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?
The colleagues are approachable and respectful. Beyond the usual aspects of legal practice, such as drafting, filing and court appearances, the firm places genuine emphasis on quality research, and finding out-of-the-box solutions, something that is rare. While court appearances may be relatively limited, the matters handled are diverse, challenging and intellectually stimulating.
The founder’s approach to detail, client management, negotiations and strategising out-of-court settlements is something to learn. All in all, a wonderful place to work, learn and grow.
During the interview, I was asked certain personal questions, and I answered them candidly to the best of my ability. After all, it was an interview with a prospective employer, not a courtroom where I was required to assert my legal rights. Frankly, I initially wondered why there was an interest in my personal life, but on reflection, I understood that it was simply the interviewer's way of assessing my overall suitability. I respect that approach, as long as the questions remain within reasonable professional boundaries.
Ofcourse the job of an advocate in first year is to research and support the team that he/she is working. But that will only help you to lean towards perfection and is followed in every sensible office. You rather than rushing towards voluminous work should focus on horning your skills that can take you a long way in this profession.
Being an experienced member of this fraternity, I would suggest that just because some personal questions are asked in an interview that should not be a reflection for an office, you can always deny to answer them. Rather than falling for such shallow opinions, each one should see the workplace with regards to its progress and ask people who work there about their experiences through LinkedIn or any other place.
First and foremost, it offered a healthy work-life balance with working hours between 10 AM to 7 PM so you could get time for yourself which is rare .Also it provided learning opportunities across diverse platforms ranging from company matters before the NCLT , arbitration matters to high-value commercial cases, such diverse exposure is not easy to come by !!hence though the stint was brief yet can call it enriching !!
Further everyone irrespective of their experience is an associate there, only their salary changes. Its an okay place for freshers since they are very much into research and note ad brief making - the things first year associates got to learn the most. Post your 1-1.5 year get out of there ASAP.