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?
Sharing accounts / stories but without naming names or identifying details would probably pass the censorboard's muster though...
>Be India's only forum website founder
>Gets ratioed on his own website
> Sleep
Yoyo is at a PA/Counsel level. [...] Yoyo has no clue about the provisions of [..] or the regulations. Yoyo is also clueless about the matters in which Yoyo is mapped. Yoyo usually creates chaos in the team by not marking all the members on emails and then throwing juniors under the bus. Yoyo's drafts are verbose - an appeal of hundreds of pages (without annexures) .
The [...] adores Yoyo and keeps on giving Yoyo out of turn promotions.
The person is completely useless. No idea of even the basics of law. Awful at communication and 0 polish. I personally think that they're getting ahead only because they have a kompromat on their reporting partner. All their juniors hate them.
I know this is me because this is a regurgitation of complaints already made to HR and known to me from two years ago. But here it is again, after two years – wonder why? Hmmm.
For three days after being shown this, I thought I should take the high road. I thought I should let the vile pettiness and clear professional jealousy go. To be honest, I’m not that person. I won’t let accusations made by someone unhinged, and which are garbage, stand unchallenged in a public forum. So I will use my right to reply hoping the moderators let this through.
So, I’ll take this head-on and take this apart - one by one. This will be my only comment on this goss column site, where a lot of salty and disgruntled ex-employees seem to lick their wounds while carrying around their grudges as their little axes to grind.
- [redacted] works at night.
I indeed worked nights. I did the most amount of traveling in the entire team prior to the pandemic, up and down during every week, to attend hearings, attend client meetings, and assist in briefings. Clearly, someone in their wisdom thought it was worthwhile to get me to go up and down and was worth the client’s money. Work spilled over. I am not superhuman – in fact, two trips to the hospital showed that.
Plus, as law firm lawyers, most people know that you have little agency in making a schedule. Working at night depends on when you receive drafts from the junior, from the client (possibly in a different time zone), or external counsel (who work late into the night) to take in inputs. You clearly have excused yourself from disclosing facts and relying on broad generalizations.
- [redacted] makes people stay up at night
Of course, when you have deliverables and ongoing back and forth with a client across time zones, you are going to have to have some bad nights. It’s also usually understood if a matter is live, you wait till your immediate senior is done with it before you push off. That is a basic courtesy extended across the board. It may be different elsewhere, but it wasn’t here. If you have not figured this out – good luck. Some poor sod is clearly doing the work for you anyway, while you are being deadweight and pulling your Calcutta-style siestas.
- [redacted] is extremely average
Here is the thing – I really don’t care about your views on me professionally. I’ll take the validation I get from the work I do, and the tasks I am assigned. I value the feedback I get from the counsels I brief, the seniors in the team, and the partners I report to, even my former employer for that matter. I also take feedback from the juniors who are worth their salt and aren’t “operators” who slip away from the job for a million breaks and dump their work slyly on someone else.
Maybe I am average, maybe I am not. I consider the job a constant learning experience. I don’t think I am god’s gift to the law like you seem to think of yourselves. If you do think you’re some hotshot - congratulations and thank you very much for your useless feedback.
- [redacted] has bad English
If you’re a junior associate, your job is going to be proofing documents often – if you haven’t figured that for yourself, you need to come back down to earth a little bit. As you go higher, you’re expected to air your views and give higher-level inputs. As a junior associate, you are supposed to assist in the process and watch the process if you can. So, the junior associates will end up finalizing drafts and be fixing typos. I’m sorry you didn’t get the memo on this. Thank heavens you’re now elsewhere.
- [redacted] only makes tables
Part of the job, in a regulatory setup (especially merger control) is presenting vast amounts of information in the most lucid manner, which is understandable and discernible for a regulator. Tables are one way of doing it. It’s a pity you stood there, didn’t learn, and just sat in spite during the duration of the whole process. Hello? If you didn’t realize it – I was doing your job as well, and not getting paid for it in the bargain. What a waste of time for me and what a waste of space you were.
- Accusations of being a POSH candidate and being a “creep”.
It’s extremely worrying that you lot try to weaponize POSH and throw words like “creep” to scare people. I’m not scared of this. If anyone has the guts, please walk up to the HR department and make this a formal complaint. I’ll be there to make my case.
Even if you have left your jobs – please go ahead. Who knows I could be in a whole lot of trouble if you can make your case? And what was the basis of the complaint again? That I made you work late when there was a client deliverable. That I made you wait till I figured out, with your help, on what was to go to a client? Please go ahead and complain. Make my day.
In fact, the worst thing about this is this – not only is this unsubstantiated, but it is also hearsay which is twisted so deliberately and raised after two years with sheer malice. How so?
