bro /sis better find new job she just playing polictics so as hire a cheap labour with highest exploitation and no guidance of iota. Just remember there are many additional advocate general under an AG. most of them got their post due to deep connection with netas. look for good lawyer or better look judicial assistantship

Because law school rankings are dynamic and change with time. Just because you are top 3 in 2010 doesn't mean you will be top 3 in 2020, 2030 etc. Others work hard and you need to keep up with the competition. If you got a head start, you need to maintain it. West Indies won the 1975 and 1979 World Cups, but look at them now --- pathetic. Prithvi Shaw was a star at 18, but look at him now: his contemporaries have overtaken him.

Big learning for NUJS.

Because it's something hugely important we will all need in life -- different types of investment instruments, understanding the stock market, tax saving strategies etc. The better you know this subject the richer you will be. And there are so many people offering paid courses in this subject online. If we learn it in law school, there won't be any need to take such courses.

So why not have it as a compulsory subject in place of one of the BA subjects?

General Corporate is a great starting point because it exposes you to a wide range of laws early on. For instance, while working on due diligence, you’ll deal with diverse legal frameworks—from the IT Act to legal metrology and corporate basics like share issuances, board resolutions, FEMA etc., and contract reviews from a legal perspective. You’ll also gain exposure to intellectual property laws like trademarks. Starting in GC provides a broad legal grounding, making it an ideal base before transitioning into an in-house role later.

I understand your perspective on employment, but opportunities are emerging in this area as well. Many teams are actively looking for people for roles like in-house whistleblower teams, among others. That said, it’s still a developing field and hasn’t yet fully matured as a significant employment market.

There is no mentorship whatsoever. The tantrums some of the partners throw makes them look like adult babies. It's quite a toxic place.

If you have some experience, maybe you might be able to wade your way through all of this. But don't join the team if you are an A1/ A2 baccha.

Obviously RCB. Looks like people have forgotten what the “fans” did with Dan Christian and his wife.

https://www.mensxp.com/amp/sports/cricket/94802-ipl2021-maxwell-slams-rcb-fans-for-attacking-dan-christian-pregnant-partner.html

It's important to get these views across, especially on a forum like LI where most people are law students living in a liberal echo-chamber. The fact is that the US justice system is deeply, deeply politicised. Unlike in India, prosecutors are political people who pick and choose their battles. The DA in the present case, Bryon Peace, is supported by Chuck Schumer of the Democratic Party, who in turn is funded by Soros. I really wish LI readers know the fill facts instead of parroting the Dhruv Rathee line.

https://www.ndtvprofit.com/world/adani-us-case-former-norwegian-minister-erik-solheim-criticises-us-overreach

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/israel-backs-adani-after-us-bribery-allegations-israeli-envoy-says-7124581

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/conspiracy-to-stop-india-growth-story-mahesh-jethmalani-on-adani-us-case-7115640

Fully agree that demand for Chinese law experts is big abroad but not Indian law experts. We in India are under a delusion that we are an economic power comparable to China, but the facts speak for themselves: our economy is not even 20% the size of China, our GDP per capita is at the levels of African countries and our level of development and governance is very poor.

An LL.M. is perfect for those who can drop ₹50 lakh without breaking a sweat—or for grads still figuring out their next steps after law school. But beyond that, it’s an amazing opportunity to level up as a lawyer and build global connections.

An LL.M. from a top school like Harvard, Stanford, or Yale isn’t just a fancy line on your CV; it’s a flex that clients notice. It makes them more confident about paying you those hefty fees. Even if you’ve already locked down your dream Tier-1 job, taking a year off to get that exposure can be a game-changer for your career.

