London-based legal industry consultancy RSG Consulting has released its 2013 ranking of law firms showing few changes in the top six but documenting smaller firms gaining increasing client confidence.
Talwar Thakore & Associates, Platinum Partners, Economic Laws Practice (ELP) and Phoenix Legal and HSA Advocates got the biggest boost in the rankings that were compiled by RSG after surveying 350 clients of Indian law firms.
Firms were ranked by a score out of 40 points taking into account capacity, profile, quality of mandate and client satisfaction, derived from 35 different data sets devised by RSG.
While Amarchand Mangaldas retained its top position from RSG 2011 India rankings, Khaitan & Co drew level with AZB & Partners into joint second place, nudging ahead of J Sagar Associates (JSA) in third.
Trilegal fell a whisker behind Luthra & Luthra into sixth position in the rankings, with Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan came in at a strong seventh from 10th place last year.
Circle of six, closed?
However, foreign purchasers of legal services were beginning to drive changes in the law firm pecking order by instructing smaller and newer firms, stated the report.
“The constellation of the top six firms is not set in stone,” commented RSG managing director Reena SenGupta. “Within it the order could change - witness the meteoric rise of Khaitan and how Trilegal’s domestic profile is rising post the ending of their special relationship with A&O [Allen & Overy].”
“Out of the up-and-comers, the best chancers are S&R, Platinum and we are beginning to hear good things about Phoenix,” she added, noting that some of the largest UK companies and law firms were already instructing S&R and Platinum as alternatives to the older firms on some deals, because of greater senior partner attention and their international approach.
“These firms just need to have the desire to break into the top six to become contenders.”
Can’t get no satisfaction
Client satisfaction scores support her argument: Trilegal was the only firm in the top six where the client satisfaction score at 8.6 was consistently above the 8.2 market average, according to the rankings. The highest client satisfaction ratings in top 20 firms accrued to Phoenix Legal (9.3), S&R Associates and Platinum Partners (8.9 each).
By contrast, India’s largest firms were generally marked down by clients for worse service delivery levels than top smaller firms, with complaints including problems in availability, timeliness and budgeting. Amarchand, AZB and Luthra scored only 7.8 in the average client satisfaction count.
Firms focusing on specialist practice areas, such as Nishith Desai Associates, Lakshmi Kumaran, Vaish Associates Advocates and Anand & Anand, were increasingly recognised by clients for their niche expertise, said RSG’s report.
2013 RSG India Top 40 rankings
2013 Rank | 2011 Rank | ‘11-13 change | Firm | Total score** | 2013 partners | 2013 total lawyers | RSG profile score | RSG client satisfaction score |
1 | 1 | - | 36 | 69 | 600 | 196 | 7.83 | |
2 | 2 | - | 34 | 20 | 250 | 152 | 7.84 | |
2 | 3 | 1 | 34 | 57 | 300 | 130 | 8.14 | |
4 | 3 | -1 | 30 | 50 | 240 | 70 | 8.06 | |
5 | 5 | - | 29 | 45 | 290 | 61 | 7.79 | |
6 | 5 | -1 | 28 | 20 | 150 | 58 | 8.55 | |
7 | 10 | 3 | 27 | 28 | 120 | 6 | 9.05 | |
7 | 8 | 1 | 27 | 7 | 67 | 33 | 8.67 | |
7 | 10 | 3 | S&R Associates | 27 | 7 | 42 | 18 | 8.93 |
7 | 19 | 12 | Talwar Thakore & Associates | 27 | 4 | 20 | 33 | 8.68 |
11 | 19 | 8 | Platinum Partners | 26 | 5 | 27 | 12 | 8.93 |
12 | 10 | -2 | 25 | 13 | 84 | 13 | 8.15 | |
12 | 8 | -4 | Desai & Diwanji | 25 | 24 | 187 | 16 | 8.32 |
12 | 19 | 7 | Economic Laws Practice | 25 | 19 | 99 | 31 | 8.32 |
12 | 15 | 3 | Wadia Ghandy & Co | 25 | 27 | 155 | 27 | 8.38 |
16 | 31 | 15 | 24 | 6 | 45 | 15 | 9.33 | |
17 | 19 | 2 | Vaish Associates Advocates | 23 | 13 | 91 | 7 | 8.41 |
18 | 7 | -11 | 21 | 15 | 104 | 34 | 7.34 | |
