Students HAVE protested. Relentlessly. In the beginning of his term. What did Sudhir do? Ignore them. With the Trilateral Student Body meet he made it very clear that he does not care. And the Campus culture? During the NLS alumni meet some alums were going to visit the field- and the field was locked up! And there was a student in the field who was stuck! If the admin is so eager on locking down on campus why dont they just permanently shutter it down?

Im an NLS student and I agree on 1 and 2- NLS has completely ruined the 5 yr course. I've had profs who can't speak in english, while all the experienced profs are assigned to 3yr LLB. I don't think NALSAR will have the kind of downfall that NLS is having right now- there are disturbing leves of crowds everywhere on campus, most of the infra has crumbled away, the campus is dusty and smells like shit because even top institutes can't figure out the concept of "sewage." That being said, I think the LLBs have a bright future if Sudhir continues- they get great amounts of admin support. Let's just hope at least some course is happy being at NLS.

Maybe they are not a client. Maybe they don't give a rat's ass. what harm are you trying to mitigate? do you understand the difference in bargaining power between associates and partners? the only damage here is tangibly going to be borne by the associates. people like you get kicks out of being servile and kissing boots to compensate for your below-average IQ and scarcity mentality.

What are your reviews on online MA courses being offered by universities abroad? For example, the kings college ma degree is online. Apart from fees, which is obviously expensive, but less than if you were studying there. What other challenges are there ? Will it add to my CV ? Do I have to mention it's an online degree in CV ? One of my seniors did his master's online from queens and now is teaching in Jindal. What are your opinion on CV enhancing degrees ??

Grooming, money and social class matters helluva lot in work and life. Looks are secondary. Wear Armani suits, get men's facials, drive a BMW, speak English well and arm yourself with an IB school diploma and degrees from London/NY. The world will be your oyster --- fast-track promotions, top clients and a glam wife.

Been there, done that.

Well, there is a stark difference between scolding and shaming and this email was clearly an act of shaming. It embarrassing for people to think that hard work always has to be toxic hard work and scolding always has to be bullying/ shaming. These people are freaking privileged and think that the world revolves around them. I have senior who would never indulge in shaming their juniors. In fact, they'll also put a good word for juniors who they themselves expelled.

Avantika Kakkar's novel is called A Place Called Delirium.

- Publisher ‏ : ‎ Line By Lion Publications; First edition (23 July 2016)

: https://www.amazon.in/Place-Called-Delirium-Avaantika-Kakkar-ebook/dp/B01IZ4F8Q8/ref=sr_1_1?crid=36EKCCDYJJBHQ&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.AyDUFXSOZjAAI8JYn5PXKG9IFcKUUyyqiK5EyImMiZHGjHj071QN20LucGBJIEps.eCWdba82I3dIeMMsT47rrDJJm_KglI4y-xdsY4bzJNI&dib_tag=se&keywords=a+place+called+delirium&qid=1710998124&s=books&sprefix=a+place+called+delirium%2Cstripbooks%2C180&sr=1-1

I would like to add something.

A few of us who are now a bit senior in the profession flourished in an environment of empowerment (with all the regular aspects of a professional setting, including humility) which good seniors provided us.

However, when that same environment was passed on to the the latest generation, it translated into a sense of entitlement that they now possess. It's saddening to think that a cultural shift occurred so quickly in this profession where juniors feel they are entitled, and can continue in this profession with bad attitudes and sub-par work.

Happy to receive comments criticizing the above observation - but will be happy (also) if someone understands the issue.

Argument for: Constitutionally possible because it was the norm until Indira Gandhi began dismissing non-Congress state governments and disrupted the schedule. Logistically possible because you just need a second EVM for state elections next to the EVM for national elections.

Argument against: Uneducated people get will get confused because of two EVMs, hence unconstitutional for violating right to information of the uneducated class. Also, just because it was the norm before does not make it constitutional, because at that time nobody challenged the constitutionality of simultaneous elections.

