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?
I cannot comment on the team since I do not have much idea.
Team U
Pros:
1. Exposure to high-profile matters.
2. A steep learning curve promoting growth.
Cons:
1. Extremely long working hours.
2. Unnecessary urgency for all deliverables.
3. Unrealistic deadlines.
4. Internal politics.
5. Interpersonal issues within the team.
Team T
Pros:
1. Exposure to diverse high-profile matters.
2. Manageable deadlines.
3. No unnecessary urgency in deliverables.
4. Better work-life balance with minimal micromanagement.
5. A modern and progressive working style.
Cons:
1. Less supervision (which can be a pro or con depending on your experience.
2. Overwhelming working hours and pressure.
3. Difficult seniors from other firms, based on recent feedback.
In summary, both teams have distinct strengths and challenges. The choice between them depends on individual priorities, work style, and career goals.
As has been astutely observed, in the long run, the non TD team is a one-way ticket to professional disaster - both mentally and otherwise. The reasons for this are well-documented, not only here but in extensively detail in thread ATU Banking on LI.
That said, even the supposedly safe TD camp has not been spared by the recent influx of senior-level maniacs who threaten to turn an already precarious situation into an outright catastrophe.
He is 100% professional when it comes to work and a reasonable human outside work. Only word of caution is that join only if you are 200% sure that you want to work in banking finance practice. You will get exposure to array of financial transactions- ECBs, ODIs, real estate financing, project financing, acquisition financing, inter bank financing, NCD and CCD. Given the demand of practice, the hours can be overwhelming, but you will not have other BT except work related.
About the other team it is better if not spoken. You have ample content here and other threads about that team.
TD team, any day. A professional and reasonable environment compared to non TD camp.
Pay
Depends upon your level. On an average, the pay is 60-70% of Tier 1 at all levels.
Kinds of matter
Both team take up hardcore NCD matters and structured financing matter.
Let me know if you have any specific questions.
But bill share is great in both teams (even if it comes at the cost of your sanity)
When comparing your options, the distinction is critical. One path involves a heavy, demanding workload, but it remains a professional environment. The alternative, however, is a minefield: it is defined by a culture of gross incompetence, where advancement is reserved for sycophants who prioritize 'bootlicking' over substance. In that team, you will face relentless micromanagement, a suffocating level of office politics, and constant obstructionism that makes even the simplest tasks unnecessarily difficult.
While the former path requires endurance, the latter requires you to sacrifice your professional integrity and peace of mind. Choose wisely.
If the former, join TD, โฎโฎโฎ
You are, in effect, signing yourself up for a culture of burnout, characterised by:
1. Relentless 16โ18-hour workdays, leaving little meaningful room for rest, recovery, or a life outside work;
2. Crushing and sustained stress, compounded by an artificially manufactured sense of urgencyโoften created by individuals whose management style is needlessly abrasive, boorish, and corrosiveโwhich, over time, is bound to exact a serious toll on oneโs mental well-being;
3. Virtually no meaningful scope for professional growth, particularly where certain seniors appear to believe that belittling, undermining, or diminishing their juniors is necessary to maintain authority and efficiency;
4. A persistent culture of public humiliation, reprimand, bullying and shaming, including instances where individuals are subjected to criticism or embarrassment despite having committed no discernible fault.
These are not isolated concerns. People have been leaving the team in significant numbers, and the pattern is difficult to ignore. The team may have initially succeeded in attracting exceptionally meritorious candidates, in part because of the reputation and stature associated with AS. However, if virtually all of those individuals have subsequently chosen to leave, one must ask what that attrition is signalling.
At some point, the question ceases to be whether the organisation can continue to attract talented people and becomes whether it can retain them.
One cannot indefinitely conceal or rationalise the underlying reality. A prestigious name may attract good candidates, but it cannot, by itself, compensate for an environment characterised by chronic overwork, humiliation, fear, and the absence of genuine professional development.
Take all of these factors into account before making your decision. The name attached to the team may open a door, but it is worth asking whether the environment on the other side of that door is one in which you can realistically thriveโor merely survive.