18 | 35 | 17 | HSA Advocates | 21 | 14 | 70 | 3 | 8.63 |
18 | 13 | -5 | Kochhar & Co | 21 | 35 | 160 | 4 | 7.33 |
20 | 25 | 5 | 20 | 20 | 100 | 0 | 8.52 | |
20 | 19 | -1 | Fox Mandal | 20 | 30 | 250 | 6 | 7.98 |
20 | 13 | -7 | Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe | 20 | 14 | 100 | 19 | 7.92 |
23 | 31 | 8 | D.H. Law Associates | 19 | 9 | 44 | 2 | 8.39 |
23 | 15 | -8 | 19 | 10 | 60 | 2 | 8.07 | |
26 | 25 | 2 | Tatva Legal | 19 | 12 | 65 | 7 | 7.75 |
26 | 15 | -11 | Bharucha & Partners | 18 | 5 | 32 | 0 | 8.54 |
26 | 25 | -1 | Kanga & Co | 18 | 12 | 50 | 5 | 9.25 |
26 | 28 | 2 | Rajani Associates | 18 | 9 | 33 | 7 | 8.86 |
30 | Link Legal | 17 | 9 | 43 | 6 | 9.08 | ||
30 | Singhania & Partners | 17 | 12 | 65 | 0 | 8.37 | ||
32 | 28 | -4 | 16 | 15 | 62 | 8 | 7.25 | |
32 | Seth Dua & Associates | 16 | 9 | 30 | 2 | 8.62 | ||
34 | 35 | 1 | IndusLaw | 15 | 10 | 53 | 2 | 8.47 |
34 | Krishnamurthy & Co (K Law) | 15 | 5 | 70 | 4 | 9.01 | ||
36 | 15 | -21 | Crawford Bayley & Co | 14 | 17* | 100* | 18 | 5.58 |
36 | Mundkur Law Partners | 14 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8.92 | ||
36 | 31 | -5 | P&A Associates | 14 | 1* | 20* | 0 | 9.09 |
39 | 19 | -20 | Dua Associates | 13 | 40* | 190* | 4 | 8.58 |
39 | 39 | 0 | Lexygen | 13 | 3 | 12 | 2 | 7.72 |
*Headcount numbers based on RSG research and estimates. All other headcount figures supplied by the law firms.
**TOTAL Score out of 40 is the sum of weighted and banded scores for CAPACITY (/10), PROFILE (/10), QUALITY OF MANDATE (/10) and CLIENT SATISFACTION (/10). These banded scores against the four indicators are not shown. They are derived from 35 different data sets, weighted and ranked based on RSG Consulting’s Top 40 Indian Law Firms methodology. However, we do show data against two indicators: profile score which shows the total number of mentions (which includes a weighting for top and second tier commendations) and the actual average client satisfaction score each firm receives from their scorecards from their clients. In addition, we show headcount figures for total number of partners and lawyers based on the firm’s submissions to RSG Consulting.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
Make them toil, but share with 'em no spoils!
What is heartening to see is Khaitan being higher in client satisfaction among Top 5 Firms, has an all equity model and run like an international firm. While its leverage ratio is 1:5 and not close as compared to international firms but is far better than 1:10 of Amarchand and 1:12.5 of AZB (most of the partners at these 2 firms being salaried).
Good show. Wish JSA had hunger and aggression like Khaitan!
And talking about HR's of other firms, look at AMSS. At AMSS there is a proper segregation between the HR and the legal staff. There is very little interaction between them which ensures to some extent some fairness from the HR's end.
At KCO on the other hand you will find many lawyers including partners sitting for hours at the HR's office. [...]. They do so as the HR at KCO has been, very unwisely, put in a strong position. [...]
Ask KCO why their infrastructure and capital market practices have shrunk so much. The partner who was the head of the infra practice was compelled to focus only on real estate as he had nothing to offer in infra.
They had good clients, especially in infra, but where have they gone? Don't blame the markets, but their work ethics and management. Now they have very few clients and a very small work force.
Crawford: -21
DSK: -11
And most surprising, Bharucha: -11!
Wake up!
KCO is nowhere close to AZB or AMSS in terms of client and partner profile. HK, RBJ and some of the other few partners may be good but the rest of the crop does not bring any work.
Also it is a widely known fact that though HK and RBJ may be good but the bulk of the work is done by the Associates, SAs and PAs. The quality of which at KCO is as bad as it can get.
