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?
Had a chat with the said junior later on. The junior not on record. Matter rejected for some formal noncompliance apparently, restoration filed with some delay. This fact also voluntarily submitted to the Bench by the said junior.
Is this really how things are? The delay was little over 6 months. How can one possibly continue litigation if such would be the approach towards juniors? This is just one of the many observations for a period of a few months now. This has got me seriously thinking about switching from lit to non-lit. Please share your views on this. Obviously please keep things anonymous and avoid sharing any identifiable details.
DISCLAIMER This is merely an observation, with no intent to make any negative remarks whatsoever about the judicial system or the judiciary.