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?
And for the firm: Winning > my satisfaction
2. Stakes being extremely high at a T-1 firm hence engaging a fairly senior counsel makes sense.
3. Lawyers willing to be arguing counsels ether leave before making partner, or leave post partnership t establish chambers
Currently interning with a T-1 disputes team in Delhi. I have noticed that pretty much 9 times out of 10, the partners are briefing senior counsel to appear and argue. The equity partner too does the same and so do the partners under him.
How are they okay to almost never be arguing and always be briefing? Is this professionally satisfying?
Thanks!