation like Khaitan and someone was unhappy about something like this, I'd be thankful for them to let me know.
What happened after that, regarding the leak, is a separate issue and I might not be as happy about it if I was boss. But I'd think you can definitely claim "inadequacy of proceedings" and still leak the letter yourself, unless you've signed an NDA and if you're ready to face defamation if anything is untrue. Freedom of expression would presumably trump some vague sense of 'propriety' or morality you perceive here.
I fear you may disagree, but taking this further, playing devil's advocate slightly: propriety or morality might even defend someone leaking such a letter or 'whistleblowing'. After all, for many the fight for sexual equality and POSH, is more important than any individual or organisation or current societal mores, even. Providing some of the issues are as endemic as some of the comments in this thread claim (and I have good reasons to believe that in substance this is the case), this may ultimately be a blessing in disguise for an organisation in focusing its attention on the issue. Arguably, it's even a public service to the wider profession, where even SC judges understanding of #MeToo-related procedures was rather lacking).
Para 3 - "freedom of expression"? You're kidding me right?
You can't use the confidentiality provisions as a shield and freedom of expression as a spear.
About 'propriety' or 'morality' ? I can't even... Yorked me better than Boult's hattrick.
I think I'm going to go out on a limb and say 'propriety' might actually have something to do with why there's a law against sexual harassment in the first place. Also, morality was the underpinning of Indian #MeToo when incidents occurred years ago and there was absolutely no evidence except that woman's word. So its not some vague sense I perceive.
You have your position on some sense of trying to find justice and I have mine on procedure. Many will laugh, but why aren't the well wishers crowdfunding a judicial process? Too hard. Nowadays social media is the forum.
Don't fear. Your devil's advocate point is well left outside off. This is not the alleged victim whistleblowing but some bomb throwing "well wisher" Linda Tripping us.
Thankfully, there was no para 5. Otherwise there'd have been a comment about this expose requiring a Pulitzer Prize.
While KCO can't disclose details of the complaint/ processes it followed for this complaint, it must consider assuring its stakeholders (future joiners) that:
1. It has the requisite policies in place;
2. It's IC, entire workforce (esp. team leaders) have been educated and made to understand the policy in its entirety;
3. It's not a safe harbor for miscreants, notwithstanding their 'superstar' status. Assure that days of soft-rap-on-the-knuckles approach adopted for its chums and skums are in the past. In cases where accused are found guilty, maybe inform the workforce regarding the punishment (see section 16) and create a deterrence for future misadventures.
Other firms/ partners sniggering at KCO should take stock of their policies and run refresher courses for its workforce, including on what constitutes sexual harassment. Sure that each office will have its own horror stories to tell. Least we can do is to create and execute strong, detailed guidelines to prevent and deal with SH.
But to leak such a letter and have it publicly paraded with the knowledge of the damage it can cause is (in my opinion) wrong and unbecoming and can only achieve one aim - Destroy the accused's personal and professional life.
I hope the guy in question does not take any kneejerk or drastic reaction and seeks help since this can't be easy. Likewise for the complainant, if this did actually have a long lasting impact on her.
Also ALL commentators, shame on you. Kian you should consider avoiding anonymous comments on such sensitive articles. Take a que from Bar and Bench.
But the continuous opinionating in the comments section is what irks me. You don't see any reputed newspaper comments section, see comments and responses/justifications from the author. It's unbecoming presenting your views and opinions, without assumptions based on a unilateral source. As a journalist you are to stick to facts without any assumptions and let the public make their views, instead of actively trying to shape them. You should watch Newsroom for leads since you are more Arnab than anything.
Also being a posh proceeding she must have signed an NDA or had to hsve signed an NDA. Also, I honestly believe your readership is more than a viral letter and damaging to the guy, who did a stupid stupid thing, just not something deserving global scrutiny and fear.
This, like every other story we do, is a story we do because we either think is important or interesting (and sometimes both). There is no question: this story is both.
Regarding comments - well, there are all sorts of newsrooms and publications in this day and age, you should look beyond Aaron Sorkin's somewhat blinkered views of the world :). In short, I sometimes get involved in comments to answer reader queries, provide more background to stories or clarify facts if discussions are veering entirely off track. I also sometimes have personal opinions on something (as does every human being). Your mileage may vary.
Finally, according to my sources, I understand that she did not sign an NDA.