(.....)
Full disclosure - I have spoken to the person (who has now left employment here) and got the clarifications myself. There isn’t anything here to dig up here, no matter how hard you try.
Incidentally, both these people are now people whom I think I can reasonably call a friend. Honestly, you lot should really consider joining the NCB at this rate - you have the talent to run a nice smear campaign.
*****
P.S.: A word of advice to random third parties reading this and liking muck being thrown – especially those students, vying for jobs in a law firm. I’m no hotshot, but I know some truths and understand a few things. Law firms are transactional spaces – where you need to bring some value to the team and the firm to be paid for it. This can be by having a good attitude to learn, or being a team player, or being well-read on the law. Honestly, the first kind is the most appreciated, because law firms are a grind, the little you have read up on, constantly changes, and being a team player in a team with a heavy workload is essential.
The initial years in a law firm are unlikely to give you any satisfaction. It's only as you rise a bit that you get to do work that made you initially consider working in a law firm. You will feel like a cog in a wheel, but this is a process. Law firms, inevitably weed out chaff who are only there for the money or are just difficult to be part of a team, because those people are not worth investing further on.
The hard hours are the function of demands placed by clients. That 1 Lac salary you’re pulling is not growing on trees, it's someone else’s sweat (most of the time). No one – even the partner - is enjoying ruining your plans, dates, or movie nights. For all the money, the job has real downsides - it isn’t great. It’s up to you to decide if you wish to do it or not. Two reasons to stay – to earn or learn. If not – just leave. Do not come to do “Andolan” here – you’ll just piss people trying to make a living and getting the job done.
And for heaven’s sake - get off these pages. It’s an absolute waste of time, where a lot of failures, sleeping beauties, goggle-eyed numpties, and entitled prissy folk enthral us with their insecurities and air their professional life laundry. You rather get dysentery than work with these people. These are people who haven’t grown out of their college-pride days. These people will go around to tomtom the name of the college that they graduated from while they’re knocking back at the first decent-paying jobs. Some of them haven’t faced a setback in their lives yet.
There are too many of these who are too proud of their college - it’s usually laughed at discretely. It’s also detested by the mid-level because they literally create a caste system for themselves, while they go about being "woke" in life. It makes teams unworkable and most of us don’t give a damn where associates come from – but just want workdone. They’re best rid of at an early stage.
So, you will learn nothing here – just witness their deflated egos, and the bitterness as some folk handle their first failures in life.
1. He called up his juniors who were not being taken along to [-] and asked them is they had interviews fixed for [-]practice. Not knowing his intentions, the juniors told him the firms and teams they were interviewing for. Next, this PA literally called up those firms and gave worst reviews. The juniors are still unemployed.
2. Bitched about his partner with the juniors . When the juniors opened up and bitched about the partner too, he went and told the partner about the juniors’ opinion.
3. Pressured a corona suffering junior to be awake whole night and draft an opinion.
4. Blamed his juniors on a regular basis for screw up’s when they were not even involved in the mandate.
So I disagree with you that visiting LI is a waste of time. Rather, I don't do Insta, FB, Twitter etc. and LI (honestly) is my only recourse.
On a side note brother, visit a therapist. You know in your heart that the firm will carry on business as usual even if you stop working tomorrow. I feel sorry that you had to be hospitalised twice.
Many a times, we perceive ourselves as irreplaceable which is the biggest misconception across the fraternity. Take care and all the best to you.
If there is a client deliverable which IS urgent and it IS late and I have (a) managed time well but it's still become a 3 am working matter, or (b) failed to manage timeliness bc I am also struggling with law sucking and being jaded at work
How can I not make my juniors stay up till I work through their work product ? I know it is late and trust me even I want to sleep
But what to do?
I'm sure that so many of us would agree that an overwhelmingly huge portion of our late nights as trainees/associates have come from ongoing matters which we know existed with the firm for a significant period of time. This has been the norm in my case, [although my experience comes primarily from a competition team].
If this happens way too often, then respectfully, you seriously need to re-think your strategy and timelines, and if you genuinely want to make your and other people's lives better, perhaps even take one of those short management courses offered by the Ivy leagues and the like.
Nevertheless, assuming that both (a) and (b) are satisfied, the short answer to your question is that you could be visibly and genuinely appreciative about it.
During my callback with this team a little while ago, I had 4-5 instances of working on urgent deliverables till 5-6AM, but one of the PAs [who I got to work only briefly with] made sure to get me a day off the next day to sleep, and even re-adjusted my out-standing timelines to ensure that I was correspondingly given a chill time in non-urgent matters. Additionally, she even offered to get desserts delivered to me "to make up for the lost Sunday evening" everytime that happened. Working under her remains one of the most pleasant experiences so far, even if such instances came up once in a while.
