We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
LL cappfinity is great.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NLUs/s/CNi9y3IHqx
Would employers prioritize this dual-qualification over deep sector-specific experience when hiring for senior in-house positions?
Is this the most effective path to increase my value, or should I focus on different specializations?
How does the current market view Indian-qualified counsel who obtain the Solicitor designation?
I am not even a feminist. Still this is the reality. These feminist writers rage bait. But are pointing to the correct issues.
^Might be relevant
If you aren’t able to do that, then it proves my point that the word “misogynist” is being misused. Feminists like us have fought tooth and nail to give basic dignity to women. Its indeed shameful that certain agenda driven comments, in a bid to shut down bonafide criticism of data privacy policy apps will throw around words like “misogynist”.
“What’s the problem? Let her meet for one hour in the park. I’ll appoint a local commissioner who’ll take the dog and bring it back to you. I am keeping it tomorrow. Give them five hours a week, and that’s it,” Justice Singh had said on July 7.
When the case was taken up for hearing today, Justice Singh asked Dehadrai’s counsel, Senior Advocate Percival Billimoria, if they were agreeable to the visitation rights.
“The question doesn’t arise. That’s my case,” Billimoria responded.
He added,
“There's a reason. There's a very good reason. In the interest of a dog, please allow me to explain. There was an attempt to threaten me. The SHO of Barakhamba Road police station visited me along with five constables and said he would register an FIR against me… This is a case of criminal intimidation, first of all.”
https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-says-it-will-decide-whether-mahua-moitra-can-visit-pet-rottweiler-henry