1. Get a vacation scheme (VS) at a London firm. This will usually happen at the end of your fifth year of law school. A VS is an internship where they test your potential. If they find you to be worthy, they will make you go through at least a year of study (if not they'll just drop you and you should move on). You will be taking the Solicitor's Qualifying Exam (S.Q.E.) and some firms may make you study the Graduate Diploma in Law (G.D.L., a qualification for UK graduates who studied a non-law degree but want to pivot to law, some firms have more traditional opinions about Indian degrees, and might take this option). Once they have made you do that year (or two) of study (with them paying a stipend), they will make you undergo a training contract (TC). This is a two year apprenticeship period where you will be exposed to multiple practice areas which would include M&A (especially in your case). You might be exposed to things like B&F, Private Equity, Leveraged Finance etc. Once you are done with your TC, you are admitted as a solicitor of the senior courts of England and Wales. You will be a Newly Qualified (NQ). You will be 'qualifying into' one of the seats you worked in during your TC, in your case, M&A. After that, you work in your chosen specialism as an associate, either at the firm where you did your TC or somewhere else, going up the ranks gradually, if you are good, and being shown the door if you aren't. During your TC (or even afterwards in many good firms), you may have the opportunity to go in house for a period with a particular client as a secondment, or to even go to a firm's office in another jurisdiction. Some firms (e.g., Linklaters, Dentons) offer a TC that combines training in multiple jurisdictions, with one year in London and one year elsewhere (in the case of Links, Singapore, and in the case of Dentons, Middle East), with the possibility of qualifying as a solicitor in England and wales + qualifying in that other jurisdiction.

2. Second option is to move to Singapore/London/HK as a lateral, after a few years of working in India. This is more difficult IMV, in the case of London, because it sort of becomes for them a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. They are really fussy about people going through the TC training period, and tend to be very unsure of people who haven't gone through that, which is why Option 1 is more likely to work than Option 2 (not like option 1 has a very high chance of working either). How much (if any) weightage/recognition they give to your Indian experience is difficult to determine. If you have too much experience, they might say you are overqualified for a TC and not take you in (the British have this way of rejecting by saying how sad they are to reject you, but they just had so many good applications this season that they feel quite bewildered and overwhelmed, which is their unique corporate/recruting/academic circumlocution for 'the competition was, is and will always remain tough, and you were, are and will always be, in our eyes, a bullshit') or do the same thing if you apply for a TC after a year or so PQE in India, saying that you actually don't have enough experience. So think about this carefully, as arguably, London is one of the best starting points for a career in commercial law outside India.

3. Unless you are a Rhodes Scholar or have the brains of such a one and enough money that 360K U.S. Dollars will not break the bank, don't think so much about U.S. as a starting point, because getting a job with LLM is almost impossible, and your only option there would be a JD.

1. Ensure that your mentor has filled in your feedback form. They ALWAYS forget it. Not their fault, they're super busy.

2. Mail Hema S. to schedule your callback.

3. Call Collete Rangel regarding your feedback and scheduling of callback.

4. Follow up with the HR team and get it scheduled, avoid asking for a callback in the college recruitment months (May-July and Nov-Jan).

5. Best of Luckk.

Dear "Guest", first of please, you must understand the difference between Section 2(f), Section 3 and Section 12(b) of UGC Act, 1956. The "Regulations" of 2017 cannot override an Act (here, UGC Act, 1956) passed by the Parliament of India through a Statute! So, as you said, please be prudent enough to understand what the differences indicate before coming for an argument! Moreover, check the OFFICIAL NAME of OP Jindal in the UGC Website under Higher Education Institutions(HEI) Section. In addition to this, please check the details of OP Jindal in the "List of Universities which includes Institution of National Importance, Institution of Eminent Importance, Central Universities, State Universities, Deemed Universities, Private Universities) - You will get a clarity on what OP Jindal really is as per the official records of UGC, Department of Higher Education (DOHED), Ministry of Education (MOE), Government of India. [Again, please be prudent enough to understand that whatever states in the particular University website "may not be true" so always check for the real facts from authentic governmental websites and Institutions) - GO FOR THE ORGINAL AND BE THE ORGINAL!

