So my internship at Saraf was rejected despite having three T1 Internships and overall a good CV. Luthra on the other hand accepted it and even agreed to adjust dates as per my convenience.. this itself answers the question.. Or maybe the infamous Khusboo Chester is doing what she does best, reject every application.

Big money? The Firm has been citing bullshit reasons to not pay salaries to people who left in July. People who stayed back have been paid last week, mind you.

Money withheld even for persons who served notice periods determined prior to the DSK thing suddenly taken of. Across practice areas.

Very big money, indeed.

The place has had 2 splits in the last 2 years. It's undergoing it's second rebranding in the last 5 years. Approximately 50 partners have left in the last 2 years in addition to about a 100 people across various Associate levels, across practise areas. Please bear in mind this was an approx. 300-350 counsels prior to the first split.

Those are the facts. Now you assess - is L&L dead?

I don't think it's a question of money but more of future growth. Both Luthra and saraf are now two firms with decent revenues.

For everyone who left without serving their notice to DSK/elsewhere, their retainer fee is being stalled for beach of their retainers. The entirety of this money is not that large for any firm (let alone Luthra), but the hate and questioning on Luthras financial status is obviously from people who think they deserved the 15 day pay even though they got up and left in a day without serving notice.

Everyone who stayed behind is being paid normally and if rumours are correct increments are also on the way.

Saraf is doing well.

But the Luthra corp and cut down Luthra Lit is now much more profitable in % terms. And the now one partnership and firms works to his advantage. A lot of high paid RPs/Deadweights who didn't meet their targets have left for DSK. This is also a win for Luthra.

But overall Luthra has lost out on lots of good people and work in the process and rebuilding will be a time taking process.

I think RKL got his wish. Rationalize, and improve profitability even if absolute numbers are down.

The real test would be for the folks going to DSK who now may not get the one odd big dollar client from RKL anymore in the year for their P&L. Hope DSK Management does not end up paying for an experiment out of their pockets.

You speak as if you are an insider who knows what is what.

Had you been an insider, you would've known that retainers have been withheld even for people who DID serve their notice period of a month+. Which means that you're either spinning a narrative that is incomplete in order to whitewash this thievery, or you're not an insider who doesn't really know what is what.

Mind you, such people span across practice areas, designation levels (all the way from Associate to Partner) - with only thing in common, they refused to be a part of the Firm without HSC around even if they didn't go with HSC. Since they didn't go with HSC, they served notice periods set by the persons who stayed back. How do you justify dues being withheld in such case?

Also, you can say things like "much more profitable in %age terms" but let's see how that translates into real life. On the corp side, Associates in some teams have received variable compensation between 1k-2k per annum. Not 1l-2l. 1 thousand to 2 thousand. Why? Because obviously there isn't enough work and billing being done by the firm. While one or two good litigation partners have stayed back, yes, the larger group that stayed back isn't really known for excellent matters or clients brought in.

Facts are very inconvenient for false narratives.

Clearly a pre-approved narrative.

Speaking of b(r)each of retainers and notice periods: what about the retainers which had NO notice period?

What about agreements which were never signed? Support staff like clerks and all? Did they even have an agreement?

What about facts? Truth?

If you had read the law you may realize that an emoyee or even a Retainer is entitled to be paid for the days s/he has worked.

Three points:
1. I can only reply to facts known to me
2. Conveniently facts stated by me/points made on other things apart from retainers have been ignored
3. Is this a case of the kettle calling the pot black?
Didnt HSC and SS not pay SSh, AS and ManS their retainers and bonus (for making much much more than their targets in a pandemic year) when they left and went to Saraf on a days notice? As I have heard, Saraf paid them out of his pocket and has adjusted it through rendition of accounts. Will HSC and SS be generous as well or will they state that RKL is doing wrong after doing exactly the same of what is being alleged by them now?

Fact check: It was RKL who stopped the payments of the stalwarts mentioned. Wasn't it his duty as the managing partner to make sure they also got paid? HSC SS may have not paid but was RKL really that helpless as an mp that he could not see their monies paid?

Sometimes its portrayed that RKL is the almighty decision maker but when it comes to releasing payments, the blame quickly shifts and the mask of helplessness is quickly adorned. Aap MP ho, aap kuch bhi kar sakte ho sir.

I have heard that the retainers of those who left for S&P were cleared uptil the last date they were working in LuLu. It was the bonus which was held back by youknowho.

A birdie within the system tells me that Luthra is planning to increase the notice period requirements in the retainer agreement to 6 months from the previous 3 months.

No firm has 6 month notice periods unless they're dead, no one is willing to join and it's absolute desperate times for retention after 2 splits in 2 years.

Sharing two public interviews of Rkl where he is narrating the same crass joke about a man urinating below the bungalow of the lady he is besotted with.

https://youtu.be/M9hvz7gYeAE three years or more ago at a IDIA event

https://youtu.be/wLZTYmPPPeg 12 days ago.

No context, no relevance, no sense of seniority or respect for the audience.