I'm a first generation lawyer. I've come up the hard way. No contacts nothing. Industry wasn't the most welcoming place but now I'm made my space and made it to a PA level. Recently someone was hired in my team. It's quite clear that the hiring was purely done on the basis of the surname i.e. the Kid had familial connections in the industry and didn't get in the door on merit. As a first generation lawyer, is it wrong that I want to puke every time I'm asked to train this kid?
There is a reason why firms do not particularly discourage quota kids. Partners dont mind having these people on board even if they are not the best minds is because contacts and connections go a long way in bringing business to the firm. Govt officials contact/ goodwill has their own benefits. That is how business in India works and that is how its going to work for a foreseeable future. Change it, if you can, after you make it to a point where you can make a difference.
For me, the question is to firs ask is whether someone made is to the merit list in CLAT and then ask whether that person's GPA in college is in the top 10. Everything else is subjective .
You might have said this in jest, but I always do (some variant of) this. Whenever I go for recruitment, I ask the RCCs for this data (indirectly). And if someone is allotted to my team, I make it a point to do a check on their college performance (batch rank) and entrance exam ranking (if it is an NLU product). In fact, if it is a quota kid who has overcome actual adversity and worked hard/done well in college, I make it a point to be as helpful as I can (since they are first generation lawyers/have no connections in the industry). On the other hand, if they are from middle class or above and (ab)used the quota system to get into an NLU, and somehow hoodwinked the firm's recruiters, I make it a point to not look at them favorably/give them more/tougher work so they leave the firm (and hopefully this profession) soon.
When this recruitment thing came up earlier on the LI forum earlier, I saw a lot of self-righteous judgment, but having been in this industry for while now (and done reasonably well for myself), I see it as a duty to correct some of the excess, patronising, and frankly unjust ways in which affirmative action policies being mindlessly applied by the government that have led to a serious fall in quality of professionals as well as denying meritorious candidates opportunities to succeed.
If this kid came in through connections, then they require training the most right?
Your job is to pass the candle to whomsoever is ready to catch it.
What you will get in return is loyalty from someone who has familial connections in the industry !
If you want to correct the system then do it in a positive way by recommending more deserving interns. Intentionally reducing the efficiency of your team member (no matter how privileged) will help no one in long term.
(This is coming from someone who hasn't bagged a single internship through connections.)
I understand the argument of Quid Pro Quo. But training is not a part of the JD. It is something within my gift. I am happy to train people outside my firm who have merit.
However, I recognize that I am extremely privileged. I may not have the privilege of having someone in the legal industry but I have the privilege to have been born in a family where both my parents were educated and could educate me in decent schools. I didn't make it through to law school or a law firm because I was innately brilliant and slogged harder than the kid on the road begging but because I was given a decent education (in English, which really means you've already won half the battle) and I had access to newspapers, books, and anything which I needed (and mostly all things that I wanted) all my life.
OP is making it seem like they will leave their kid on the footpath when the kid turns 18 and then let the kid build its life.
Don't have a pity party OP: you are easily in the 1% earning bracket. Don't be jealous because the kid's parents are in the 0.1% bracket.
I agree with what you said. But is it not unfair to the kid with merit who got left behind that a Quota Kid is getting trained instead of them? When you full a position on the basis of Nepotism, you leave people with merit out. I feel actively participating in this kid's growth further nepotism. They shouldn't be rewarded just cause they made it in on familial connections. If anything, I think it is the duty of first generation lawyers to make sure these Quota Kids have a terrible time.
Yes. It's completely wrong. Honestly, no one can and should judge a hire before six months at least and till then, please treat them at par and also, train them well. It also says something about you how you're able to train your juniors, rockstars or mid level performers or nepo kids or dumb ones alike.
When this recruitment thing came up earlier on the LI forum earlier, I saw a lot of self-righteous judgment, but having been in this industry for while now (and done reasonably well for myself), I see it as a duty to correct some of the excess, patronising, and frankly unjust ways in which affirmative action policies being mindlessly applied by the government that have led to a serious fall in quality of professionals as well as denying meritorious candidates opportunities to succeed.
Your job is to pass the candle to whomsoever is ready to catch it.
What you will get in return is loyalty from someone who has familial connections in the industry !
If you want to correct the system then do it in a positive way by recommending more deserving interns.
Intentionally reducing the efficiency of your team member (no matter how privileged) will help no one in long term.
(This is coming from someone who hasn't bagged a single internship through connections.)
However, I recognize that I am extremely privileged. I may not have the privilege of having someone in the legal industry but I have the privilege to have been born in a family where both my parents were educated and could educate me in decent schools. I didn't make it through to law school or a law firm because I was innately brilliant and slogged harder than the kid on the road begging but because I was given a decent education (in English, which really means you've already won half the battle) and I had access to newspapers, books, and anything which I needed (and mostly all things that I wanted) all my life.
OP is making it seem like they will leave their kid on the footpath when the kid turns 18 and then let the kid build its life.
Don't have a pity party OP: you are easily in the 1% earning bracket. Don't be jealous because the kid's parents are in the 0.1% bracket.