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?
At the same time, there has long been a cautionary narrative associated with him. A commonly repeated refrain is that women should avoid the firm—although, interestingly, the firm does employ more women than men. I chose not to rely entirely on second-hand warnings and decided to make my own assessment by joining.
About a week into the internship, the partner called me on a Sunday and asked about my plans for the day. To be fair, it is entirely possible that the call was work-related or meant to check availability—something not unheard of in law firms. However, this interaction did not exist in isolation.
Separately, I had already heard that in the past he has called interns or former interns asking if they would like to “go out for dinner” or meet at a pub. I have also heard of at least one instance where an intern visited his residence months after her internship had ended—something that is, of course, her personal choice and not inherently questionable on its own.
But here’s the issue: when these facts are viewed together, they begin to resemble a pattern rather than coincidence. Each individual incident is defensible in isolation. Collectively, they create discomfort—and that discomfort is hard to ignore.
Here’s the blunt truth bomb: the legal profession has a long history of excusing boundary issues as long as the person involved is influential, successful, or “too important to question.” Excellence at work often becomes a shield against scrutiny, and juniors—especially interns—are expected to give the benefit of doubt even when their instincts say otherwise.
My question is whether such behaviour is genuinely normalized in parts of the legal industry, or whether this still falls outside what should be considered acceptable professional conduct. I am actively looking to join a firm where I can build a long-term career. I would prefer not to internalize discomfort or rationalize unease as a rite of passage, nor do I want to make multiple switches early in my career simply because I ignored early red flags.
Should students and young lawyers be doing deeper background research when choosing firms—beyond reputation, deal value, or the stature of individual partners? Or am I overthinking what could be dismissed as isolated, innocuous interactions?
I would appreciate candid guidance from seniors and practitioners. Please do not speculate about or attempt to identify the firm or the individual involved.
A few points that may help you frame this:
1. Context matters, but patterns matter more.
In law firms, weekend calls, informal check-ins, or social invitations can exist on a wide spectrum—from genuinely work-related to clearly inappropriate. Any single incident can often be explained away. When multiple anecdotes from unrelated sources point in the same direction, it is reasonable to treat that as data, not gossip.
2. Discomfort is not an accusation.
You are not required to label someone’s conduct as misconduct to decide it is not a work environment you want. Many juniors struggle because they believe they must prove wrongdoing to justify discomfort. You don’t. Professional boundaries are allowed to be personal boundaries.
3. Yes, the profession has normalized boundary-blurring—especially around powerful individuals.
This is changing, but unevenly. Historically, success and seniority have often insulated people from scrutiny. That does not make the behaviour acceptable; it only explains why it persists. Being aware of this dynamic early is an advantage, not cynicism.
4. Background research should absolutely go beyond reputation and deal lists.
Culture is learned informally—through alumni, former interns, junior associates who’ve left quietly, and patterns of attrition. None of this requires mudslinging. You are simply assessing risk, the same way firms assess candidates.
5. You don’t need to “wait for proof.”
Early career moves are not court judgments. If something feels off and the firm does not offer strong institutional safeguards (clear HR processes, multiple reporting channels, visible accountability), it is rational to reconsider long-term plans.
6. One internship does not define your career trajectory.
Making a switch early because you listened to your instincts is far less damaging than staying somewhere that teaches you to suppress them.
Finally, a practical note: keep interactions professional, documented, and within work channels. Not because you expect trouble—but because clarity protects everyone.
You’re asking the right questions at the right stage. That, in itself, suggests you’ll build a career intentionally rather than by inertia.
Wishing you clarity and confidence as you decide.