Haha, we actually hadn't heard about it - it's been an appointment that's been kept fairly quiet...
In any case, law firm partners and what they get up to are LI's raison d'etre and something most of our readers come here for, so we'll keep primarily keep covering those (in addition to any other interesting developments in the legal market that pique our curiosity). Do let us know anytime we're missing something via the anonymous tip button on the top left or in a comment marked not for publication.
Very good points for the most part, I agree, the complainant's approach in the matter also raises serious question marks and this needs to be looked into, preferably by an independent, credible inquiry of some sort.
Not having an inquiry, or dismissing the allegations outright, is a dangerous precedent.
Utsav Bains' allegation is seriously worrying and really needs to be looked into.
Nevertheless, without knowing any insider facts about this beyond what's in the public domain, there remain several alternative (thereotical) possibilities: 1. It's a completely malicious and untrue hatchet job concocted by opponents of the CJI, merely to damage him. 2. There is some substance in the complaint and her lawyer recommended that going to the media was the best course of action to keep her safe and ensure justice was done (considering the GSICC barely - if at all - has jurisdiction, and that there are no well-established procedures for this thing). 3. The complaint has substance but it was hijacked by lawyers or elements who wish to harm the CJI as much as possible with this complaint, and went shopping around for lawyers to do the most damage. 4. And, to go to a full conspiracy level false flag operation, the complaint either has or does not have substance, but in order to discredit the complaint, some fixers went around offering bribes to advocates.
The point I'm trying to make is, that yes, the situation is messed up at all ends, but the SC should have dealt with it better, because these kinds of things are likely to keep happening precisely because the SC handles them so badly.
The only thing that could close this chapters is a proper inquiry, surely? Otherwise we're just reduced to conjecture.
Nope, nice try, but I'm not kidding you. I never said he's guilty by law, I'm just saying that he has never proved his innocence either (as some newspaper articles and people wrongly claimed). In addition, the optics of him resigning just before facing due process (by way of presidential reference) certainly didn't help strengthen his case either. And the evidence and documentation on the intern's side was quite strong, I believe.
Therefore, in the absence of a proper inquiry on this, it's up to everyone to make up their own mind about how they feel (and there's always defamation if those views are incorrect).
Contrary to what some lawyers may think, you don't need a court order or judgment to have an opinion or belief.
And taking this argument further, Salman Khan may technically be legally innocent of drunk drive killing, but you and anyone else are still entitled to believe that he was driving and that this decision was wrong.
I agree, other than these allegations, AK Ganguly was by most accounts a good judge and HRC chairman and it is a loss to the institution. But even otherwise good people can misbehave.
To summarise, the process to remove Ganguly would not have been an easy one or a slamdunk, and Ganguly would have had plenty of chances to defend himself (though yes, it might not have even proceeded to that stage without also some political momentum against him).
Re your other points. 1. Most complaints in SH cases, particularly against powerful men, take a psychological toll and a legal risk (as the Swatanter Kumar defamation case has proved). Most are also keen to move on with their lives, rather than sacrificing years and years of their lives giving further statements, turning up to hearings, being cross-examined or victim-shamed, and so on, as would have certainly been the case if the criminal investigation had proceeded (it's one of the reasons that such a tiny percentage of rape cases ever result in a complaint, let alone a conviction).
2. Yes, the judicial inquiry wasn't terribly transparent. But that's partly the fault of the SC, for having had no idea back then on how to deal with such cases by instituting an ad hoc committee without any real powers or mandate (and apparently hasn't learned much either).
I agree, while examples of HCs dropping contempt on media for slights to judges is much more common, the specific situation of the SC doing this is a bit more rare.
After perusing our archives and mostly ignoring HCs (see list below), there are plenty of examples of the SC issuing suo motu contempt to media houses, and some of Gogoi himself wielding contempt powers quite freely (even if arguably justifiably), but I couldn't immediately find a precedent of the exact factual matrix of this situation (though that's perhaps also in part because this situation is unprecedented and it's perhaps also the first time that 4 media organisations have been brave enough to report on something so controversial at the same time).
