“We’ve been able to achieve a lot,” Saraf told Legally India. “We’ve been able to rationalise the firm a lot.”
He said that between April and December 2013 billings in the corporate division of the firm had increased by 36 per cent compared to the same nine month period in 2012. The corporate division includes all practices at the firm except for tax advisory, intellectual property and litigation work, which are accounted for in separate profit centres.
Billings in the tax advisory practice shot up by 78 per cent and litigation was “a different ballgame”, according to Saraf. The litigation practice, which is in a separate partnership from corporate, continued growing at 30 to 40 per cent in billings as it had done for the past two or three years “when corporate has been going down”.
The bills actually recovered from corporate transactional clients so far this financial year increased by 18 per cent, noted Saraf, while the tax division’s recovery was up 61 per cent against the same period in 2012.
1 April – 31 December 2013 vs same period 2012
Billings Corporate: +36% Tax: +78% Litigation: +30-40%
Recovered billings Corporate: +18% Tax: +61%
At the same time the number of lawyers at the firm had reduced by 10 per cent through a mix of “natural and intentional” reductions. “Our aim is to become very focused and improve efficiency,” he said, which resulted in billings per lawyer having increased by 30 per cent as against the same period last year.
However, the lock-up period – the time it takes for clients to pay after billings – remained roughly the same at a period of between three and four months, said the senior partner.
Despite the bump in figures, Saraf remained as bearish about the economy this “bad year” as he was six months ago.
“The market has not improved at all, only the Sensex has improved,” he said. “I don’t think the level of legal work has improved. I think we’ve been more efficient – we are very focused on business development, making a lot of effort, and focused on what we need to grow. Those are the things that are helping.”
The firm promoted two to partnership over the weekend.
In 2013 six Luthra partners left or announced they would, including tax partner SR Patnaik and litigation partner Ajit Warrier who both joined Amarchand, capital markets partner Madhurima Mukherjee, and partners Nivedita Tiwari, Moushami Joshi and Shweta Hingorani.
Two partners were promoted in August, coinciding with Luthra’s new strategic vision to focus on higher margin work, avoid work that was not the firm’s core specialty and to keep headcounts under control.
Comments
1) Junior Associate and Partner attend a civil court hearing in another city. The case is posted for examination of a witness and the witness does not turn up. Case is adjourned to another date, and the lawyers spend less than 1/2 hour in court. However, because it is an outstation appearance, it is Biglaw's standard policy to bill 10 hours. Hence, the client is billed a total of 20 hours (10 for the Associate and 10 for the Partner).
2) In a fixed fee mandate, a partner flies down from Delhi to Mumbai in the morning for a meeting and flies back in the evening and then bills the client Rs. One lakh towards expenses alone!
3) Biglaw Partner fixes a meeting to brief a senior counsel in connection with a dispute. Senior counsel gives just 20 minutes between 10 AM and 10.20 AM. Biglaw partner fails to turn up on time. Along with a clueless Associate from Biglaw, Client completes the briefing. When walking out of the building, Client sees Biglaw Partner running in looking extremely apologetic. When told that the briefing is over, he insists on just meeting the senior counsel for a brief moment to explain his absence – goes running in and comes running out in a couple of minutes. At the end of the month, the firm’s bill contains a line item with a five figure fee for the Biglaw Partner’s services in connection with “meeting” the senior counsel on that particular day!
These are examples of how Biglaw increase their bottom line. Yeah sure - billings may have shot up by 36-78%, but will any Biglaw also trumpet that the value it delivered also shot up by 36-78%? And for the rates - the less said, the better. Very few Partners/Associates are really worth what they charge.
p.s. I'm not taking digs at L&L here. Just highlighting billing practices of Biglaw in general.
A new routine to 'motivate' better revenue must also be given due credit. When partners have to be constantly blamed and treated with hostility, in meetings and outside, for not generating enough revenue, you would expect them to cave in at some point and do whatever it takes.
1) Why will a lawyer not charge money for travel time just because a matter got adjourned? That time could be utilized to service another client. Lawyers all around the world typically charge for travel time. Biglaw clients know very well that an average hearing lasts less than 15 minutes and may even be adjourned – that happens in every court.
2) Surely you don’t mean that if a client wants a lawyer to travel, then the lawyer should pay for the flight, cabs, and hotel? Expenses are typically against bills that are approved by the terms of the engagement.
3) If a lawyer misses a meeting, s/he does not charge for it. There are market mechanisms to deal with unprofessional lawyers like complaining to the managing partner or simply hiring a different firm.
