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?
P.S. Yes, HIS dog: the ownership docs have his name and the dog belongs to him no matter how many videos Mahua's stans upload of her kissing the dog and calling it "my baccha".
As per me Sanad should be granted to those also, who have done court job for 7 years with any of advocates.
Wow!
Bahut scope hai.
However, if you keep your sexuality to your bedroom and not out in the open, nobody will treat you indifferently.
absolute top colleges in US/UK have acceptance rate much higher than that of mediocre NLUs.
it's scholarship getting part that is difficult.
Law degree is a commodity.
At first, I observe people and pick who can be useful in the long run, preferably those who hold more power in the firm. Once my sights are set, I take most of my work from them and put in my level-best. That way, they have a positive impression of my intellectual acumen and trust me with more work.
Eventually, it leads to more and more small talks, wherein I try to push around and see how they respond. Understanding their body langauge also helps; there's some who would always maintain professional boundaries but not everyone has so stringent "ethical standards." Once these steps are successfully completed, I usually get what I want, ranging from: (i) recommendations to top-tier law firms (got PLENTY this way), (ii) positive feedback leading to callback (worked at a certain T1), (iii) gaining insider information of firms, (iv) other kind of help (A SA at a tier-one often helps me with college projects, since then I have been among the top scorers) and (v) lastly, but not the least, having them around as my "friends" which can mean plenty of things y'know :)
I wasn't like this before, but this is how law school and the super-competitive environment in a tier-one university forged me into, and I still try my best not to do anything outright unethical. Moreover, these strategies would never be successful unless you are actually good at your work. Thus, a combination of good looks, being great at work, and my "shady ways" helped me get quite ahead of others.
Thank you for reading this, have a nice day. Mwah <3
Surprisingly I was asked about clat rank and I mentioned somewhere around 150ish. So do remember it anyway.
Hello, went to one of the top 4-5 NLU and have been currently working with I-PAC since July. I graduated in 2021, I spent some time traveling and then finally sat at home for a good year and half and prepared for UPSC, even passed the prelims once but nothing good came out of it. I would really like to come back to delhi(home) and practice law. Since I have been so detached from law, I only seek some advice from those who are already practicing in Delhi. What sort of offices should I consider applying to? would be immensely helpful if you can even suggest specific names. Should I try my luck at a tier 1 disputes firm? would it even be worth it or if I am better off working in a chamber? Should I apply in a standing counsel's office? I am sorry if these questions seem a bit juvie or trivial to you lot but sitting at home and detached from law for that long would do that to you. Any help or insights would be greatly appreciated.
IMO they solely care about batch ranks, nobody even asks about CLAT ranks (or i'd say even remembers the rank anymore).
Very serious comment. I am not joking at all.
The ethics committee has assumed a prosecutorial role, with its report serving as the foundation for further investigation and the formulation of charges. Given the extent of Mahua's admissions, her suspension from the post seems entirely justified. In fact, there is precedent for such suspensions or removals.
As for constructing straw man arguments, it seems that the only one hanging on by a thread is Mahua Moitra herself. This is apparent from Darshan Hiranandani's press interview, where he depicted himself as persona non grata to Mahua. In contrast, Mahua still refers to Darshan Hiranandani as her friend. This contrast in points of view appears to be a desperate attempt or plea, imploring him not to spill more beans! She goes to great lengths to justify his actions as those of a close friend. And, mind you, he's no close friend from her school/college days. They first met at a summit, when she held the role of a parliamentarian, nothing less. Given this background, her cozying to him, even to the extent admitted to, does raise eyebrows. Her counter-argument justifying Hiranandani posting questions on her behalf is downright absurd. Surprisingly, no journalist has called her out on this. She claims that no question can be posted on the portal without her prior authorization via OTP. I pose the question: does the message with the OTP also display the question? No one seems to have raised this concern with her. I don't know the answer to this, but the question is very valid. It may not be decisive but, it could throw up more light on who formulated her questions in the first place! Parliamentarians are expected to act independently and not as proxies for corporate interests.