So yes, you're technically right - the SC is perhaps a bit more sensible in this respect than the HCs. But I'm pretty sure that the editors of the 4 media outlets were nevertheless worried about what Gogoi was going to say yesterday.
And it's not like non-Gogoi's non-order here didn't make it abundantly clear that the bench had contempt on their mind as an option (on that day or in future): "We would therefore at this juncture leave it to the media to take off such material which is undesirable."
I think people have very short memories... Yes, the WB government probably had a bone to pick with Ganguly, and the protests against him in the state were over-the-top.
But let's not forget that Ganguly could have faced the presidential reference in parliament to clear his name and be vindicated, if he was indeed innocent, and he's had several TV interviews and written statements telling his side of the story (which was not convincing, to put it mildly, when stacked against the corroborating evidence of several interns - as the SC committee of judges itself had also confirmed in its prima facie investigation).
Well, judging by how long the Swatanter Kumar case is taking and that the CJI himself is the accused, the latter seems highly unlikely to ever happen.
Chief reportedly said: "This employee was there for a month and half. Allegations came and I didn’t deem it appropriate to reply to the allegations".
The sensible thing to have done would have been for Gogoi himself (or another judge, if they had heard of the allegation) to have referred the allegations to the GSICC or some other independent body at that point (or even today) to clear Gogoi's name, rather than ignoring it himself or constituting a special bench (over which he was presiding, leaving it to the other two judges to pass an order).
That's the way it should have happened in any other workplace, anyway. The way this has gone just makes it look as though the CJI is throwing his weight around to intimidate media and the accuser.
That being said, Gogoi should perhaps be commended somewhat for at least not opening his bench by initiating suo motu contempt or defamation charges against Leaflet, Scroll, Wire and Caravan...
Unlike what some may think, we're not actually getting our kicks from stoking unhealthy law school rivalries but we aim to provide transparency that will be useful for applicants and students and recruiters. Nor do we have any loyalties to NLS any more than any other law school, and I think our critical reporting of what goes on in the institution generally reflects that :)
However, I do personally think it's highly unlikely that student quality at NLS would have dropped so drastically that no foreign firm wanted to recruit from there (yet), considering NLS is still top in the CLAT preferences every year. So it's more likely that it's either that foreign firms are getting less popular (which is possible at NLS, though also seems unlikely) or that it's a random aberration. Would be keen if anyone from the 2020 batch has some insight on that...
I think placement figures are a useful metric, but there's honestly very little to tell the top half dozen or so NLUs apart in terms of Day Zero performance. Differences of 5 or 10 jobs here or there are really not any indication of recruitment strength, considering they have widely differing batch sizes also.
Days Zero alone (excluding Day One, excluding foreign jobs for NLS but including for others): NLS: 39 out of 58 RCC subscribers already placed is basically 67% (or 49% of the total batch of 80). GNLU: 44 out of 82 RCC members is about 54% (or 26% of the entire batch of 170ish). NLU Jodhpur: 42 out of 60 subscribers is 70% (or 42% of entire batch of 101) NUJS: Around 65 out of an unknown number of subscribers (or 54% of entire batch of 120) Nalsar: 47 jobs out of 69 subscribers is 68% (or 41% out of batch of 113)
In short, all are in very similar ballparks, and any differences in absolute numbers are mostly balanced out by differing batch sizes, meaning that the opportunities available to individual students joining are very similar (and perhaps even a tad greater at NLS due to the smaller batch).
As regards foreign jobs, yes, it's worth taking these into account, though training contract and vac scheme sample sizes are smaller and can therefore fluctuate more year by year and are never guaranteed (nor do they have that much to do with the institution, unless it provides coaching or assistance with those applications).
Yes, I think Days Zero are a very useful indicator of performance and opportunities available to toppers, but the more important numbers for the typical students joining are what happens to the rest of a batch, including those who don't subscribe to the RCC, to build a picture of career opportunities available.
