Ask yourself: is this environment genuinely worth the cost?
You are, in effect, signing yourself up for a culture of burnout, characterised by:

1. Relentless 16–18-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 urgency—often created by individuals whose management style is needlessly abrasive, boorish, and corrosive—which, over time, is bound to exact a serious toll on one’s 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 thrive—or merely survive.

For whatever reasons even if this is moderated or taken down by LI, for reasons true but irking the people talked about it otherwise - i can say this is by far the best and most accurate description of what the place has become after Ashit took break! This used to be great team but see the apathy - what it has become!

Ask yourself: is this environment truly worth the cost? You are essentially signing up for a 'burnout culture' defined by relentless 16–18 hour days, crushing stress, and a constant, artificial sense of urgency that will inevitably erode your mental well-being.

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.

It is true that the TD team or anyone else in team ATU is either better or extremely good in comparison with that other team. If anyone tries to list down the “actual” issues with that other team then those comments won’t be posted by LI. May be that other team does what it does intentionally or they genuinely do not know how to run a deal or how to deal with team members or peers. This is a genuine comment and not an attempt to malign anyone but to save young lawyers and their morales and confidence.

Tirthankar’s team is any day much professional and tolerable. You can, but for some ups and downs, perform at your best. No unnecessary micro management, no unnecessary and unreasonable timelines, decent seniors to work with, better work life balance. You don’t end up being an office furniture and are valued!

Which partner/ team is better?

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.

The real issue boils down to only a handful seniors within the non TD camp. Why blame the entire bnf for the lack of self awareness amongst these handful seniors who are living in their own bubble and trying to make life miserable for people within their team and also around them.

In my experience of how a tier 1 functions, working till very late 3-4 days a week should be acceptable upto PA level. One has to do billable work of at-least 40-50 hours per week. And I don’t mean inflated hours or hours involving only proof reading or research or coordination. But if counsels and junior partners themselves are staying back till very late (1 am and 3 am) and coming to office at noon or at lunch almost every day, then there is something very wrong with these teams. Unless these individuals are working on some newspaper deal, how are they justifying the billable hours to their clients? Are their clients paying for all the excessive partner/counsel hours?

I think both TD and UJ are fabulous lawyers. Team culture changes from time to time depending on people and circumstances. I know of people who have loved both of them. I have worked with TD and can confirm he is a star mentor to have and always looks out for you. He is a very understanding open and easy to speak to fella. Loves his work life balance and respects and tries to accommodate yours. Always available. Very practical. Yes, supervision may be less, but that comes from his ability to trust and willingness to take a chance on you and he k how's when to step in and stop things from spiraling out of control. Never blames you or regrets trusting. That is some great mentorship.

Without an iota of doubt, join Tirthankar’s team.

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.

The man who built the foundation and reputation has perhaps hung up his boots and embarked to the UK, leaving the reins in the hands of the two captioned partners.

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.

Having worked closely with both teams for over two years, I can provide a concise breakdown of their dynamics. Both partners are exceptional in their respective fields and the work culture largely reflects the contributions and interactions within the teams. This overview also aims to highlight challenges to ensure team leads are aware and can address them effectively.

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.

Please don’t choose the other non TD team. This other team has some major issues which you will realise only once you have wasted 2-3 years with the team. The only good part of this non TD team is that you will meet your targets. But that’s simply cause you will die each day trying to meet the insane amount of work and the fake deadlines created by this partner for their own insatiable greed and an attempt to raise their own status and standard of living. All the bad reviews on legally India for JSA bnf or JSA ATU are solely because of this one single team and these bad reviews do not apply to the rest of the JSA banking vertical.

Agree with choosing TD (who has a similar style and approach as the main guy in the UK) over the other fellas. He doesn’t breath down your neck 24/7 and lets you lead the matter and this will boast your confidence. I have worked with both in the past and would honestly suggest literally anyone to choose TD especially if you are a female who prefers bosses who don’t micro manage and are more Genz friendly. You will end up looking and being sick and unhealthy if you join the other teams due to their unreasonable deadlines and archaic style of working. Please refer to the several comments all over LI in relation to this team. If so many people are saying the same thing then why do you want to risk both your mental sanity and career growth

The only issue with the non TD teams are their Counsels/RPs who are not very trained - especially to handle a team. Poor souls spend hours to do the smallest of tasks, are perpetually spaced out, lost and sleep deprived, making the whole team wait around simply because of their own inefficiencies. They have no life beyond work and love to spend time only in office. No point blaming the lead partner who has great work and is a star performer

One team has extreme micromanagement, including dictating what time you come in and what time you leave each day, with very unreasonable timelines and very old fashioned way of working. The other team is too modern with zero quality control or training and has had the maximum exits by good recourses. There is no balance - you will have to choose between two extremes.