Considering the admissions made by Darshan Hiranandani, Mahua's last ditch effort to cover her tail, revolves around the absence of sufficient proof. "Show me the proof, show that cash exchanged hands," she insists. This echoes the defense often employed by criminals facing such accusations. Here's a quick lesson in law: when there is a compelling prima facie case against an accused, the law takes measures to prevent them from influencing the investigation or trial. A parliamentarian is held to a higher standard. When they breach established ethical standards, it becomes a matter for the ethics committee to review. The committee holds specific powers, and in this case, suspension is warranted. Mahua's lack of cooperation with the committee and numerous statements to the media post the enquiry (a transgression in itself) justify this action. If the investigation uncovers criminality, strong grounds for removal and arrest will emerge.
And let's not forget the light-hearted note - her handling of the Henry situation. Kidnapping a dog? In a world where such antics have consequences, Mahua might find herself in the unemployment line. After all, canine capers don't typically align with the job description of a parliamentarian.
But hundreds of sr advs /non designated Advs in delhi equally good like them.
Kabhi oabhi lagta hai GSK , RR ka naam inke chamche hi uchalte hai baar baar.
They will see your lineage bhai.
(2) Everybody wants to be next Sarih Halve whwn they join law. Everybody wants to argue in Delhi HC or SC.
If you go to Delhi HC, and SC you will be shell shocked to see Sons and Daughters of Justices / Sr Adv from even ALL OVER INDIA eager to make their mark in Delhi HC / Sc and other Tribunal.
Sorry to say this, but family pedigree DOES matter in this profession.
(3) Kyu bomb kar rhe ho apna career?
Sab seniors aur alumni bewkoof thodi hai jo law firms me job krte hai ?
We all were in your place once. The path is set.
I'm sorry but I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say, and rightly so because this was a midnight rant after not getting any work for 4 days straight in my internship at a "tier 1" (hope this clears the name of the firm)
I am not talking about sexual harassment and the likes, which also cannot be discounted because you or someone you know did not face it, I know several women in law firms who have suffered the same and have more than "uncomfortable" things. So I would firstly say, that even with "no fucking time", men do find the time to harass women and take advantage. Please read the numerous posts here as well. I am sorry but you seem like a female SA who likes to dismiss junior female's allegations because you are sucking up to the partner, or maybe you are an HR.
Coming to my post, I meant that even without necessarily sexual innuendoes, female interns seem to be delegated more work, or are greeted by seniors in the firm, maybe because they are usually better workers, better prepared on drafts and have actually struggled a lot to reach where they are, compared to the guys. Further they are usually the toppers of their class, so naturally giving them urgent work makes more sense. (I am in the top 10 but no topper)
Also, now that I read my post again, I understand the fallacy. I apologise again.
“After Trinamul retained power in 2021, a young lawyer was given the power to form a fresh team of high court lawyers for the state government. This seemed to annoy many pro-Trinamul lawyers, who began distancing themselves from the party.”
Only someone completely ignorant or naive would be unaware that the reference is to Aquilaw and Sanjay Basu.
As for Mookerjee’s comment about the state obstructing criminal cases, have you even seen the ABP Ananda interview and do you understand Bengali? He clearly says so.
Done :)
1. LLB or BA from a government college for minimal fees. It’s hard for non-EWS general category students to make it to reputed ones because of reservation, so as a backup I could look at Symbi or Nirma.
2. LLM overseas or an MBA at ISB or NUS Singapore.
Female here. Your observation may be right. I generally have seen how Partners and almost everyone are very comfortable initiating conversations with female interns. I have noticed how the intern's desk is otherwise very silent, people choose to just pass through and not talk otherwise with the male interns. But 1-2 days in the firm, I have noticed how everyone passing by notices female interns sitting (The number increased hence) and even smiles at us while passing by and eventually starts saying Hello, what are you all up to? etc and even gets extended to lunchroom conversations. All this is fine. I don't know if everything has a sexual intent or something because most of them have been very genuine and decent otherwise. (We can make out intentions, those who cant are stupid or pretend to be stupid). Now, how one takes it further is the question. Most of them are decent about it but I have also seen many take advantage of this (Talking extra sweet, acting innocent, laughing like auto-tune in a cringe voice etc). Women Seniors are comfortable talking with us, yes, but can also get personal at times (NOT ALWAYS because I have observed how women are the ones to be the biggest enemies of themselves). Also, Male Seniors avoid scolding female interns with the same intensity as what may usually be their relatively harsh style to male interns (Many are not comfortable). These ppl generally stop giving work to such female interns eventually, but won't reprimand them as rashly.