But then again, I generally don't believe much in the usefulness of absolute rankings in these scenarios.
In part, it's a sign of the times of increasing sensitivity around such issues. In part, perhaps, it's also our 'fault', in that we have been regularly pointing out and collecting male to female partnership ratios and promotions at firms for years now (as is also common internationally in legal publications).
Statistically and theoretically, partnership ratios could be roughly 50/50 men to women if the profession hadn't been dominated by men for so long. The fact that at a firm 100% of new partners in one year are women is therefore pretty unusual, and points towards a firm having a strong pipeline of female senior lawyers who are eligible for promotion.
That deserves to be pointed out and also celebrated, I think.
Not at all, actually. We had reached out to the Nalsar RCC with the figures we had got from sources, and they sensibly made sure that our numbers were accurate before publication.
We have pretty much published NUJS day zero figures most of the previous years, even without the RCC's help, and there is zero evidence that this has had negative impacts on recruitments.
Perhaps a superstition exists that recruitments have been great exactly because the NUJS RCC did not confirm figures? However, confirmation of figures by other NLUs' RCCs in previous years never seems to have negatively impacted their placements.
I also fail to see any logical reason why us publishing unconfirmed figures would somehow benefit students vis-a-vis unconfirmed figures. In either case, unless they have their head in the sand, recruiters will be aware that a large number of NUJS students have secured jobs on Day Zero. That is not rocket science.
And in any case, if the RCC did assist, recruiters would at least be aware that not every single person in the batch even sat for Day Zero interviews, so there are still lots of other candidates out there who would be interested in joining non-Day Zero recruiters.
Thanks, wasn't aware. Was there a formal notification of this name change?
How about this: once the NLS homepage logo is updated, we'll update our use also? We'd have to make some tweaks to our tagging to ensure previous articles categorised under NLSIU Bangalore don't get lost...
Its website still totally says Bangalore... Has it been officially changed? Also, I've yet to meet any 'lurian to actually say Bengaluru, other than in jest... ;)
So by 'barely' you mean that it is at least a little bit newsworthy? Good, because we'll be doing a few more in the coming days :)
Jokes aside, though, I think it sheds a useful light on the internal pipeline and also strategy, regarding offices and practice areas... Plus, it's nice for associates to also get some love on LI, rather than just partners all the time.
"a person who leaves his or her own country or group to join an opposing one"
Obviously we used it as a slightly tongue in cheek metaphor, rather than literally talking about countries, but a team move like that can fairly be described as a defection to an opposing / rival firm, without implying any wrongdoing.
Of course, at the end of the day, none of this is literally war or life and death spycraft, and I agree it's a dramatic word to use, but otherwise we'd just be using the same boring words all the time, and where's the fun in that (for readers as well as us)?
Though let me ask you this: would you think defection could have been appropriate to have used during the CAM/SAM split heydey, for a high calibre team move between the firms?
To be honest, I'm not sure - QS is a bit of a blackbox, I think, no one seems to know how it works and they never responded to our messages seeking explanation...
I think I would agree, to a large extent. Neither may be perfect, but then again, who is? And especially considering some of the VCs out there, they are far from the worst, considering that running a law school is one of the hardest jobs in the world :)
Thanks for your feedback. I would completely agree and that was certainly not the intention, especially not to demoralise any individuals. The point of the headline is that, at most law schools, institutionally, there is very little support for research, which is perhaps reflected in the comparatively lower NIRF scores for the majority.
SLS Pune and even ILI, for instance, have shockingly low marks for research. BR Ambedkar College has a rating of 4 out of 100 in research... RMLNLU Lucknow apparently did not submit anything in that category, with a score of 0, so it couldn't have been that important to them either.
It'll be quite interesting to see whether this will be reflected in CLAT preferences this year... NIRF might be the only ranking with the theoretical credibility to affect choices (and coaching centres' recommendations).
Sorry, you're right of course. That should have been Big 7.