Again, as someone above said- kudos to Amar and his team for not succumbing to the pressure and not allowing the boy’s career to be ruined
Point made Dost...yes kudos to Amar and team for not succumbing to pressure...but shame for not following proper procedure.
Hope this sums it up.
Khaitan believes that process was followed. Girl says otherwise. I think only Modi can decide who is bluffing and who is right.
Recall that something similar had happened when a few college students had alleged sexual harassment by a senior student (without backing those allegations with concrete proof), and posted numerous posts on social media. The senior sent a legal notice to each of them. The result? The so called victims admitted that it was driven by personal reasons and posted an online apology. The unfortunate part is that no matter how that episode played out, that senior got infamous for wrong reasons, and no matter how hard he tries some sections of the society would continue to know him because of his involvement in that episode.
We both spent a very uncomfortable 2 mins inside his cabin. And as I was coming out he mentioned that he didn't realise the tab from last night was open. Clearly, he was lying.
Things became somewhat normal after a couple of days of uncomfortable brief interactions.
Luckily, my female team member had not gone in that day, else the matter could have become scandalous, for him, for me and for my colleague. This story just reminded me of this incident.
Adjusting trousers and scratching groins were so common that even the Managing Partner could be seen doing it during his interaction with juniors. May be after a point one did not even consider it impolite.
https://medium.com/@annevictoriaclark/the-rock-test-a-hack-for-men-who-dont-want-to-be-accused-of-sexual-harassment-73c45e0b49af Except replace the rock with bhai
Also, I doubt any woman at any law firm has ever written a 12-page, detailed complaint if her colleague "rushed past her" or stared into space in her direction generally. To act like you are the victim (or a potential victim because a woman is making a 'big deal') is belittling the issue at hand, and yet again, deviating from the reason this discussion was started in the first instance.
The woman's decision is made. She has quit the firm, and has NOTHING to gain from her calling KCo out on lapses of procedure, except to start a very important conversation around how big law firms expound on the millions they make in a year 'tutoring' clients on the importance of adhering to procedure related to anti-harassment policies (if you have ever generated a DD report, you are well aware of that standard paragraph on constituting an ICC and taking 'sensitive' complaints very seriously); and yet do very little in making sure they follow the procedure themselves.
Also, the next time, before a commenter posts something that sounds like 'I forgot to zip my trousers after I peed, is that harassment' - I hope they do consider a situation where a woman enters office and realises her trousers are torn (she will naturally, go home, change and get back to work and hopefully not post on some such article and ask if walking around in torn clothes constitutes as harassment to her male colleagues).
I assure you, a woman walking around in torn clothes in a professional environment has never (and will never) be encouraged, and neither should A2s who 'forget' to zip up their trousers after they pee.
Groin scratchers. Sort it out!
Why would anyone downvote itch guard?
The stuff works.
During my second internship, I generally got good reviews at KCO, and thought that I'd get an offer. Even on the memo they make you draft, I thought I did a pretty good job - to the point where other KCO associates who has received PPOs through interviews used my memo for arguments and case laws because they couldn't crack it? Whatever. They eventually didn't even let me interview, cause I didn't make the cut (didn't go to the top 5 NLUs). Instead of being honest about it, they told me that they had stopped hiring people in my year, when in fact I heard of 3 people from top NLUs being interviewed (and subsequently hired), months after they told me this. I also heard of many people getting in through connections.
I wrote an email to AS (current HR) and was called in just to be told that I was misunderstanding the situation. They only did this when I pointed out how people had been hired (based on connections etc) when I didn't even get a chance at an interview after my senior associates had told me that they had recommended me highly for interviews I also told them that while I could potentially have used connections to get to the interview stage like the others had, I in fact did not do that because I thought the firm believed in fairness. In hindsight, I shouldn't have said that, but I was a pissed off child.
Doesn't matter now, this was years ago and I ended up joining a different law firm and relocating to a different country altogether. But KCO was a bad experience. I was also shocked to learn they hired a former senior associate I worked with at a different law firm as partner when that guy zero credentials to back him up and it is widely known in the firm he formerly worked at that he was disliked by seniors and the juniors basically ran the team.
Don't know what KCO thinks while hiring people, but hire the wrong crop (either at senior or junior levels) and you're going to lose a bunch of good people - and eventually, this is what your firm will become.
Her reply - No. We want our women to look like women.
Hmm...