What a load of rubbish. I don't know if it is only hapless law students who frequent this site, but anyone who has juniors reporting to them knows that it is impossible to review each word, especially some figures that the client must have sent. While I feel for the associates, one can't simply blame the supervisor and absolve these juniors of all responsibility.

Slightly disagree.

If you read the email in detail you Will understand that’s it not only work quality issues but also work demeanour issues. For a partner to berate a senior because of him being disrespectful to his teammates, being sarcastic and throwing stinker at partners is actually taking a stand for the juniors who are subjected to such casual bullying. Passive aggressiveness and bullying is what she has called out.

If you think it’s only because of the work quality no it’s more of an attitude issue which led to such bad work quality and reason why she went all guns blazing. Had this been someone else with a proper working attitude the tone and the consequences would have been less severe.

If you see closely she is actually asking to not be disrespectful to teammates, not show passive aggression and not be sarcastic. Dont know how any of these are wrong

You are asking too many questions. Mostly unnecessary at this stage

First, compete and secure a seat by qualifying the entrance exam.

If you fail, think other options.

If you secure a seat, you have joined India's No. 1 law school. Nothing better available in law field here in India.

Go to Singapore or USA/UK if you want better.

If you join LLB just for a job and first pay check, you better join an MBA or some other degree.

NLS is taking good care of LLB students. Don't panic unnecessary.

Her anger (not her tone or her specific words) would be somewhat justified if she was responding to a first cut sent for internal review to her, not the cut FILED with a regulator.

Avaantika needs to review everything leaving her desk a thousand times over. If there was a mistake in some math, it's her responsibility to catch it when Associates send the draft internally for review. Those Associates didn't sign on the draft filed with CCI, she or another partner did.

As someone on client side, I would be livid and fire them immediately. Simple professional responsibility aside, what exactly am I paying Partner rates and many billable hours for if this is the draft filed at the end of it?

The groupthink happening in relation to AK’s leaked email is making me wonder if all these Covidiot associates have destroyed their brain cells doomscrolling and bitching 24x7 on social media and gossip rags. The whole point of hiring associates and paying them decent salaries is so that they take their work seriously. If every word and calculation should be checked by a Partner, why even hire associates? Clearly that poor lady had had it with those 3 associates. I - an SA at a T1 - have been having nightmares dealing with Covidiot associates who think they should keep getting paid fat bonuses and receive promotions without being held to any standards at all. Honestly, if they can’t even check a percentage calculation, what are they getting paid for? Find LawSikho and Mondaq articles and copy-paste that content into client memos and emails? I’m truly stunned at how this crop of associates can simultaneously act so over-entitled and allege toxicity when held to any standard by their Partners. Really feel for AK. She might not be a wordsmith nor may have been able to foresee the ramifications of bitchy associates leaking an email without introspecting but she has only risen up in my eyes. She seems like an honest lawyer.

Her anger (not her tone or her specific words) would be somewhat justified if she was responding to a first cut sent for internal review to her, not the cut FILED with a regulator.

Avaantika needs to review everything leaving her desk a thousand times over. If there was a mistake in some math, it's her responsibility to catch it when Associates send the draft internally for review. Those Associates didn't sign on the draft filed with CCI, she or another partner did.

As someone on client side, I would be livid and fire them immediately. Simple professional responsibility aside, what exactly am I paying Partner rates and many billable hours for if this is the draft filed at the end of it?

Simple question to all the AK supporters here- why not fire the kids instead of humiliating and ruining their confidence.

Were these kids so "influential" that an equity partner couldn't handle her team and had to call them out in front of everyone?

Another thing, if the market share calculation was so imp, why wasn't it checked at other levels.

Also, what was so catastrophic about making a mistake? Don't people make mistakes? Most of our fees comes from someone making a mistake somewhere. If people started churning out perfect work (which currently even AI is incapable of) lawyers would lose their jobs first.

This was nothing but an ego powerplay from a partner who values her own reputation over everything and treats here juniors like servants.