Though, does anyone remember the conspiracy theorists who speculated that CAM-SAM was a ploy to create a bigger firm that would merge again in a few years? But who knows, stranger things have happened in Indian BigLaw ;)
Thanks for sharing - I had missed your earlier message, I think. Will make some edits and add a note to the original report, which was based on the Times of India report into the incident.
Not commenting on specifics, but doesn't the requirement of under-60 make sense if NLS is to get a VC who can potentially stay there for longer than just one term and then be forced to retire? Some continuity in leadership is presumably a good thing (unless you end up with a bad VC, but then you'd have other things to worry about than retirement age)...
Thanks for your feedback. If you enjoy Livelaw and it's useful to you, that's great, I think they're doing a great job. But, though I have explained this before, I am happy to share again: LI was started out 10 years ago as a B2B publication with a mission to bring transparency to things going on in the black boxes of Indian law firms (soon also including legal education, since it was closely linked and equally under-covered). After a few years we also began covering litigation, which was fun and interesting and - I daresay - met with some success.
However, we were forced to take the decision a while ago to re-focus on our original mission to cover the under-covered corporate law space and legal education. Sadly, in my opinion, considering the sheer scale of the bar, it is not possible to add much value in litigation coverage / court reporting without very deep pockets, and even then, I don't think the maths works out, especially with so many different competitors in the space (including national papers, TV channels and even, to some extent, Manupatras and the like).
We are not looking to serve every kind of reader or make everyone happy, because that is an impossible thing to do (even for companies like Bennett Coleman).
So yes, if LI is a blog (whatever that means nowadays) it is proudly so, and I am grateful for and delighted by the wonderful readers and community that exists around it (even if it is sometimes bitchy). And fortunately LI is also part of an ecosystem where you are welcome to frequent as many websites or media sources as you like to get your information.
Haha. The reason we posted the story is because readers requested that we do.
In reality, going through 759 names and trying to confirm who is and who is not a law graduate (i.e., the 'full info') would take hours or days for any one person without encyclopedic knowledge of each college, and even then you're likely to miss some names. So we decided to crowdsource it and are continually updating the story after corroborating names, which seems to be working quite well.
We have updated 3 more names since publication, thanks everyone for sharing.
Thanks for sharing, that is helpful, it seems like my guesstimate of 8 corporate partners is roughly accurate, then? I was aware of some of these names but wasn't aware they were all pureplay corporate.
I'm sure to a large extent the problem is that Luthra does not publicise the deals of most of these partners at all, so it's hard to know whether the firm actually has any M&A work spread around those partners or if it's just 1 or 2 of those partners handling 99%. By press releases sent to B&B and IBLJ, it appears to be the latter, but again, I'll be the first to admit that this could just be bad PR.
In any case, law firm partners and what they get up to are LI's raison d'etre and something most of our readers come here for, so we'll keep primarily keep covering those (in addition to any other interesting developments in the legal market that pique our curiosity). Do let us know anytime we're missing something via the anonymous tip button on the top left or in a comment marked not for publication.
Not having an inquiry, or dismissing the allegations outright, is a dangerous precedent.
Utsav Bains' allegation is seriously worrying and really needs to be looked into.
Nevertheless, without knowing any insider facts about this beyond what's in the public domain, there remain several alternative (thereotical) possibilities:
1. It's a completely malicious and untrue hatchet job concocted by opponents of the CJI, merely to damage him.
2. There is some substance in the complaint and her lawyer recommended that going to the media was the best course of action to keep her safe and ensure justice was done (considering the GSICC barely - if at all - has jurisdiction, and that there are no well-established procedures for this thing).
3. The complaint has substance but it was hijacked by lawyers or elements who wish to harm the CJI as much as possible with this complaint, and went shopping around for lawyers to do the most damage.
4. And, to go to a full conspiracy level false flag operation, the complaint either has or does not have substance, but in order to discredit the complaint, some fixers went around offering bribes to advocates.