Now let us talk about the other side too. After court visits, I have seen the men stay together as a group and the women go back to the office. Men hang out and take multiple Chai-sutta breaks, we don't get called for them usually. They also go for Football practices, post-game hangout sessions, tourneys etc and we are not included. Some of the male partners are too strict and avoid talking to female interns (maybe being precautions) and are very chill with men. Have seen some sub-standard work being submitted by male interns and delegation of work to be done by them to us.
From my earlier internships, there was one instance when a male intern refused to type out stuff (translated doc to English) because he felt it was very clerical and he would NOT be wasting his time doing that. He had the liberty to refuse the work and IT WAS OKAY. I was already lined up with work and was asked to complete his HALF-DONE work. I usually don't complain about the work given as an intern, but I was outraged because it was half-done, messy and unfair. When I politely excused myself, the Associate was enraged and went on to insult me (the work was supposed to be done by him, he chose to give it late to interns and was facing the heat). I have seen very toxic behaviour from Men in the firm too, drafting for the male intern and dumb-ass formatting or printout work for us.
So I think it's a mixed bag.
If interns think it’s some fifty shades of grey where they can pull off a job by being a bimbo and tight formals, stfu because it’s ridiculous! It’s much easier to just apply your damn brains. If partner or associates think they can get some from interns, ridiculous again! It’s much easier to just train.
How juvenile is this bullshit??
While everyone should have access to "study" the law, 2ith stringent mechanisms regulating the education, not everyone should have the right to "practice" the law.
Like in the US, the bar exams must be made tougher and actually be a screening exam rather than a "is my exam today or next month" exam
Now that I read this in the morning, I see that my rant here appears to be quite childish and kinda misogynistic. You may mark this trollish, or do whatever action it is you do, because I don't want to start some gender war here or discount the struggles girls go through. Maybe it's me :)
Your network is your net worth
As an IAS officer he will have a great network of people in top hierarchy
He/She can start a business with any family member
and move the documents with ease
I hate to admit this but women at times do shady things to get the job done (my feminist self would have countered this vociferously a few years back but can do much now when it's so blatant and evident)
Actually I found him to be more knowledgeable than partners even in tier 1s. He knows his stuff, he is capable. He is generally sweet▮▮▮. Pay is not bad its average, but if you are joining here you can learn something and jump ships after a few years.
He is quite extroverted. I find him better than unapproachable seniors he spends time with jrs. He is too open to juniors and interns. He boasts but the guy is helpful and is a decent person. I would also rate his work quality as good, from people whom I know.
The Cyril Amarchand story should be correct. He should have been given an offer to join as a non equity partner. He worked in SEBI for a decade. Many lawyers at SEBI are invited to join law firms as partners. So it's not that big of deal. But most ex sebi lawyers suck at getting business. Also even now this guy wont join a law firm because at his firm he makes most of the money and wont have to split a penny.
Morgan Stanley story should be correct - a decade ago there was a dearth of people with some inside knowledge of sebi/rbi etc. Not anymore. So he probably got an offer. For a giant bank he will just be another employee on the payroll. That crore offer means nothing for them.
So while he doesn't lie, he boasts and makes realistic things unbelievable.
On a personal note - Whomever put this story it's kind of unprofessional - turning some funny private moments into public shitposting.
I'm not "gatekeeping" anything. Womanhood and femaleness are not a tv show or a fandom. Women are more than an idea in your head. they are fully realized autonomous people. Not everyone gets to be a woman because of biology. Are cats gatekeeping dogs from being cats? Your argument is with evolution.
You dont know me at all so all this arm chair activist " youre not decent or progressive" nonsense adhominem. Your law school should have taught you better. The descent into ad hominem is hilarious. Why does every argument with you folks end the same way. Just call me a transphobe and be done with it.