As for your observation that “[i]very few Partners/Associates are really worth what they charge[/i]”, the lesser said the better. It’s not like Small-law or counsel can justify the money they charge by some graphical representation or other calculation. Comparatively, Biglaw associates have an arguably better pedigree and they are paid more. So clients have to pay to hire their services. There is no free lunch.
Hope this clears your confusion.
He got it from his burning desire to bill on every given flimsy pretext.
1) Why will a lawyer not charge money for travel time just because a matter got adjourned? That time could be utilized to service another client. Lawyers all around the world typically charge for travel time. Biglaw clients know very well that an average hearing lasts less than 15 minutes and may even be adjourned – that happens in every court.
2) Surely you don’t mean that if a client wants a lawyer to travel, then the lawyer should pay for the flight, cabs, and hotel? Expenses are typically against bills that are approved by the terms of the engagement.
3) If a lawyer misses a meeting, s/he does not charge for it. There are market mechanisms to deal with unprofessional lawyers like complaining to the managing partner or simply hiring a different firm.
As for your observation that “[i]very few Partners/Associates are really worth what they charge[/i]”, the lesser said the better. It’s not like Small-law or counsel can justify the money they charge by some graphical representation or other calculation. Comparatively, Biglaw associates have an arguably better pedigree and they are paid more. So clients have to pay to hire their services. There is no free lunch.
Hope this clears your confusion.[/quote]
Sir,
The point I am trying to make is that Biglaw adopts various tactics to shore up its billings. A 36-78% increase in billings does not necessarily reflect in a 36-78% increase in value provided to the client. Also, a lawyer-client relationship is fiduciary in nature, and the element of trust reposed by a client is often misused by Biglaw by padding time-sheets and expenses.
Now, I don't disagree that the element of trust reposed by a client is [s]often[/s] [u]sometimes[/u] misused by some [s][s]Biglaw[/s][/s] lawyers, but to indirectly suggest that Biglaw is the the only guilty person or all Biglaw firms are the same, is [b][b]unfair[/b][/b] and inappropriate. Also appreciate that lawyers should not make unfair comments about the profession in such general terms.
(a) 4% to 9% new salary packages which decrease monthly salaries (on promise of big bonuses)
(b) 10% to 14% cutting half day salary when anyone comes 30 seconds late
(c) 7% to 17% lesser bonuses (what will you do, leave? we will say we fired you)
(d) 5% to 13% gold plating bills
(e) 10% to 25% reduction in expenses as over 1/4th firm has left
= 36% to 78% increase
Maybe the revenue growth has been driven by the "penalty" amount [s]paid[/s] refunded to the Firm, by the 40-50 departing associates, who preferred to breach the infamous lock-in clause in the retainer agreement, pay the "penalty" amount, and jump ship. Not to mention "penalty" amounts that the departing partners may have paid - only God knows what terms the Firm made them agree to, dangling the partnership carrot.
Ha ha ha.
(a) 4% to 9% new salary packages which decrease monthly salaries (on promise of big bonuses)
(b) 10% to 14% cutting half day salary when anyone comes 30 seconds late
(c) 7% to 17% lesser bonuses (what will you do, leave? we will say we fired you)
(d) 5% to 13% gold plating bills
(e) 10% to 25% reduction in expenses as over 1/4th firm has left
= 36% to 78% increase[/quote]
HILARIOUS!
But my wandering eye notes that it means the same to them. If one wants to compare two years, they could reduce numbers to ratios. Profit/ employee. Then compare them to say billing is up. May also benefit from attrition this way.
Point: vague information is good as none
So Mohit Saraf must desperately want other news to somehow push this storm away because nothing else seems to
It is humorous that in the last round of 'straightforwardness' they justified loss of clients by saying they wanted to focus on niche practice areas and only on high revenue deals and so it was okay that Amarchand and AZB were acting for Luthra's star clients for every conceivable deal.
Now, they label loss of performers as "a MIX of natural and INTENTIONAL REDUCTIONS". Considering how 99.99% of the lawyers who have quit did so of their own accord, it seems extremely foul for him to suggest otherwise. Is this anything other than him trying to save face? Anyone at Luthra knows just how "intentional" any of the exits were, where lawyers agreed to forego salaries and bonuses, resisted threats of the glorified lock-in, and even agreed to salary deductions for trivial reasons just to quit. Anyway, those policies themselves are a topic for another day.