The point I'm trying to make is, that yes, the situation is messed up at all ends, but the SC should have dealt with it better, because these kinds of things are likely to keep happening precisely because the SC handles them so badly.
The only thing that could close this chapters is a proper inquiry, surely? Otherwise we're just reduced to conjecture.
Therefore, in the absence of a proper inquiry on this, it's up to everyone to make up their own mind about how they feel (and there's always defamation if those views are incorrect).
Contrary to what some lawyers may think, you don't need a court order or judgment to have an opinion or belief.
And taking this argument further, Salman Khan may technically be legally innocent of drunk drive killing, but you and anyone else are still entitled to believe that he was driving and that this decision was wrong.
We had summarised more information on how a presidential reference against Ganguly could have proceeded (and the challenges available to him in the process), which is worth a read if interested: https://www.legallyindia.com/home/ak-ganguly-presidential-reference-and-fir-explained-20131219-4202
To summarise, the process to remove Ganguly would not have been an easy one or a slamdunk, and Ganguly would have had plenty of chances to defend himself (though yes, it might not have even proceeded to that stage without also some political momentum against him).
Re your other points. 1. Most complaints in SH cases, particularly against powerful men, take a psychological toll and a legal risk (as the Swatanter Kumar defamation case has proved). Most are also keen to move on with their lives, rather than sacrificing years and years of their lives giving further statements, turning up to hearings, being cross-examined or victim-shamed, and so on, as would have certainly been the case if the criminal investigation had proceeded (it's one of the reasons that such a tiny percentage of rape cases ever result in a complaint, let alone a conviction).
I had written about this 'clean chit' and the intern's supposed unwillingness to cooperate in Newslaundry a few years ago, which may answer your questions: https://www.newslaundry.com/2014/07/15/legally-un-noticed
2. Yes, the judicial inquiry wasn't terribly transparent. But that's partly the fault of the SC, for having had no idea back then on how to deal with such cases by instituting an ad hoc committee without any real powers or mandate (and apparently hasn't learned much either).
After perusing our archives and mostly ignoring HCs (see list below), there are plenty of examples of the SC issuing suo motu contempt to media houses, and some of Gogoi himself wielding contempt powers quite freely (even if arguably justifiably), but I couldn't immediately find a precedent of the exact factual matrix of this situation (though that's perhaps also in part because this situation is unprecedented and it's perhaps also the first time that 4 media organisations have been brave enough to report on something so controversial at the same time).
So yes, you're technically right - the SC is perhaps a bit more sensible in this respect than the HCs. But I'm pretty sure that the editors of the 4 media outlets were nevertheless worried about what Gogoi was going to say yesterday.
And it's not like non-Gogoi's non-order here didn't make it abundantly clear that the bench had contempt on their mind as an option (on that day or in future): "We would therefore at this juncture leave it to the media to take off such material which is undesirable."
SC'ish contempt examples:
I don't know if Katju qualifies as media, but Gogoi himself was responsible for the contempt (and apology) by Katju: https://www.legallyindia.com/supreme-court/katju-who-s-actually-quite-good-at-sorry-proffers-sc-strategically-sensible-contempt-avoidance-apology-20161209-8156
Gogoi went to town against an advocate in 2016 (commendably not with contempt but with a complaint against BCs): https://www.legallyindia.com/supreme-court/cji-says-will-look-into-case-of-justice-gogoi-s-ire-over-lawyer-s-holiday-snaps-recusal-request-20160304-7293
The SC + Subrata Roy long incarceration without trial episode proves that the SC is not necessarily always completely reasonable in its contempt use.