Hahaha...HR ka Aadmi...
Also I seriously doubt the figure of the head count considering that more than 40 lawyers have quit the Mumbai office in less than 18 months. Many quit because of a bad working environment and others were retrenched because the firm did not have enough work to have so many lawyers. The Mumbai office houses the maximum number of lawyers which is less than 90 now. So that raises a lot of doubts about the authenticity of the data collected.
There is a reason it's called the client satisfaction score, not the HR satisfaction score.
On quality and client service, perhaps we are now going through a tipping point for recognition of smaller quality outfits like TT&A, Platinum, Phoenix and S&R. Does size matter for this? Perhaps the small partner to associate ratio in these firms (though I hear S&R may be an exception to this) means that they need to stay small in order to ensure quality and will only grow gradually over time rather than in the frantic way other firms have in the past with the hiring of laterals.
Golden rule that applies across the board to all firms: If you don't treat your fee earners right, if youngsters showing promise are not encouraged over insecure practice heads and if you are not transparent to your own members, you will lose them and you will come tumbling down from your so called tower. Client see through this.
Firms that once were on top can still retain their top position only if they wake up and smell the scent of discontent that their actions create. Wake up before you're put to sleep by the industry!
So, more or less, a 10 is equivalent to the best single aggregate score by any one client to a firm (even if it was only a B+, say), whereas a 0 on that scale could have been a C- rating from one client to one firm, say.
Therefore it's hard to interpret them as absolutes, but are more useful for comparison.
Million dollar question, most of the places they maintain confidentiality about the same….if sources are not correct the what is the guarantee of the ranking or report…must have taken hefty charges for the same… unbelievable that Dua and CB are beyond 30…
Out of all the Indian law firm rankings, I've found RSG's to be the most validated and transparent in its methodology...
But don't even get me started on law firm awards...
The client data and info must have been provided by the firms itself, on the basis the firms think who would speak best for them in the market. If this the case and thus the result, such firms seriously need to look into their client relationships and how the same is being managed as low client score mean, clients either not happy or speaking not right for u.
Yes, Kian why you saying most validated/transparent. Proof? Is it a charitable organisation?
Suggestion for Kian: Indian legal fraternity is very different as it looks like…these kind of report needs you personal attention before publishing…
Sorry to disagree with you Kian, but they're really don't seem to be. For several firms on this list, the figures of the number of associates and partners are completely outdated. Wadia Ghandy today has over 25 partners and 140 associates, Bharucha has 7 partners and around 40 associates, and so on. RSG clearly doesn't seem to bother with getting actual figures from law firms or law firms refuse to give data to them for whatever reason . Such a fact should be mentioned, shouldn't it? Won't that be preferable to reporting wrong statistics and claiming them to be correct and supplied by the firms themselves?
On another note, rankings, for the most part, simply do not matter. Yes, some corporates do google a firm's name and figure out where they want to go by some ranking system - but more often than not, is work for law firm not generated through word of mouth and references? Besides, does any lawyer honestly choose a place work based on these rankings?
Seems very unfair or biased, ground realty is very different…..
As far as I remember, yes, they seek feedback from client contacts supplied by the firms, so there is definite scope for law firms gaming the reviews, as in other rankings.
I believe they also reach out to other client contacts of their own and seek reviews.
As such, I would suspect that there is perhaps a bias against larger firms, in that they work with many more clients in the market (some of whom they may not have explicitly referred to RSG). In other words, almost everyone in the market may have worked with some of the Big Six, and it is likely that at some point in time they were dissatisfied or noticed patchy quality (unless they were the marquee clients, perhaps, who were given personal senior partner attention every time).
This is mostly my personal speculation though. Have reached out to RSG for more details, which I'm sure they'll be happy to supply when they wake up in the UK / US and have a minute.
I know and have talked to some of the people at RSG that have been working on the report in the past few years and everything I have seen so far seems fairly credible, though no such ranking can ever be 'perfect' or make everyone happy.
We have covered some of their previous reports before, which may provide a bit more information on how they work:
www.legallyindia.com/tag/rsg-india
For eg ALMT 's page is updated in Dcc 2010. Even Juris Corp's data pertains to 2010 and since then it has lost 6 partners and about 30 associates.Therefore if the rankings are based on 3 yr old data how authentic are they?