We get that you think you are a smart lawyer, but stunts like these tend to insult everyone's intelligence - including yours.
Moushami Joshi - Trade Law Practice
Madhurima - CapMarks Practice
Ajit Warrier - Litigation
Ameet Datta - IP Practice
SR Patnaik - Tax Practice
Shweta Hingorani - Corporate Team
Nivedita Tiwari - Corporate Team
All very important with great say in how things were and some credited with creating practices from scratch and entire practice areas were built around them. Them leaving meant entire teams getting wiped out. With so many associates, senior associates and managing associates leaving there are teams down to fractional sizes.. what is happening is sad
Moushami Joshi - Trade Law Practice
Madhurima - CapMarks Practice
Ajit Warrier - Litigation
Ameet Datta - IP Practice
SR Patnaik - Tax Practice
Shweta Hingorani - Corporate Team
Nivedita Tiwari - Corporate Team
All very important with great say in how things were and some credited with creating practices from scratch and entire practice areas were built around them. Them leaving meant entire teams getting wiped out. With so many associates, senior associates and managing associates leaving there are teams down to fractional sizes.. what is happening is sad[/quote]
Well what you have pointed is just half the story.
Nivedtia, Moushami and Shweta have all left on personal reasons. Madhurima had been contemplating leaving law completely and therefore, she had applied for a sabbatical before she decided to put in her papers. So out of the 7 names you have cited, 4 of them have nothing to do with the functioning of the law firms and had left for personal reasons. When someone decides to leave on personal terms you can hardly do anything about it, right?
The remaining 3 I agree have been due to professional reasons. But you make it sound like lateral partner moves are unheard of. Such moves are fairly common.
Further, the number 40-50 associates you have cited are also not true. Most of them, which would be comfortably around 75%-80% of them have quit law firms completely and are pursuing litigation or have gone for LLM or have chosen fields completely unrelated to law. How can you associate their departure with the functioning or the policies of the firm?
I think its commendable that the firm has come forward that it has disclosed their revenue generation. This way it ensures transperancy. Unlike the west, law firms in India are completely unregulated. I think this is a first step and lets all hope that other big law =would take this as an example and disclose their financials.
I feel it's sad that such exits have happened in a short span of time. Speak to anyone at Luthra, they'll agree. What reasons anyone had to quit - well, I can only speculate, some spats were more public than others. When those who you say left for personal reasons come off their sabbaticals, you should wait and see if they come back to Luthra. Nivedita is already at another firm, mind it.
The number of 40 to 50 associates/ senior associates is correct. Some amount of attrition is unavoidable, but high figures raise questions. In any case, litigation is usually the 'greener' pasture for those disillusioned with corporate firms. So, just because so many leave Luthra for litigation doesn't mean they were happy at Luthra.
Back to your point - I don't think I pointed out any half story. I didn't co-relate any of the exits to any policy or functioning. But you can't deny that running a successful business involves providing the right motivation and retaining the best guns.
Separately, I'm not convinced that this disclosure is commendable. What does it really disclose? If they wanted to disclose anything, why not disclose actual figures instead of percentage points? Because they don't actually want to disclose. If not to outside world, at least to the actual workforce billing those hours they should? What are you lauding as exemplary? Tomorrow every firm could claim to be doing 15% better than it did in the year before - it's just meaningless information. How the hell does this "ensure transparency"? Why do you think this is a "first step" of any sort which inspires any firm to do anything?
These mixed signals and half actions only breed suspicion. It seems they only wanted to put it out there that they were doing better financially while keeping everyone in the dark about the details.
These are not government organisations or entities in which the public have a financial investment. I would argue that it is better for law firms that have had a relatively poor year not to do this lest clients decide to leave out of fear of the firm's financial stability and this causes the firm to unnecessarily go bust (with the resultant loss of employment). If the Lehman and Dewey episodes taught me anything, it is that a business is toast when its clients lose confidence in its financial stability (be it in banking or law).
Internationally, there are several law firms structured as (i) Delaware LLPs or (ii) Swiss vereins; or (iii) old fashioned general partnerships, which don't make any such financial disclosures. UK law firms do so because they have converted into UK LLPs (to benefit from limited liability) and, sadly for them, UK LLP status necessarily requires accounts to be filed at UK Companies House. It is worth bearing in mind that the account publication rule applies to all UK LLPs (be they law firms or not), and was not adopted with any particular intention to regulating or increasing transparency in law firms.