And honestly, even if you don't have the time to do all of those, simple non-toxic nature suffices. Just one call in a month with 10+ 3AM days - when you get time -where you ask us about how work has been for us etc or offer your mentoring for less than half an hour, would be more than enough to make us valued and enthusiastic about putting our best effort into the work.
Unfortunately, more often than not, late night urgent deliverables are a product mismanaged deadlines and thereby accompanied by shouts, aggressive texts, and a lot of toxic entitlement which borders on likening associates to servants. While a lot about this needs to change, and firms investing in providing management skills to the mid level is too idealistic, just avoiding the sheer rudeness of aforementioned words and actions would be a great place to start in making people want to put their best in the work.
2- Genuinely appreciate the fact that they did pull through, and provide good feedback on the work done.
3- give them a treat, or surprise them with some time off. Honestly some Zomato works best, but some mandated time off would also set a brilliant example.
An SA is emotionally an egg shell. He works happily in the presence of a particular female associate (there is nothing romantic here, both of them are long time good friends). In SA's own words, he feels 'emotionally supported'.
When the female associate is not around and he has to work with other associates, he starts throwing toxic tantrums - he literally demands specific personal behaviour from other juniors (like the way they talk, sit, smile, etc). His presence leads to inefficiency in the associates.
Pay back, I sold you my hardworking soul !
As a senior associate you should be helping your juniors become better at work if you are so unhappy with their work because if you are a senior associate, I am guessing your juniors are 1-3 years out of college and are probably still in the process of learning. Instead of discouraging them, understand that training juniors become an important part of your role as a senior associate. So go and do your job well otherwise from what it seems, you might feature in this thread someday.
Having been an associate and now a senior myself, I feel bad for the juniors working with you.
- R
As someone who worked as a junior to '[redacted]' for a few very busy months, I (ironically) learnt an entirely non-law firm way of working and thinking about matters. [redacted] was very invested in training juniors, ensuring they learn and understand the law in addition to just carrying out tasks, and trying to make feel like they were part of a team. [redacted]'s passion for his matters was infectious and he devoted himself to them. Even as an A2 at the time, [redacted] was handling some matters independently and was getting favourable results. I write this comment as a friend of [redacted] but also as a colleague who learnt a lot and had a lot of fun (given the circumstances) while working with [redacted]. Just thought someone with actual first hand knowledge should dispel the BS being spewed by some people.
I will not comment on the whole discussion on how he was 'propagating law firm culture' by making people stay back late, except to say that every professional, no matter what they think about the work culture, has to negotiate with the reality of what these places are on a regular basis, and everyone does it in their own way. People who come to work at a firm/team should do their research so they know what to expect and so they are better placed to negotiate a lifestyle closer to what they wish for.
I also find it difficult to understand why so many people here are calling out [redacted] for responding to something that is complete garbage, but not calling out the trollers for casually throwing around terms like POSH with no heed to the baggage that comes with it, both for [redacted] and for any person who has faced sexual harassment. When people make unfounded allegations like that against you, one has to call them out because they can't be allowed to get away with making baseless allegations under the garb of anonymity. This was a bitter, jealous person who published a rant that should have been entirely private, if at all. [redacted] is not the only person he has done this to.
Perhaps I am quite senior to you? Who knows? Except you, that is; you seem to know thousands of people of LI personally, otherwise you would not bother saying astronomically speculative things like "[s]ome of them haven’t faced a setback in their lives yet".
I do not even know you but now I am convinced that the complaints against you were legitimate.
However, this is not true. 'Kids' are challenging exactly that. They're of the opinion that work can get done without 3am yelling contests. Plenty of 'kids' draw that 1lpm retainer without putting up with such pervasive toxicity. It doesn't have to be toxic. You're making it toxic.
Any novice associate makes an active effort at internalising tricks of the trade from seniors in the practice, generally who inspire confidence and have proven competence.
But objectively speaking, [redacted] fails at both the parameters. One (and a barrage of similarly placed juniors) felt only professionally under-confident when [redacted] takes the charge of driving any mandate.
Much worse, there have been instances of [redacted] being rattled (fried, not steamed) where a junior proactively takes part in a matter. Feeling rebuffed, [redacted] misrepresents the junior’s conduct before the Partner, with [redacted]’s word naturally given prominence over that of the junior. And thus begins an year-long saga of the junior being viewed from the mis-judged lens and labelled as difficult to deal with.