A fair number of those articles for some of the bigger firms were updated somewhat recently by very talented Legally India intern Kritika Khanijo, others admittedly need a lot of work to bring up to date and up to scratch.
We're working on it, but if you think you can help us build a more useful resource about the legal profession to increase transparency and publicly available information, please get in touch with us, we'd love to hear from you!
Quote: Do let me know if you have any questions and I'll be happy to pass it on.
The very credibility of the rankings is in question if they are based on outdated data. As stated above for example Juris Corp had peaked in 2010-11 and since then lost several Clients, partners and seniors and also forced to shut down some of its practice areas. In short it is a different firm ( possibly with much lower rankings) than it was in 2010-11
Therefore in the interest of correct journalistic reporting it is imperative that LI take this up with RSG so that the users of this report get a balanced picture and are not misled by firms that "game' the system
The firm data linked to is hosted by Legally India and some of it is a bit outdated.
RSG did its own research on firm numbers - most of them (unless there is an asterisk next to the number) supplied by the firms. Yes, some have gamed (or tried to game) that system.
But short of travelling to every office and counting heads, or doing some hard core investigations to confirm numbers from a number of sources, it's very hard to corroborate total headcounts 100% for a report.
But more importantly, do you say that the currently reported JurisCorp figures in RSG's table (15 partners and 62 lawyers) is inaccurate? We'll look into that and try to confirm.
For the avoidance of doubt, in our Legallypedia entry, citing firm-supplied data from 27 August 2010, it had 42 lawyers, excluding 10 partners and 2 of counsels.
Quote: The table lists Wadia Ghandy & Co as 13 partners and 112 lawyers, and Bharucha & Partners as 5 partners and 32 lawyers.
You're right that for WG the figures seem off - our report from April 2012 states 28 partners and 160 lawyers with plans to grow ( www.legallyindia.com/201204032707/Law-firms/wadia-ghandy-promotes-hires-4-braveheart-partners-growing-77-in-2-years ), as supplied by the firm.
For Bharucha LI only has a 35 lawyer figure from 2010, it seems, but nothing more recent ( www.legallyindia.com/20100423732/Law-firms/bharucha-doubles-senior-associate-counts-and-leverage ).
Since there is no asterisk in RSG's table, at face value the numbers seem to have come the firms directly. If there was no error in inputting the data into the table (I will ask), it does look like a discrepancy, definitely on WG data and maybe on Bharucha, though if accurate, in both cases they would be a deliberate understatement of headcounts by the firms, which would be strange.
So it could be that either be that the data supplied by a firm to RSG is wrong, that data supplied by firms to LI in our previous reports is wrong, or they could have counted headcounts differently (e.g, some firms like to add 'alliance offices', paralegals, interns or articled clerks into their headcounts, which perhaps RSG is more granular about?). Will try and find out.
I'm positive that the data for WG and Bharucha is outdated (without taking into account any 'alliance offices', paralegals, articled clerks or interns - had no clue that firms actually did that though!). Other figures in the table for other firms seem outdated as well. RSG either doesn't do its home work well, or simply maintains the old figures for firms that refuse to provide data to them, without putting an asterix. Would love to hear an explanation from them on this.
That's also because Wadia Ghandy doesn't report, neither deals nor their profile, for such rankings. RSG should mention that the data has not been received from the firm, neither about the numbers nor about their clients/deals, etc. Although the numbers in LI's previous article about WG seem accurate.
Observer and HJS seem to be correct since at the rate Juris Corp is losing partners , seniors [...] it does not seem to have the RSG reported headcount [...]
Request you Kian and LI to undertake a proper unbiased investigation and reprt the unvarnished truth for which LI is known and also expose this "rankings game" by firms just to gain recognition through surrogate advertising and puffery offered by these reports for a price
But more importantly, do you say that the currently reported JurisCorp figures in RSG's table (15 partners and 62 lawyers) is inaccurate? We'll look into that and try to confirm."