My disagreement is with the latter part of your post where you say that this is pioneering transparency on Luthra's part. I really find that bit amusing because transparent is the last thing this is :-) What have you learnt at all about Luthra's financials through this "disclosure" other than that compared to 2012 (which was a crap year for most law firms anyway), 2013 saw an increase in Luthra's revenues.......ranging from 36% in some practice areas to 78% in certain others. Here are just a few top-level questions this "disclosure" raises to me, which are way more important than what has been shared by this firm:
1. Does it tell us anything at all about Luthra's revenues? Do we know, for example, if the 36% increase is on a base of 200 crores, 100 crores or 10 crores? The lower the base 2012 revenue number, the easier it is to clock a higher percentage growth.
2. Does it tell us anything meaningful about profitability? There is not even a reference to profitability numbers or even percentages, let alone PEP figures.
3. Does it address how much cost reduction happened in 2014?
Without giving some of these info, just saying 36% growth or 100% growth is not meaningful to the outside world. That's all am saying.
Now, don't get me wrong.....I am NOT one of those who thinks that law firms have a duty to disclose their revenues, profits or any other numbers to the world at large. I think it is entirely a matter of each firm's strategy, and it is laughable for anyone to suggest that firms which are not transparent with their numbers are not desirable or brave or whatever else. So, I certainly don't think Luthra owes any of us a duty to satisfy our idle curiosity on their financials. But I do think that this kind of a "disclosure" shouldn't be spun into a "transparent firm" spiel, that's all :-)
There were years we billed extensively, knew of good recoveries, worked longer hours than anyone only to be told at year end that there were poor recoveries. This opacity doesn't bode well when salaries, bonuses and revisions are contingent on these recoveries. This is a valid issue and perhaps why there is such interest.
After years of promising more transparency, they started a system of sharing some ratios of recoveries. Those are so often erroneous (some were able to calculate and point out errors) and convoluted that it is nearly impossible to verify them. The general distrust towards the management policies does not help.
Its common practice for associates to do bulk work but hours in the bill getting put in other's name for whatever reason. Sometimes a partner wasn't paying attention and thought more work was done by one lawyer than the other so he tweaks the genuine hours. Unless personally in charge of the bills, the bill isn't visible to those actually working so one never knows what revenue was generated in whose name.
These are complex issues with simple answers. Either pay out salaries and bonuses as per market norms. If you're going to pay them as per some other standard, there has to be a reasonable level of transparency and foresight on those standards otherwise things seem foul.
Otherwise how does it matter how much money the firm as a whole is making.
Moushami Joshi - Trade Law Practice
Madhurima - CapMarks Practice
Ajit Warrier - Litigation
Ameet Datta - IP Practice
SR Patnaik - Tax Practice
Shweta Hingorani - Corporate Team
Nivedita Tiwari - Corporate Team
All very important with great say in how things were and some credited with creating practices from scratch and entire practice areas were built around them. Them leaving meant entire teams getting wiped out. With so many associates, senior associates and managing associates leaving there are teams down to fractional sizes.. what is happening is sad[/quote]
Well what you have pointed is just half the story.
Nivedtia, Moushami and Shweta have all left on personal reasons. Madhurima had been contemplating leaving law completely and therefore, she had applied for a sabbatical before she decided to put in her papers. So out of the 7 names you have cited, 4 of them have nothing to do with the functioning of the law firms and had left for personal reasons. When someone decides to leave on personal terms you can hardly do anything about it, right?
The remaining 3 I agree have been due to professional reasons. But you make it sound like lateral partner moves are unheard of. Such moves are fairly common.
Further, the number 40-50 associates you have cited are also not true. Most of them, which would be comfortably around 75%-80% of them have quit law firms completely and are pursuing litigation or have gone for LLM or have chosen fields completely unrelated to law. How can you associate their departure with the functioning or the policies of the firm?
I think its commendable that the firm has come forward that it has disclosed their revenue generation. This way it ensures transperancy. Unlike the west, law firms in India are completely unregulated. I think this is a first step and lets all hope that other big law =would take this as an example and disclose their financials.[/quote]
Very interesting pattern demonstrated. By your assessment people develop personal issues and/or quit law altogether when in Luthra. And you seemed to have detailed data. Who are you? Ha ha ha..
"[i]... they label loss of performers as "a MIX of natural and INTENTIONAL REDUCTIONS". Considering how 99.99% of the lawyers who have quit did so [u]of their own accord[/u], it seems [u]extremely[/u] foul for him to suggest otherwise[/i]" (underlined by me)
SHAME SHAME SHAME ...
