Capital Markets team at JSA Mumbai has an excellent culture and amazing and super fun seniors. It’s one of those work hard, party harder type teams. Interned with them for two months and wish I get to join that team.
Agreed 100%. Megha Agarwal is the best senior and guide one could ask for professional and personal growth. She is a gem and extremely approachable, kind and secure as a boss. Law firms wouldn’t be toxic if we had more people like her.
Sumantra Bose, PA, Khaitan Kol: Super approachable. Extremely supportive and ideal guide. Won't be an overstatement to say he is the best mentor I've had.
I interned with project teams in L&L mumbai. I dont know if he became SA or not, but Pushpak from L&L Partners was very mentoring, helpful and nice. Disclaimer: it was an online internship, so...
Bumping this thread. If the feedback is honest here, this is a great thread. While a bad partner is a terrible thing, having a bad SA or PA in a team is even worse - as they can destroy the morale of a team in a more hands on fashion.
On the other hand, a good SA or PA can not only help recourses develop but make difficult times easy with close quarter leadership. This thread can help juniors identify some decent teams to join.
Why the downvotes? Are these because of the shitty work environment of the team? With Harshita's rigor and patience, I am sure she will turn out to be an excellent mentor if she is working in a slightly humane team. Compare her to the rest of the SAs and you will find her to be the most sane amongst all.
Just thought to share a word or two about the way the names of some of the people listed on here has been upvoted or downvoted.
Whether or not someone is a "good" or a "bad" attorney to work with is partly objective and partly subjective. Some objective parameters that are material to this assessment include how knowledgeable and articulate the relevant attorney is. The subjective parameters vary to an extent, depending on whether the reviewing person is a report to the relevant attorney, or is the manager to whom the relevant attorney reports. A junior colleague might rate his more senior SA/PA as "good" based on parameters such as how clear his/her instructions are, or how willing he/she is to help the junior colleague perform the tasks assigned to him/her particularly in the face of tight timelines to which the junior is unacclimated, or unfamiliar territory (e.g., during an employment law diligence by a corporate law A1/A2, or finding sectoral laws for a memo on structuring and what not). A senior colleague might rate an SA/PA in his/her team on parameters such as being able to drive the deal while preserving (to the maximum extent possible), the morale of the juniors, etc. Also worth noting, even the sort of SA/PAs that some might regard as generally amicable to work with, or collegial, might be found to be incredibly difficult to work with by others. For example (and note that it is just that), a SA/PA who tends to be a perfectionist might not be well liked by a junior who is not attentive to detail (either for want of ability or the desire to churn out well put together drafts) and might easily be labeled as hard to work with. It is very possible for disgruntled juniors and seniors to project issues arising from their own inadequacies (especially when the contrast is immediately apparent) onto their colleagues (and needless to say, this applies in the converse as well) because it is far easier psychologically to brand someone as difficult to work with, than introspect on whether that is generally true, or particularized to a given person (or set of persons).
Bottomline: it is not a simple answer, and classifications of "good" or "bad" without the proper context are not very helpful, and therefore, must be viewed with some skepticism. During my time working as an attorney, I have had both the pleasure of working with, and being mentored by some incredible SA/PAs, as well as working with and being treated really badly by some (the latter being individuals that I believe to be truly bad human beings, despite being exceptional attorneys -- a correlation that is all too pervasive in this profession). With all that being said, it is crucial to note that subjective indicia in these sort of online forums by far take precedence and not much thought is given to the implications of listing out a person's name this way. I feel disheartened to see colleagues (many of whom I don't know) have their names downvoted by tens and more of people in what appears to be a lamentable mud-slinging exercise permitted by LI.
To clarify, it is not my suggestion that these downvotes are necessarily incorrect; they might very well have (more than) an iota of truth to them, but it is worth trying to view them against the backdrop of the context I've hoped to provide.
Tri competition team has best and worst seniors. Few good ones have left some still there Harshita Radika are good. New seniors also great feedback Sartak Raahat shambhavi.
Admired the way Abhay (currently PA at JSA) gave instructions and guided me while I was an intern at KCo. Was a fun and pleasant person. Hope he comes back to KCo.
This person's initials are also the initials of home appliances. Very humble and takes a lot of time to mentor. Won't reveal details since he likes keeping a very low profile even in the firm.
P.S. no professional relationship with her though.
Manan and his team deserves an entire new thread
Love seeing them party hard on Instagram at night and next morning at 10 AM on Zoom killing it in a negotiation
Anindya Roy at KCO for investment funds.
On the other hand, a good SA or PA can not only help recourses develop but make difficult times easy with close quarter leadership. This thread can help juniors identify some decent teams to join.
Whether or not someone is a "good" or a "bad" attorney to work with is partly objective and partly subjective. Some objective parameters that are material to this assessment include how knowledgeable and articulate the relevant attorney is. The subjective parameters vary to an extent, depending on whether the reviewing person is a report to the relevant attorney, or is the manager to whom the relevant attorney reports. A junior colleague might rate his more senior SA/PA as "good" based on parameters such as how clear his/her instructions are, or how willing he/she is to help the junior colleague perform the tasks assigned to him/her particularly in the face of tight timelines to which the junior is unacclimated, or unfamiliar territory (e.g., during an employment law diligence by a corporate law A1/A2, or finding sectoral laws for a memo on structuring and what not). A senior colleague might rate an SA/PA in his/her team on parameters such as being able to drive the deal while preserving (to the maximum extent possible), the morale of the juniors, etc. Also worth noting, even the sort of SA/PAs that some might regard as generally amicable to work with, or collegial, might be found to be incredibly difficult to work with by others. For example (and note that it is just that), a SA/PA who tends to be a perfectionist might not be well liked by a junior who is not attentive to detail (either for want of ability or the desire to churn out well put together drafts) and might easily be labeled as hard to work with. It is very possible for disgruntled juniors and seniors to project issues arising from their own inadequacies (especially when the contrast is immediately apparent) onto their colleagues (and needless to say, this applies in the converse as well) because it is far easier psychologically to brand someone as difficult to work with, than introspect on whether that is generally true, or particularized to a given person (or set of persons).
Bottomline: it is not a simple answer, and classifications of "good" or "bad" without the proper context are not very helpful, and therefore, must be viewed with some skepticism. During my time working as an attorney, I have had both the pleasure of working with, and being mentored by some incredible SA/PAs, as well as working with and being treated really badly by some (the latter being individuals that I believe to be truly bad human beings, despite being exceptional attorneys -- a correlation that is all too pervasive in this profession). With all that being said, it is crucial to note that subjective indicia in these sort of online forums by far take precedence and not much thought is given to the implications of listing out a person's name this way. I feel disheartened to see colleagues (many of whom I don't know) have their names downvoted by tens and more of people in what appears to be a lamentable mud-slinging exercise permitted by LI.
To clarify, it is not my suggestion that these downvotes are necessarily incorrect; they might very well have (more than) an iota of truth to them, but it is worth trying to view them against the backdrop of the context I've hoped to provide.