Dear Kian,
The numbers quoted do seem inaccurate in light of the fact that Juris Corp has lost several partners and seniors. I have downloaded its profile from the net and it still reflects Fraser Mario Alexander as Of Counsel though he has already joined Majmudar where I have dealt with him. This is just an example of how the system can be gained by a firm seeking to play the numbers and lure unsuspecting foreign Clients. In the interest of the truth LI owes it to its readers to do a complete expose so that firms are not tempted to seek rankings at any cost and these agencies which rank firms also get their come uppance
The latest profile of JC on the net shows 9 partners with Two additions( Talat Shah and Detty) and three deletions( Wadia, Jarial and Fraser) Therefore before this ediot they had 9+3-2 =10 partners
However in the RSG rankings for 3013 they had reported 15 partners and 62 lawyers. Where are the missing partners . Request you and LI to take up this matter and clarify
JC has changed its net profile . However it shows only 9 partners with Talat, Detty and Hufriz being additions and Hoshedar,Anil and Fraser deletions i.e 9 partners
However what is strange that Though Talat and Detty were partners for some time their names were missing in the earlier version of the JC profile. Further Talat is shown as a co founder. I do not see how this can be possible since JC was founded in 2000 as a sole proprietorship and only became a firm in 2008 when the initial lot of partners (Huzefa , Freddy, Vandana,Sonali, Hoshedar,Ookabhoy, Talat and Fraser were inducted) Detty was inducted subsequently as a partner in 2009 So how can Talat be a Co founder with retrospective effect Why were the names of Talat and Detty omitted from the initial version of the profile?
Further the No of 9 partners is still a far cry from the 15 partners and 62 lawyers reported to RSG
LI must ask JC for an explanation for this grave anomaly in the interest of Indian Bar
seen KCO's end product several times and been very happy always. i am sure you are from AMSS/AZB where most of the people belive that there is a treasury they have hidden in the end product, wich atleast we have never been able to locate...
Your favourite firm has enough potential to get the name of the client wrong in their documents and issue outdated opinions.
It may not have happened to you yet, but as I have told you before....Wait for it...
Clearly, Khaitan is marching to the obvious position.
Check out the recent posts on Legally India on major deals in infra, M&A, etc., and you will get the correct picture. The bubble of KCO will burst soon.
KCO's only hope it that the partners who have been recruited over the last few months bring in enough work to counter the dead weight of most of the other partners that KCO carries.
Another problem that KCO has is the sub-standard quality of its Associates, SAs and PAs. Till their evaluation process is not based on merit and work, but whims and fancies of a few, they will never come out of this mess.
Chambers and Legal 500? My personal perception: I don't think they change much year-on-year, which doesn't make it very interesting to cover, plus their research can be pretty thin I've heard. As far as I understand it, both methodologies basically consist of asking the firm to fill in a form about which practice areas the firm is good in, and to give a handful of client and deal references.
I understand that usually a junior person sitting in London, many of whom do this as summer job for a few months and then never return because the job is so boring, then automatically send mailshots or calls to those clients, asking them to rate that and possibly other firms. Large firms with huge PR departments have an inherent advantage, because they can file quality submissions (which take a lot of time and work) in every conceivable practice area to get a ranking, whereas smaller firms might not even be able to manage one or two.
That person is probably also doing the same for a handful of other jurisdictions (both directories produce directories for nearly every country on earth, I think).
Law firms are also asked to advertise in those directories, though I haven't heard any actual allegations of this influencing the rankings, there are whispers - not sure if anyone has anecdotes on this?
Plus there is an inherent upward drift of most firms in those directories, since it's very hard and rare for the directories to downgrade firms a tier (because the firms start complaining and crying to high heaven), so most of the researchers become risk averse and by default accept previous years' rankings in order not to cause a fuss.
Those directories' India knowledge is therefore more limited arguably, than RSG's, where the same people have travelled to India several times for each year's report over the past years, interviewing (usually managing) partners and some clients face to face, as well as on the phone from London.
Maybe my understanding of Chambers, Legal500 and the like is wrong though - please correct me if you disagree - but my perception is that RSG's methodology and focus is slightly better, though there's less width outside of the generic 'corporate law' bracket.
Indian law firm or lawyer awards? Not sure if it's worth even commenting on that?
Who's Who has a slightly better reputation I've heard, though to be honest I'm not really too familiar with it and normally it seems like it's the usual suspects and sometimes some randoms who make it in.
Anything else that's worth covering that we don't?
Also note, just like we've stopped covering the magazines' Indian law school rankings properly, we have to take a call on what is necessary to report and what isn't worth readers' time (though we're bound to get this wrong sometimes for some readers).
E.g., we report on the mergermarket M&A deals database rather than Bloomberg or Venture Intelligence or VCCEdge or half a dozen others, which are of comparable quality. Why don't we cover all of them? Honestly, we as well as readers are somewhat comfortable using those rankings now and in the interests of consistency, it's ok to continue.