Even after well-intentioned attempts at mending the equation on a professional basis (in the interest of work, and as certain behavioural traits are so innate to [redacted] that they are beyond any personal redemption), [redacted] still remains vitriolic. Advancing a notch higher, now [redacted] misrepresents to the junior that all water’s under the bridge, and continues playing off the partner against the junior.
Surprisingly, [redacted] was appreciative of the junior when the latter showed strength and resolve in dealing with unprofessional behaviour at a counsel’s hand.
This may fall upon deaf ears, still earnestly if the Partners in [redacted]’s team introduce full-scale 360 degree review across the board, then in all likelihood they wouldn’t draw the ire of such discussion forums. And as [redacted] said, atleast there wouldn’t be any professional life laundry left of [redacted] to air.
Lagta hai humein ab dharti par aanaa hi padegaa.
Presented to Lord R
An application requesting for quick moderation.
In the matter of
▮▮▮ (Applicant)
Vs.
Ex colleagues of ▮▮▮ (Respondent No. 1)
And
The community of Legally India (Respondent No. 2)
Most respectfully showeth:
(1) The applicant, ▮▮▮, has made various derogatory comments against his ex colleagues in particular and the LI community in general.
(2) The ex colleagues of ▮▮▮ and the LI community should not be denied their 'right to reply' for the sake of equity, justice and good conscience.
In light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that Lord R may be pleased to moderate the comments quickly.
1. It appears that people seem to have figured out who ▮▮▮ is whereas the ex colleagues or otherwise continue to be anonymous.
2. The comments that are pending for moderation are legit but also very personal and wouldn't have been made, had ▮▮▮ not responded.
I am conflicted between this mud slinging match to continue in public or put a stop to it. But I would rather let ▮▮▮ make the call and understand if he/she is open to such comments. The responders gain only venting their frustration and that's understandable. But it's upto ▮▮▮ whether he wants that feedback. I have referred the matter to the division bench in any event.
- R
He/she is left to fend for himself as his/her ex-colleagues pile on him/her.
Those comments of sexual misconduct seem over the top and was bait.
A forgotten post about an anonymous person was lying in the dungeons of LI. Someone suddenly woke up and realised that the post has some resemblance with his actions. In an utter fit of rage (stupidity?), the person used his 'right to reply' (post no. 9.2) and gave enough hints about his identity to the entire world which attracted more muck/disclosures about his professional laundry life from his ex-colleagues (post no. 9.2.6 and 9.2.7) to such an extent that Legally India had to change its policy and stop publishing 'legit' responses to his rants/complaints (post no. 9.2.9.A). In the process, he has perhaps antagonised his entire team by calling them names.
The story gets more interesting when another ex-colleague of the person writes a post supporting the person using her real name (post no. 9.2.3.A). Now, a few bystanders like me who were confused about the real identity of the person, can pin point who this person is.
So entertaining and pitiful at the same time.
Yes, I have lots of free time today.
>In healthy cultures, no level of individual excellence justifies undermining people. You’re not a high performer if you don't elevate others.
You are the epitome of toxic culture.
If only LI's UI allowed for seeing which comment was numbered what (9.2, 9.2.6...). BRING THE OLD UI BACK!
During my training, I was never asked by a senior to sit next to him and observe him. My senior used to give me 10 minutes verbal feedback twice or thrice a week. Ofcourse, there was a lot of hand holding in the initial six months but that was always in the form of dialogue to open up my thinking process. I also got fried when I was not able to apply my brain.
I also try to do the same with my juniors.
Mentoring happens by nurturing others and giving them ample space to think creatively. It also requires casting spotlight on them when they do something good and shielding them when required. Any person who has a bit of common sense and can write grammatically correct English can become decent lawyer at a law firm.
Mentoring can never happen by asking someone to observe you. There are enough online resources for that.
It appears from your response (and I may be wrong) that you have extremely fixed notions of working style and you are not open to others creativity or out of the box thinking.
Also, please do not form fixed notions about your juniors - respect them as professionals and give them space. Create a working environment which you could be proud of.
Also, there is no glory in getting hospitalised twice because of work. Glory lies in deriving joy from your work and leading a happy and healthy life.
All the best for all your endeavours.
See a therapist and have your priorities sorted.
>Clearly, someone in their wisdom thought it was worthwhile to get me to go up and down and was worth the client’s money. Work spilled over. I am not superhuman – in fact, two trips to the hospital showed that.
1. work so hard for your law firm that it breaks you physically and then be proud of your bad health
2. Anyone who desires a decent WLB is an idiot
3. People can learn only by coercion through a senior
4. Have the attitude of "my way or the highway"
5. This fellow hates his/her entire team
6. S/he suffers from Stockholm syndrome - loves selfsacrificing for the sake of boss - expects others to do the same