Dear Guest,

Before making an argument, please refer Section 3 of UGC Act, 1956 before making further arguments. Please kindly refer Section 12(b) of UGC Act as well to understand what is the basic difference between a "University" and a "Deemed to be University!" Like you said, just do a Google Search, it doesn't cost you much! Moreover, please check the OFFICIAL NAME of OP Jindal in the UGC Website + List of Universities under UGC which is updated every year. You can find aoP Jindal as a PRIVATE UNIVERSITY. Please refer it and came back for the argument! (Whatever states in University website is not authentic, please go through the exact details in the UGC Website or file an RTI to UGC - You will get the answer.) I hope you will be back for an argument with more supporting evidences!

https://www.calcuttahighcourt.gov.in/Notice-Files/general-notice/12807

1. Vipul Kundalia, NLSIU 1994 --- First-gen lawyer. Unusually for an NLISU grad, started at the trial courts and built up a practice there first. Interview of him here (in Bengali):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYbMR8RLjVU

2. Phiroze Edulji, NLSIU 1997 -- First generation Parsi lawyer specialising in criminal law. A rare right-wing NLSIU grad (officer-bearer of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad). In the news for some explosive arguments in the RG Kar case, where he brought loopholes missed by top lawyers and stunned the court.

https://parsikhabar.net/politics/phiroze-edulji-becomes-vhp-v-p-for-south-bengal-to-ensure-protection-of-sanatan-dharma-hindus/24538/

3. Deep Kabir, NUJS 2007 -- son of former CJI Altmas Kabir. Evidently among the youngest-ever lawyers to be elevated by the Calcutta High Court, which is very conservative. Had been the subject of some controversy many years ago, when his father was CJI.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/tamil-nadu/2011/Aug/09/hefty-pay-of-an-pleaders-assistant-draws-flak-279836.html

Hi. I've also faced similar situations. I would suggest you to listen to whatever they say, get a hard skin akin to a rhino.

If they're disrespecting you and you're feeling sad. Remember, the world is filled with sadists.

Next time, if she scolds you for no good reason, just smile and say sorry. That smile, will change her perception. Trust me and trust god.

Yeah. People can be cruel in criticising those they perceive to have more power. It’s the last acceptable cruelty of our culture- scrutinise and pick out flaws in people who are successful. It doesn’t really lead to a happier workplace at all. And it’s quite counterproductive because it doesn’t even make low level employees feel better, it just engenders resentment.

Most of these folks wouldn’t take it for one second if their bosses created threads to publicly criticise and “vent” about people working under them. It’s quite sick.

4 people from glc have rejected the job after getting selected. We've been interning there every year now. Sit down "genius" the reason they pay more is to attract idiots like you and then make them intern for 6 months and offer you a job with the same salary. Even calling these people clerk is an insult to clerks. Most mindless useless work ever not even worth calling yourself a lawyer at that point.

I’m honestly exhausted from all the conversations about toxicity in law firms—whether it’s about working with senior associates, principal associates, partners, or peers. Let’s face it: succeeding in a law firm requires a certain degree of resilience, adaptability, and perhaps even a bit of eccentricity. If it doesn’t work out, that’s perfectly okay. There are other opportunities out there. Law firms aren’t for everyone, and that’s completely fine—I’ve realized they’re not for me.

Firms give you around four years as an associate before you transition to the senior associate level. That period is there for a reason amongst others: to help you decide if law firm life is truly what you want in the long term. It’s a chance to evaluate whether it aligns with your career aspirations and personal goals.

If one firm isn’t working for you, it’s absolutely okay to explore other firms or teams. There are always opportunities, and with time, you’ll find a better fit. But if the work environment is toxic and there’s no improvement, accept it for what it is and move on. It’s not your responsibility as an associate to fix a firm’s culture, nor do you have the power to do so. Focus on finding a place where you can grow, thrive, and feel valued.