Finally, it's worth noting that most league tables are essentially clever advertising, made purely for marketing and PR reasons: if a newspaper or website covers them, the consultancy that made them hope to sell more copies of a report, service, ads, etc.
As such, we have a presumption against publishing and promoting third party data or reports, unless there is a compelling reason for publishing them because for example it is unique, or is worth highlighting or adds value to our (and hopefully our readers') understanding.
RSG's report is by no means perfect or without problems, but in my somewhat considered view it's definitely more interesting than the others at the moment.
Feedback welcomed,
Kian
But in case you're not aware, on our Legallypedia entries we usually do mention Chambers and Legal500 scores for firms alongside RSG's:
www.legallyindia.com/wiki/Amarchand_Mangaldas
If you know any other ratings besides the ones I mentioned, please do share...
Could you not handle the pressure that you to make the switch. KCO offers great work life balance as they have little work. Soon either you will follow suit as 40-50 other lawyers of that firm and leave in frustration or they will ask you to leave as they can no longer bear the extra cost.
Good Luck
In Kolkata, KCO is unmatched and the attrition rate is still very low. In Delhi they are reasonably well known for Lit. In B'lore they are slowly growing but still have not gained as strong a market presence as they have in other 3 cities. In Mumbai they are undoubtedly giants in Corp and this is considering they have been there for only 12 years or so.
Coming to your figures, in Mumbai, the attrition rate has gone up significantly in the last 2 years and yes around 40 odd have quit the firm in less than 18 months. Also the figure of 35% raise and 150% bonus is questionable. KCO would offer a raise of 35% annually before 2011 and this was because the salary structure at KCO was far less than that of other tier -I firms. Now that it has more or less matched the basic pay at the fresher level with that of AMSS and JSA, it is getting difficult for KCO to give such annual raises any more and hence, that 35% figure is not tenable.
With regards to that bonus, the bonus at KCO Mumbai, which is the firms best internal paymaster, has given that high bonus only to its best performer in whole office and that person is not a lateral from AMSS but AZB, otherwise, the highest bonus is less than 75% for good performers.
In Kolkata, KCO does little or no corporate work - the stars of the Kolkata market are Krishnava Dutt and his firm Argus and of-course AMSS.
It looks like work of some AM and AZB associates who have too big ego (bigger than of partners of their firms).
Dead-wood is churned by all firms. If Khaitan has also done it, then what's the big deal? Dead-wood is usually most gisgruntled everywhere.
Take it easy guys!
Quote:
If a firm has refused to share information / stats - then what is the harm in mentioning it? I simply don't understand the need for misrepresentation. Not once in this report does that fact come out. Would you agree?
How, then, can someone reasonably rely on such rankings? If there's a mistake in some figures, why should we believe the genuineness of the others?
Giving the benefit of doubt and transparency about methodology and the mistake, I don't think it was meant to be malicious or deceptive necessarily, though feel free to disagree. I also don't think it invalidates the entire report, in itself, even if you disagree with its rankings (and someone always will disagree, guaranteed).
If one looks hard enough it shouldn't be too hard picking holes into most reports or similar rankings.
However, I, for one, welcome such hole picking. There more of it there is going on, the more open and truthful firms are likely to be in future, which can only be a good thing.
KCO has a Birla and RPG Groups as their flagship groups which are catered to by the best in the firm. But what other clients get is utter rubbish. Hopefully this may change with better quality partners being poached in the last 12 months who are also making it rain for them.
JSA is JSA. Best working environment but in with Mr Jyoti Sagar retiring, the firm may need to sit back and re-valuate a lot of things.
HK is a wonderful guy though - you're certainly right about that. And most partners at KCO are definitely brilliant.
To answer your doubts I have seen lawyers leave Kco due to leveraging their experience outside the firm and in few cases because of the feeling their sector was not doing well. However friends who quit AMSS and AZB (the much-touted biggies) do so because they are fed up of those places, severe politics in the workplace, blatant discrimination and obsessive prying by the managing partner, which I feel is in a different league completely. The people from AZB who joined Kco have explained horror stories about their previous firms and there are many such people. However very few ex-KCo lawyers complain of mistreatment at hands of HK. I agree KCo has a long way to go before it can become a nirvana but it is already ahead of at least AMSS and AZB.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first