Replace it with any other category and youll see the foolishness. Dalits in this country have faced ages of discrimination and violence. They finally got laws to criminalise all that discrimination and violence. They finally got laws on the books for reserved categories in jobs and education. Now imagine if tomorrow some jains feel bad about how they are treated by the caste system too. Do they just get to change the prevention of atrocities acts or the reservation schemes to the detriment of dalits? what if they really believe in their oppression? Should we change the caste based reservation schemes to make them more inclusive? should we change atrocities legislation to attack all violence and not just caste based violence?
No other group is expected to make room for and accomodate their oppressor class in their movement. Its only expected from women. Why do you think that is?
You can be a female and have bad ideas too. Dont worry.
Please look up boys v women online- in almost every sport young teenage boys are faster stronger and better than adult women who have trained for longer. Explain that to me. This is real life- there is no Wonderwoman, there are no amazonian goddesses who could beat men up. Some men are sick and disabled and generally weak- you need to compare them to sick and disabled and generally weak women for a fair comparison. Its not fair to compare the strongest of one sex against the weakest of the other. And for law making we should go by general trends. women are biologically less strong, less muscle mass, less lung space and heart space and more fat and vulnerable to assault and humiliation. more at risk.
There are some children who can beat me up. It doesnt mean there shouldnt be a law protecting children from abuse.
I want gendered laws because the consequences of violence are worse for women, because most men are stronger and bigger than most women. and because all males- trans identified , gay, or straight are capable of harassing women. They are capable of humiliating women for their bodies. If we do not have gendered laws- that reality is not represented. I dont want women who object to pronoun games or who refuse to share restrooms with males to get persecuted because gender neutral laws make you feel like youre righteous.
Noojiez
Attempts at gatekeeping
Israel has absolutely declared war on hamas. Palestine as a state does not exist yet.
First question yes possible I had deep dived into this as they had come to our campus as well recently. So there are designation like director /manager and pay will increase but there is a certain ceiling to this role you need to switch quick to law firm if you're ambitious money wise otherwise if money doesn't matter(doesn't mean you'll not get paid anything i am comparing salaries in tier 1 and 2 law firms) and you want a chill life continue working and then switch in house. Growth is slower in big 4 but then again hours are lesser.
The 9.13 ctc something has a lot of terms go through it and check how much actually is in hand pay before deciding. And t2 college if you're not optimistic about getting anything take this see for 6 months how you like it otherwise jump ship.
Oh but then you won't. Easier to cry at home right? Easy to play the victim hoping rather than the hero!
Tough love but hope it shakes you up into taking an informed decision and doing the right thing.
Gen Cringe! You lot are!
The OP, through their post and comments, has made it very easy for their colleagues to identify who they are - (i) equity partner who is rumoured to have an affair, (ii) partner in seychelles, (iii) gen corp SA, (iv) family background ("upperish" middle class), (v) condescending and likely highly privileged ("backgrounds dissimilar to mine" is a very polite way of saying "not as rich as me"), (vi) descriptions about their colleagues' purchases, and (vii) possibly female.
Would('nt) be a shame if your colleagues identify who you are and judge you irl, the way you think you you're judging them anonymously.
Not going to comment upon how socially unaware and out of touch with the country's economic realities the OP comes across as. Anyhow. Happy diwali, "mature adult" (?)
Simultaneously, we must also allow for foreign firms to come in ASAP and allow for cross-recognition in the top legal markets elsewhere and move away from the self-important codes that disallow marketing entirely and also on the fees and the like - do I want every Tom, Dick and Harry to advertise themselves as giving guaranteed results? No! But completely capping it is not the point - already, legal marketing professionals are coming up to serve law firms bypassing the BCI guidelines, half of which I believe were set out of 'moral superiority' and not seeing any systemic changes.
Maybe the T1s get more pressure, but it could also be that firms like NDA and BTG thrive in this environment. Our legal market, by a source is about 372X smaller than the one in USA; while the market size is not the best metric for measuring how well a legal system performs, it does tend to be a metric of how well a lot of its lawyers are paid.
Increased competition can only mean good things - TCS still exists while FAANG exists. Existence of one does not mean removal of another.
By ensuring stringent qualification norms that are inexpensive to obtain, we increase access and quality - we need to also match it with a boom in the industry for the 'supply'. There will always be a space for litigators.