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?
Example 1: My firm JSA has strong rules regarding things like this to prevent upsetting teams, unlike some other firms which open allow office dalliances, to cut attrition.
No Golden handcuffs of a different kind.
Example 2: In JSA if Partner married inside, one left. The corporate head in mumbai married someone inside who was an SA and then the SA / wife, left the firm 'as per' policy.
Internal liasons are frowned upon in JSA.
Example 3: In JSA newly hired teams who had family in the team could not be onboarded together. These things would never be permitted in a strong HR environment.
Star teams does not offset the firm policy
Ultimately, things like these matter for team cohesion in the long run. Firms like JSA thrive because these are rigorously implemented and we do not have these issues.
Having to read what is just dressed up victimhood when what fuels this is just simple craven ambition with zero accountability when in power - gives most of us a headache. Just another poor excuse of an argument.
Listen - we noticed how how you systematically pushed the conversation towards women's discrimination in a thread that began with women engaging in questionable conduct. Its a classic but its sure getting old.
Your response has been nothing short of cover up and another ignonimous look away. Most of us are tired of this uninteligent shtick. Too bad it barely works and glad some women here called it out.
You should be politician, but then I guess you probably are where you stand right now.
If you really believe women and men should be held to the same standard in a society such as ours which is deeply patriarchal and continues to be extraordinarily discriminatory towards women, you have merely confirmed yourself as yet another misogynist, insecure, failure of a man. Perhaps this is the problem with your generation. Also explains why women find many of your ilk completely insufferable. Which is why they gravitate towards older men. If you do not understand such basics, you are already beyond the point of redemption. Continue barking up the ridiculous tree of equality and continue being a woman hating failure.
So throwing around words like 'patriarchal insecurity' and moralising after calling me an irredeemable dolt (with horrible spelling) doesn't make your position on this issue any better. Rather, it just deflects from the real issues. We have all seen enough 'where there is smoke, there is fire' comments from women. Women set those standards. Here, someone has spoken about the smoke. Look for the fire.
Your rush to defend the unnamed woman in this unnamed team without an inch of uncovering what may have happened speaks volumes on how you would adjudicate gendered disputes. It's prejudging it. In simple terms, women too should face a process of scrutiny rather than squirming out of their responsibility. All of this should actually trigger a talk with HR. Again, women set those standards.
Finally, someone with power over someone else and the larger team is, by default, to be held to a higher standard. The optics of a team and disaffection shown by a team should be something a partner should have a reasonable idea about. That comes with the territory of being a partner. At least a good one.
Guts to quit. Don't be affected.
I already know enough of your character.
One of the things I have noticed about women in high places is how similar they are to men when it comes men in terms of abusive tendencies. They are way better at manipulation which often cover their tracks better. Whereas the same is brazen with the men.
This is something which I noticed a lot more after all Epstein bruahaah. Woman are quite happy to get ahead by any means. Did you see that Goldman lawyer's mails? A lot of women's solidarity is window dressing. Its out of pocket when the real issues for women are on the line.
So cut the crap madam. This is coming from a woman.
- Conflict of Interest & Disclosure: Organisations often require employees to formally disclose relationships with supervisors to manage potential conflicts of interest, such as favouritism in promotions, appraisals, or project allocation.
- The Power Dynamic: A relationship between a manager and a subordinate is risky because the power imbalance makes it difficult to ascertain if the relationship is truly voluntary. If the relationship sours, it could lead to accusations of harassment if one party feels pressured to engage in the relationship to secure their job or career progression.
- Consent and Workplace Boundaries: PoSH training emphasises that consent can be withdrawn at any time. If one party tries to end the relationship, any continued advances by the boss can constitute sexual harassment.
- Professional Conduct: Employees in a relationship should not engage in intimate behaviour on office premises, nor use office resources for personal communication.
- Consequences of a Breakup: The end of a relationship, if handled unprofessionally, can lead to a hostile work environment, a major focus of PoSH investigations.
- Managerial Responsibility: Managers are responsible for maintaining a professional environment and may be held to a higher standard of conduct by the Internal Complaints Committee (IC) if the relationship results in accusations of harassment.