Absolutely surprised by the stand being taken by people in support of the email. It is nothing short of unprofessional and ridiculous. The partner in question has been in the profession for over 20 years, but no, she has to belittle Associates to somehow prove a point to the rest of the team. This is shallow and unacceptable from someone who is supposedly a stalwart in the industry

The simple option could've been to fire them or ask them to leave, instead of publicly humiliating them which only and only serves 1 purpose- satisfying the ego of the partner with

Lucky? Are we now calling clearing all rounds of interviews, surviving 4+ years, good grades and ECAs luck? How exactly are the associates lucky to work w the firm?

From what it seems they are there fair and square. The firm needed these maharathis as much as they need them. Stop calling hardwork luck

No one knows their story. I can think of great professors who stayed with a single institution because of family circumstances, or attachment to the institution or city, or health, or a combination of all these things. We should not be making assumptions about individuals. The question is not whether they are good or not, but why the institution does not seek out and make space for other who would renew it with new ideas, networks and energy. Targeting them is unfair and is a waste of energy that is better spent pushing the institution to do more.

KS assured BD, KT and some others that he would bankroll their new media venture "Tiranga". SG intelligently reworked his Plan B as Plan A and started ThePrint. Both BD and KT were taken aback. Even KT worked out a deal with TheWire later.

But so many folks left their jobs et al to joi Tiranga. Then the big BJP win in 2019 and Tiranga went poof and KS did not honor his financial commitments. So many people lost their jobs etc. BD went bazooka but could do very little.

And now KS mints a ton courtesy the Sheep from WB while Dear Nephew rises.

On Marc 17, 2024, the TOI/ET reported that 50 Bengal based companies donated Rs 1600 crores including Rs 600 crore from the Jalans. But that's nothing compared to moolah that came via Sarada, Rose Valley and other Ponzi funds. BJP keeps howling hollow crusades, CBI/ED are investigating, TMC keeps winning and the Sheep (we) keep bleating!

https://thewire.in/politics/how-the-2021-bengal-assembly-election-victory-changed-tmcs-financial-fortune

https://thewire.in/business/despite-continued-losses-kolkata-based-avees-trading-contributes-rs-113-crore-to-electoral-bonds

From bio:

- Year of graduation: 2003

- College: ILS

- Legal publications: A book with an ISBN, but no publisher mentioned (Google suggests that the publishing house is called "Snow White Publications" and based in Mumbai).

- Other achievements: "She is a published novelist"

https://www.cyrilshroff.com/people/avaantika-kakkar/

Honestly, she has written a polite but firm email to someone who has obviously performed well below the mark, and someone whose work place demeanour is not acceptable. If you find it offensive, I imagine you have either not worked at a firm ever before, or you have some bizarre expectation of cordiality from a professional senior. These guys are lucky to be working at a top firm. If they can’t hack it, there are plenty of others ready to take their place and supply a better attitude to boot.

A Partner’s job is not just to look for more clients its also to ensure that work product especially something as important as market share is deduced properly. If you can’t do that you have no right to berate others especially in such pathetic and cowardly manner. Just goes to show what a horrible person she is. Plus stop singing such praises of yourself.

Must be some form being sent to CCI where the juniors had to include the market share of the particular company in the annexure. The market share details must have been received from the company (along with the calculations because lawyers don't do that) so the job must have been picking the calculations received from the company and pasting it in the document being sent out. My assumption

I am someone who is 5-6 years PQE. I can handle toxic partners cuz at mid level cuz fundamentally that at the end of the day, if you are competent, they'll respect you.

The nightmare situation for me is having unreliable, smug, arrogant, know it all type juniors who lack work ethic, walk in and out of office as they please and throw attitude at seniors.

I have had juniors tell me "I'm not available tomorrow. Forgot to put it on the calendar. Give this to someone else" when an urgent deliverables are pending and matter is on fire. While this may seem reasonable to an outsider, this absolutely does not fly in a law firm. Essentially the client has to be serviced by people with context and skill level. It's not a supermarket shift that can just be covered by someone else.

So mid level SA and PAs get shafted because they feel ownership over the matter whereas these kind of juniors see this as a clock-in clock-out kind of job and think they're being a cool rebel. Guess what, the industry isn't changing. What is happening is that you are throwing the SA / PA under the bus.

