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?
What I find more uncomfortable than the course itself is the power dynamic. If your senior someone who decides what work you get, how you are evaluated and what opportunities you receive tells you that a course he is selling is “mandatory”, it isn't really a choice anymore. And isn't mentoring juniors supposed to be part of what a partner does anyway? Ofc there are paid external courses and professional programmes, and people are free to choose them. But asking your own team to pay you separately for a course, while having the authority to make participation compulsory, just feels wrong to me. There is a very thin line between mentoring your team and monetising the position of authority you hold over them. I mean a partners job is to mentor his team and not make them pay for it.