Here the SC issued contempt to media organisations for an erroneous report: https://www.legallyindia.com/supreme-court/3-newspapers-face-sc-for-contempt-over-wrong-afspa-report-as-livelaw-avoids-action-with-deft-apology-20160115-7110
In the Mid-Day case, the Delhi HC judges suo motu jumped to the defense of the CJI over a perceived slight, with contempt (though the SC ultimately bailed them out): https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/Contempt-of-court-and-the-truth/article14865592.ece
In 2013, SC judge GS Misra threatened (but did not pursue) contempt over TOI's 'timeliness' report: https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/sc-justice-gs-misra-slams-lsquo-contemptuous-rsquo-toi-report-on-judge-un-punctuality-20130619-3764
2012: front-page apologies after 'mis-reporting' on the surprise of 2 SC judges, and suo motu contempt by SC: https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/express-a-pioneer-to-carry-front-page-apologies-to-sc-for-court-reporting-20121107-3236
But let's not forget that Ganguly could have faced the presidential reference in parliament to clear his name and be vindicated, if he was indeed innocent, and he's had several TV interviews and written statements telling his side of the story (which was not convincing, to put it mildly, when stacked against the corroborating evidence of several interns - as the SC committee of judges itself had also confirmed in its prima facie investigation).
Ganguly resigned precisely for that reason - to avoid a proper inquiry. And he probably calculated that not facing the music, would allow precisely that: for people to claim later that he'd been given a clean chit.
https://www.legallyindia.com/analysis/the-rapid-rehabilitation-of-powerful-men-of-rk-pachauri-ak-ganguly-swatanter-kumar-tarun-tejpal-and-the-length-of-memories-20160330-7369
Chief reportedly said: "This employee was there for a month and half. Allegations came and I didn’t deem it appropriate to reply to the allegations".
The sensible thing to have done would have been for Gogoi himself (or another judge, if they had heard of the allegation) to have referred the allegations to the GSICC or some other independent body at that point (or even today) to clear Gogoi's name, rather than ignoring it himself or constituting a special bench (over which he was presiding, leaving it to the other two judges to pass an order).
That's the way it should have happened in any other workplace, anyway. The way this has gone just makes it look as though the CJI is throwing his weight around to intimidate media and the accuser.
That being said, Gogoi should perhaps be commended somewhat for at least not opening his bench by initiating suo motu contempt or defamation charges against Leaflet, Scroll, Wire and Caravan...
However, I do personally think it's highly unlikely that student quality at NLS would have dropped so drastically that no foreign firm wanted to recruit from there (yet), considering NLS is still top in the CLAT preferences every year. So it's more likely that it's either that foreign firms are getting less popular (which is possible at NLS, though also seems unlikely) or that it's a random aberration. Would be keen if anyone from the 2020 batch has some insight on that...
Days Zero alone (excluding Day One, excluding foreign jobs for NLS but including for others):
NLS: 39 out of 58 RCC subscribers already placed is basically 67% (or 49% of the total batch of 80).
GNLU: 44 out of 82 RCC members is about 54% (or 26% of the entire batch of 170ish).
NLU Jodhpur: 42 out of 60 subscribers is 70% (or 42% of entire batch of 101)
NUJS: Around 65 out of an unknown number of subscribers (or 54% of entire batch of 120)
Nalsar: 47 jobs out of 69 subscribers is 68% (or 41% out of batch of 113)
In short, all are in very similar ballparks, and any differences in absolute numbers are mostly balanced out by differing batch sizes, meaning that the opportunities available to individual students joining are very similar (and perhaps even a tad greater at NLS due to the smaller batch).
As regards foreign jobs, yes, it's worth taking these into account, though training contract and vac scheme sample sizes are smaller and can therefore fluctuate more year by year and are never guaranteed (nor do they have that much to do with the institution, unless it provides coaching or assistance with those applications).
Yes, I think Days Zero are a very useful indicator of performance and opportunities available to toppers, but the more important numbers for the typical students joining are what happens to the rest of a batch, including those who don't subscribe to the RCC, to build a picture of career opportunities available.
But then again, I generally don't believe much in the usefulness of absolute rankings in these scenarios.
Pisces and Leaves,
Kian
Statistically and theoretically, partnership ratios could be roughly 50/50 men to women if the profession hadn't been dominated by men for so long. The fact that at a firm 100% of new partners in one year are women is therefore pretty unusual, and points towards a firm having a strong pipeline of female senior lawyers who are eligible for promotion.