The tone of the email while problematic is at best going to make me think twice. But having incompetent and smug juniors like this will send me running in the opposite direction. An angry partner makes your life hell once every few months, a smug and incompetent junior will make your life hell everyday.

Replies in this comment is just baseless, whatever they are calling powers are just functions, why we are trying to portray them powerful, No one is powerful at all, when you want justice you'll need a judge and when you want to do any of your work done in the state you'll need IAS or IPS....

Let me first tell you that I am neither an aspirant nor even preparing for PCS(J), I belong to a entrepreneur background but need to say something....On papers, CJI is powerful than PM but we all know who enjoys the real power.....In nation like India Executives enjoys slightly more powers than judiciary obviously not legal but we all know the fact !

If you are not preparing for PCS(J) there is very high probability that you don't know the name of Judge of your own state's highcourt but the name of your town's SDM is very popular among all because we all need them every single day !

Highly doubt you are a client. Looks a bit like you are trying to make this sound more damaging than it is. 99 percent of the clients don't give a rats ass to team culture and want stuff done as of yesterday. So if associates have to sacrifice their Diwali or Holi so that a draft can sit in their inbox, they are happy to pay it.

Here are some questions.

What or who is queer? Can Rohin Bhatt define for us who that would be? he wants political quotas for these people, we should know who is and who isn't eligible. We should know if they are actually denied opportunities or if there are confounding factors. Is a straight woman with a blue short hair who prefers they pronouns queer? what about a brahmin man who wears eyeliner once in a while? If Ambani's son decided tomorrow he liked wearing lipstick now and then would he fall under the umbrella also? for a group thats so sold on intersectionality they never do consider their caste and class privilege do they? What is non-binary? its not intersex- thats a medical condition thats a difference in sexual development- non binary means something else no? In what material way does Rohin Bhatt think non binary is material or relevant? do they count as transgendered? or queer? isnt every person on the earth non binary because no one is stereotypically masculine/ feminine?

He says "self determination" should be proof of trans-ness. which essentially means- if someone says they are trans- just believe them. what that means is- they don't need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, they don't need to have gone to therapy ever, they don't need to "live as the opposite sex" ever, and they don't need to get any surgery. Basically, any man, fully intact, can say- I am a woman- and then go into female-only prisons and rape and impregnate women there- Is this Bhatts goal? cause this has happened in prisons in California and in the UK. Do trans people claim their rights should trump the rights of natal females? how is this different from men claiming their rights are more important than women? cause all I see are males resenting the sex-based protections offered to females. What about quotas in parliament and quotas in educational institutions- Should self-id allow males to get spots that would have gone to females? What about censuses? should males be allowed to claim they are female on the census and skew data for women? where are the limits of this so-called "right to self-determination" ? all rights have limits no? we know this from law school no? your right ends where my nose begins that kind of thing? How far does this right go? if Bhatts answer is that there is no limit- hes not asking for rights and inclusion in society- hes asking for tyranny of minority.

he wants the government to invest in shelters and police sensitisation and all this to protect transgender persons from violence. No in principle disagreement- but can he tell us why this is so important? over a thirteen year period, ( between 2021-2008), there were only 103 transgender identified people murdered in this country. that comes to 8 murders a year roughly. there are 4.88 lakh trans people in india by the 2011 census. so thats a murder rate of 0000016. a negligible number that we should use how much resources over? where is this money to come from? does Bhatt want to take away from money thats spent on women and children? the femicide rate is four times higher? murder rates are not usually changeable- if theres a dead body the police are bound to investigate- this is not about underreporting.

If one does go into the weeds- one finds that the trans people that are murdered are usually engaged in prostitution when this happens. Is Bhatt willing to get trans people away from that life and into mainstream society where murder is not as common? or does he think "sex work is work" ?

When you come to other non murder crimes- the NCRB reported 236 reported crimes against transgenders in 2021. I don't take NCRB statistics at face value, but comparatively the number of crimes against women? 4,28,278 someone explain to me why we're focussing on the first as if the house is on fire while the latter figure is just normalised and a way of life for indian women? Rohin Bhatt undoubtedly wants women to be his allies- why doesnt he start by being an ally to women?