Luthra was going through a tough patch, took a lot of flak and we're now reporting on how management says the new strategy is working out. And if other firms were as forthcoming about their internal financials, we'd report those too (though there's not a single firm that has been brave enough to disclose actual revenue, let alone profit figures).
We are working on one or two other interesting law firm stories at the moment, but if there are other interesting ones at Luthra or elsewhere that should be covered, please leave a comment.
Also feel free to comment here, marking it as not for publication, to leave us a tip of a lead worth following up...
Also feel free to comment here, marking it as not for publication, to leave us a tip of a lead worth following up...
UNQUOTE
Kian, if one leaves a tip, by way of a comment, on [u]any[/u] LI story and marks it as "not for publication", your team will ensure that it does not get inadvertently published? Please confirm policy. Thanks.
If you're really worried use the 'Send us a Tip' button on the top right of the story, or the About & Contact link above, which lets you submit information directly to us completely anonymously without any risk of accidental publication...
Yes thanks much for that! We're following it up, alongside other similar issues, this week. More tips and leads very very welcome!
Best wishes,
Prachi
Good to know you are following it up and thank you for the response!
The power of the fourth estate will have a significant role in shaping the legal market if you guys do a breaking [i]Tehelka-[/i]like story. More tips and leads will surely be available if you directly put up a "survey" or "request for data", given that your site attracts 50+ comments on stories relating to law firm management issues/controversies. The exodus of partners and associates can be the subject of your survey. Unless, of course, you have contacts and are reaching out directly to them.
In any event, investigative journalism that helps to shape a market by spreading awareness and shaming immoral/illegal tactics will make for refreshing and much-needed change. You will also be doing a favour not only to those who have suffered, but also (and more importantly) to those who may suffer in the future if the details are not public knowledge.
Looking forward to your findings and all the best.
until then, keep smoking funny things and keep claiming the moon and mars....
Anyway what credibility do any numbers have when like Kian said level of disclosure is so poor. After good performance they could understate massively OR after making huge losses claim to be most profitable for sake of keeping appearances
When credibility is zero and there is no way to verify anything, of course they will say what suits immediate needs
That'll show just how puny your market capitalization is. Every deal table (except Projects) and client survey rate this firm as Grade C or lower. Even with % increases they could be making less money than Grade C firms.
I've heard rumors of Luthra's turnover from a reliable person in their admin and it is worthy of being compared to Grade C firms only because it is certainly not in the same league as AMSS AZB JSA Khaitan. The only way they can project that they are doing good business is by creating such 'news' themselves.
Best regards,
Kian
The people who can run a business book on their own are or have been moving out and the ones who have no choice but survive on the name of Mr. Luthra/ Mohit are still hanging out in 'niche' areas.
ZZ Top
The people who can run a business book on their own are or have been moving out and the ones who have no choice but survive on the name of Mr. Luthra/ Mohit are still hanging out in 'niche' areas.
ZZ Top[/quote]
Ha ha ha ha.. that was a funny incident... but it was time someone stood up to the oppression and the unreasonableness there.
From what I was told, a junior was so frustrated with the IP partner (whose name is mentioned in another deal a few days ago on LI) that the junior screamed "B1t(H" publicly - in front of the entire office and walked away ...
On a related note, the noted Copyright partner who left them some years ago has not entered the building and prefers to keep his distance from the Firm - that speaks a lot for the IP practice.
ZZ Top
The people who can run a business book on their own are or have been moving out and the ones who have no choice but survive on the name of Mr. Luthra/ Mohit are still hanging out in 'niche' areas.
ZZ Top[/quote]
The corporate division includes all practices at the firm except for tax advisory, intellectual property and litigation work, which are accounted for in separate profit centres.
1 April – 31 December 2013 vs same period 2012
Billings
Corporate: +36%
Tax: +78%
Litigation: +30-40%
Recovered billings
Corporate: +18%
Tax: +61%
No mention of billing in IP which is treated as a separate profit center.
If they let go of all the Associates then who will they hound around.. who will do the work.. who will stand as a target for their shooting when their egos spiral down...
Enjoy this "alternate" reality. Lets hope someday it becomes "Actual" reality and does not come crashing on your heads...