That deserves to be pointed out and also celebrated, I think.
We have pretty much published NUJS day zero figures most of the previous years, even without the RCC's help, and there is zero evidence that this has had negative impacts on recruitments.
Perhaps a superstition exists that recruitments have been great exactly because the NUJS RCC did not confirm figures? However, confirmation of figures by other NLUs' RCCs in previous years never seems to have negatively impacted their placements.
I also fail to see any logical reason why us publishing unconfirmed figures would somehow benefit students vis-a-vis unconfirmed figures. In either case, unless they have their head in the sand, recruiters will be aware that a large number of NUJS students have secured jobs on Day Zero. That is not rocket science.
And in any case, if the RCC did assist, recruiters would at least be aware that not every single person in the batch even sat for Day Zero interviews, so there are still lots of other candidates out there who would be interested in joining non-Day Zero recruiters.
How about this: once the NLS homepage logo is updated, we'll update our use also? We'd have to make some tweaks to our tagging to ensure previous articles categorised under NLSIU Bangalore don't get lost...
Jokes aside, though, I think it sheds a useful light on the internal pipeline and also strategy, regarding offices and practice areas... Plus, it's nice for associates to also get some love on LI, rather than just partners all the time.
"a person who leaves his or her own country or group to join an opposing one"
Obviously we used it as a slightly tongue in cheek metaphor, rather than literally talking about countries, but a team move like that can fairly be described as a defection to an opposing / rival firm, without implying any wrongdoing.
Of course, at the end of the day, none of this is literally war or life and death spycraft, and I agree it's a dramatic word to use, but otherwise we'd just be using the same boring words all the time, and where's the fun in that (for readers as well as us)?
Though let me ask you this: would you think defection could have been appropriate to have used during the CAM/SAM split heydey, for a high calibre team move between the firms?
SLS Pune and even ILI, for instance, have shockingly low marks for research. BR Ambedkar College has a rating of 4 out of 100 in research... RMLNLU Lucknow apparently did not submit anything in that category, with a score of 0, so it couldn't have been that important to them either.
Though, does anyone remember the conspiracy theorists who speculated that CAM-SAM was a ploy to create a bigger firm that would merge again in a few years? But who knows, stranger things have happened in Indian BigLaw ;)
(we really should have covered this article at the time, but only found out about it a bit too late...)
However, we were forced to take the decision a while ago to re-focus on our original mission to cover the under-covered corporate law space and legal education. Sadly, in my opinion, considering the sheer scale of the bar, it is not possible to add much value in litigation coverage / court reporting without very deep pockets, and even then, I don't think the maths works out, especially with so many different competitors in the space (including national papers, TV channels and even, to some extent, Manupatras and the like).
We are not looking to serve every kind of reader or make everyone happy, because that is an impossible thing to do (even for companies like Bennett Coleman).
So yes, if LI is a blog (whatever that means nowadays) it is proudly so, and I am grateful for and delighted by the wonderful readers and community that exists around it (even if it is sometimes bitchy). And fortunately LI is also part of an ecosystem where you are welcome to frequent as many websites or media sources as you like to get your information.
In reality, going through 759 names and trying to confirm who is and who is not a law graduate (i.e., the 'full info') would take hours or days for any one person without encyclopedic knowledge of each college, and even then you're likely to miss some names. So we decided to crowdsource it and are continually updating the story after corroborating names, which seems to be working quite well.
We have updated 3 more names since publication, thanks everyone for sharing.
https://www.legallyindia.com/lawschools/at-least-3-law-grads-make-civil-services-2018-exam-nujs-2-nls-20190406-9984
I'm sure to a large extent the problem is that Luthra does not publicise the deals of most of these partners at all, so it's hard to know whether the firm actually has any M&A work spread around those partners or if it's just 1 or 2 of those partners handling 99%. By press releases sent to B&B and IBLJ, it appears to be the latter, but again, I'll be the first to admit that this could just be bad PR.