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?
Thinking whether this can be challenged itself, lol. Imagine a person working as construction worker/casual worker who usually gets paid daily wages in the process of their 'employment' (which is usually of transitory/fleeting in nature). Definitely the difference between 'internship' and 'employee' kicks in, and also the Minimum Wages Act/Labour Codes for the latter. It's kind of funny, though. If I have a small business or probably even a shop (unorganised sector), and I hire someone for the casual work, I shall pay the person for the services rendered for any number of days, even I find the person unsuitable for the work after sometime.
Because it's a moral norm, right. FREE LABOUR WILL EVERYTIME BE LOOKED DOWN & EVEN CALLED OUT IF I ACT OTHERWISE. Probably, the person itself would challenge me, if I denied the payment.
How do the people at Ethos (specifically) and many others (who don't pay stipend), who are placed at high echelons of the legal profession (which at least have traits of formal/organised sector), have the audacity to openly say that they don't offer stipend and still there would be likes on their LinkedIn posts, and they don't get banished?
Someone, please also clear my doubt whether I shall be counted in organised sector/unorganised, if I work in law profession (assume in law firm/law chamber as retainer)?
If someone is being frank enough and reducing my hassle of digging into whether or not they give stipend, I would say no harm is done.
They are writing it in a way as if they are morally talking about taking a stand against tipping or even bribing lol. Is this firm even worth interning for free?