It will be good to know that considering AZB and JSA are paying the most compared to AMSS, Luthra and Khaitan.
http://www.livemint.com/Companies/PUJDIdjVSWvOjkgJw7bLAK/Mobility-rises-among-lawyers-but-pay-packages-lack-clarity.html
http://www.legallyindia.com/201111252419/Analysis/exclusive-law-firms-pay-from-rs-8-30-lakh-after-6-years-less-in-delhi-starting-salaries-doubled-since-2006
A bit dated, but things haven't changed much.
But Kian you should do a story with the latest pay package as to what these firms are paying.
nevermind, luthra hasn't revised salaries since 2009 despite written promises in offer letters and verbal assurances in interviews. in fact, salaries at some levels are LESS than what was earlier paid at same level.
when this policy was questioned, the fine gentlemen at the helm rebuked the assertion and unabashedly advocated time and again for downward revisions. look at the old links and be assured that latest pay packages would have no upward swing. add that to list of grievances to understand the discontent. principle is to pay less, hire cheap and work more.
For example, why would Luthra revise salaries after 2009 when clearly it has been difficult to revise billing rates after 2009. In fact, most Firms, and this includes Amarchand, JSA and Khaitan have headed the other way and cut fees.
To an extent this sense of entitlement has been created by Biglaw. Instead of sustainable HR policies and focus on work-life balance they found that the most efficient way to retain an associate is to chuck cash at them.
I think its fair to say that across the board there are corrections and the average associate pay has shrunk.
I think the shameful part is being not honest with your associates, giving them the true picture truthfully and correctly and managing their expectation. Unfortunately Biglaw has always been guilty of that.
Did Luthra really make "promises" of revisions which it didn't keep? That's something. I read some comments and thought the clear lack of trust may be exaggerated. If this is true then that's shameful and deceitful. How do they expect employees to trust them?
Management is a different ballgame today and if you step out to make a fool of others chances are you'll end up playing the fool.
They have already made lot of money when market was at high...
They only survive on the work doled out as MnA related IP advisory that comes from the big partners.
allegations must have some basis...
Since you asked for basis and also mentioned 'verification', I thought that you would at least counter with 'verified' transactions.
The only time the current IP team comes in news is for IP support on due diligence on MnA transactions from the main teams.
Just to put the point more clearer ... how many people are there in the IP team now?
Since you asked for basis and also mentioned 'verification', I thought that you would at least counter with 'verified' transactions.
The only time the current IP team comes in news is for IP support on due diligence on MnA transactions from the main teams.
Just to put the point more clearer ... how many people are there in the IP team now?[/quote]
IP team...someone has killed the practice in a short snap of 1.5 years...the team is one third of what the last partner left...
Who gave you this impression? Mr. Saraf? Are you really Chief Group I.P. Counsel??? which real company has such a designation???
See this:
http://www.geocities.ws/kream77/amarchand.html
Even the leading partners are not safe:
http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-mum-on-split-m-p-bharucha-takes-lawinto-his-hands-1157744
How is that work-life balance working for you?
Luthra is a tough place to work and a tough environment to survive. Most associates don't last for more than 3-4 years in Luthra. It is a tough place with a harsh management. Its just how it is. it is not a picnic spot. Either you survive or you quit. nothing wrong with that. If you are disgruntled or discontent (in Luthra or anywhere else), you are always free to quit the organisation.
When I worked with a PSU some years back, I used to effectively work 1 hour a day and leave at 5.30. If I want to have a similar working style and get paid Luthra salaries, then clearly I will be disgruntled.
Promised pay revisions or not, isn't Luthra still one of the highest pay masters in the market?
HA HA HA HA!! Go back to that PSU whence you came
Luthra is a tough place to work and a tough environment to survive. Most associates don't last for more than 3-4 years in Luthra. It is a tough place with a harsh management. Its just how it is. it is not a picnic spot. Either you survive or you quit. nothing wrong with that. If you are disgruntled or discontent (in Luthra or anywhere else), you are always free to quit the organisation.
When I worked with a PSU some years back, I used to effectively work 1 hour a day and leave at 5.30. If I want to have a similar working style and get paid Luthra salaries, then clearly I will be disgruntled.
Promised pay revisions or not, isn't Luthra still one of the highest pay masters in the market?[/quote]
You Mr. HJK sound like you had a personal axe to grind with these lovely ladies.
Heard two partners refused to take them and rest did not get them.
Heard two partners refused to take them and rest did not get them.[/quote]
Thanks. For every Audi, they can give Nanos to 30 Associates. Now, at the cost of half an Audi, they can keep all Associates happy, right?