From my own experience, I spent nearly three years in a tier-1 law firm. It didn’t work out, and I realized that firm life wasn’t for me. I transitioned to a start-up as an in-house counsel. Sure, the 30% tax bracket and the lack of job security (an often overlooked advantage of law firms) are downsides, but I’m happier for it. Life is now calmer, and I experience significantly less anxiety—a trade-off I’m glad I made.

The best lawyers for Adani in this case are those who practice in the Eastern District of New York. They need to understand the jury pool which is unique. Also, the US attorneys in that District will not bring an indictment unless they have the accused in their sights.

The release from the US attorneys Office says:
The defendants also extensively documented their corrupt efforts: for example, Sagar R. Adani used his cellular phone to track specific details of the bribes offered and promised to government officials; Vneet S. Jaain used his cellular phone to photograph a document summarizing various bribe amounts the U.S. Issuer owed the Indian Energy Company for its respective portion of the bribes; and Rupesh Agarwal prepared and distributed to other defendants multiple analyses using PowerPoint and Excel that summarized various options for paying and concealing bribe payments.

This is pretty damning evidence to prove a conspiracy.

The FCPA was enacted in 1977. Adani has been charged with conspiracy under the FCPA. Under U.S. federal law, a criminal conspiracy occurs when two or more people (or entities) form an agreement to commit a specified offense, and one of the conspirators takes some overt action in furtherance of the criminal agreement to prove a conspiracy To prove a conspiracy, the government must demonstrate that there was an agreement between individuals to violate the FCPA, with the intent to achieve a common goal. No direct bribe is needed to meet the conspiracy requirement under the FCPA.

The case will be tried in the US under their laws (NOT INDIAN LAW) in the Eastern District of New York. It will be trial by jury.

The likely outcome is a guilty plea before trial and the ADANI Companies being banned from the USA Capital Markets.

The insight into how the the case is determined and if it will go to trial is the law firm they hire in the USA.

What really tipped me off is she won't even bother to stick around with me during the proceedings. I'm standing there in court, and she keeps asking to leave for another court. Then the same thing happens - she comes into another court and again asks to leave for yet another court.

And then later that day, she just drops this bombshell out of nowhere - 'if you don't show improvement, leave'. When I'm desperately trying to explain the details of the proceedings I've already completed, she's not willing to listen to a single word I have to say.

The associate will tell he is doing something, but that something never arrives till the very end.

In the end he sends me something and says I can redo it if needed. Of course he can!

This is when I am juggling with my kid and after partner moved deadlines talking to client.

In the end, the main document goes and the associate's work goes in a second email ... 2 days late.

Gurl - time for some real talk.

You are describing what is essentially a torture chamber. Other people would notice if this is true. I am certain she has her side of the story vis-a-vis you too.

Unlike you though, she was busy with her due diligence / emails / lit prep while you wrote this essay-like paragraph figuring out what growing up looks like in the real world.

Not gaslighting, but a lot of this is inside your head. Either ways be brave and complain with HR if you feel so strongly. I think you may find a dose of reality after that conversation.

It is remarkably common for a lot of juniors to gang up on SAs, especially here. So common, its almost boring at this point. What is also always hidden in these types of posts is the initial provacations and context. I think its high time people spoke about this.

Simply put, the SAs gets bullied by the juniors and chewed out by the partner as well. Seen it happen many times across teams. In the end the Partner gets to remain squeaky clean, get plaudits and the SA gets the brickbats despite carrying the file.

Yet, barely anyone has the courage to call this out despite its evidence being in plain sight. Just sit in the cafeteria and listen to the conversations. Its one of the reasons why most teams are imbalanced as experience heads for the door. Either ways the conveyor belt goes on.

Toxicity is not limited to a level. Its not a labelling privilege extended to the A0s when their shit gets called out. It is all pervasive. If toxicity is present in the team it inevitably infects all. From the junior most, right up to the partner.

As they say, walk a mile in someone elses' shoes ...

Pay close attention to every aspect of this exchange - from voice modulation to placement of rhetoric https://youtube.com/shorts/sOxf7xxRoZc?si=NGzEdG72A3kV_aQ4