What is all this sensitisation supposed to tell the police anyway? that if males say they are women they are women - they just get to claim that identity like its putting on a costume- and that they are not just women but the most vulnerable women- despite enough evidence to the contrary? why? Cause he learned this dogma at some foreign law school?

Could he define for us what he thinks is homophobic or bullying? no one wants to see gay bashing- but is saying there are two sexes supposed to be a hate crime now? something I can be punished for in my school or in my work? its not enough to say vague things everyone agrees on- he needs to tell us the exact thing we are agreeing to and the exact way in which these rights are balanced.

He says he thinks conversion therapy should be discouraged- I would agree for gay men and women. Sure. But is pursuing talk therapy/ cognitive behavioural therapy/ explorative therapy for trans identified people - is that conversion therapy according to bhatt? He wants gender affirming care- but does he take into account the revelations of misconduct that have come out with the Shellenberger leak of the WPATH files? Does he take into account that prescribing puberty blockers is now banned by UK- which was earlier "woke" on these issues because evidence showed this was harming children who werent able to consent to it because they were children? that even scandinavian countries have moved away from the affirm-only dutch protocols because they found they were sterlising gay kids? Vikram Aditya Sahai in his NCERT guidelines prescribed that school teachers tell children about puberty blockers- a dangerous idea that shows little care or understanding of child development or medicine- is that also Bhatts agenda? What exactly is meant by "gender affirming care"?

What proof is there that this amorphous queer community is at greater risk of mental health problem and at greater risk than whom? and what proof is there that affirmative therapy is actually beneficial?

what does any of this have to do with annihilating caste? is bhat claiming only backward / scheduled castes are queer? or is he forcing this teaming so that the queer movement benefits from the sympathy that lefties have for backward castes and Dalits? Bhatt himself, and nearly all the queer people I know- come from incredibly caste-privileged backgrounds so exactly what are we doing with this forced teaming? Shall we do a socio-economic census of this "queer" group before we go about assuming they are held back in education or employment? shall we actually know what we're talking about instead of treating claims of victimisation and oppression as self-evident truth that is unquestionable? because thats just dogma?

Can he explain the exact provisions of the 2019 bill he has a problem with? cause im betting he just wants self id.

I have no in principle disagreement with a gay marriage law at all- but does bhatt consider this project as an exceptional step taken for LGBTQ people or does he consider this a part of a larger project to bring equality to marriage laws that ensures just laws for women? for people in all religions?

If Rohin Bhatt wants to move toward political action- he will have to prepare himself to deal with the interests of people who are not like him. And he will have to convince people who are not already bought into his ideology. Thats what politics is. Is he up to the task or will he simply accuse us all of bigotry?

Ms Avantika or dear HR of CAM, it's not that everyone in the legal frat knows about the reality of the so called culture at CAM, and probably even clients.

Does writing such mails name shaming people and CCing everyone ON MAIL count as quite a work ethic? Confidentiality is also out of the toss then. I agree the names should be redacted, but such mails should be put out to such impunity is not tolerated by some puny people called partners.

What about the sheer professional incompetence of the associates? The sheer moral incomeptence of the person who leaked a confidential mail? Their behaviour?

These kids need to take responsibility for their actions instead of finding excuses in the name of toxicity.

When a Partner relies on your work, they put their reputation on the line because they trust you.

AK...way to go girl. You got the shizz!

Let's give her a moment's benefit of doubt and say, her feedback is spot on about the two associates.

But:

1. Has she ever confronted the said two associates about their behaviour?

2. What is the culture that you set, by an email like this, the more powerful get to shit all over the less powerful, regardless of fault?

Makes no sense to be sending out emails like these with the world copied- not only spoils the careers of the associates in question, but also shows Avaantikaa in very poor light to potential recruits and quite frankly, even clients (like myself).

She could have chosen to simply Fire the said two associates- that would have been better. But alas', the adage that with great power, comes great responsibility, is lost to almost every law firm partner.