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?
One of the core experiments behind LI conversations is also that there is a value in exposing fake news, by also (at times) publishing misleading or trollish posts, if:
1. they appear to reflect a genuinely and widely held belief, and
2. provided that it they published with suitable health warnings, and
3. can and will be disputed and disproven on their merits in the comment threads.
Do let us know if you have any thoughts on this though, the conversations systems are in the process of evolving.
Overall, if you speak to women in most professions honestly, a lot will have stories about sexual harassment (if you don't just include physical harassment, but also verbal or other behavioural or institutional harassment). The 47% figure of sexual harassment from that survey actually seems fairly realistic, and also tallies up with a lot of research elsewhere (52% in [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/10/almost-all-young-women-in-the-uk-have-been-sexually-harassed-survey-finds the workplace in the UK], for instance).
And even if for hypothetical argument's sake the number were half that, it'd still be a huge figure of millions of women.
On the other hand, there is plenty of supporting evidence that the vast majority of sexual harassment (and also sex crimes) are never reported. In a survey, 47% of women in India reported having faced sex harassment at work but only half ever file a complaint, and 70% are not happy with the outcome of such a complaint: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/workplace-safety-still-an-issue-survey/article31011136.ece
The reality is that a large number of companies (and probably Indian law firms too), sweep complaints under the carpet or simply issue a warning to the perpetrator (especially if the person is a senior member who generates a lot of business). And most complaints do not automatically result in placing the alleged perpetrator on leave, but require a bit of due diligence to ensure that the complaint is prima facie credible (and a lot of complaints never make it past the internal complaints committee stage). If there is strong prima facie evidence against someone, there is also legal liability on the company or firm for not putting the accused on leave.
Please also cite evidence when you say "nothing happens to the lady" in a false complaint. The opposite is true: many sacrifice their career by making legitimate complaints (particularly if against someone more powerful in the organisation), and might lose their jobs or promotion opportunities or experience retaliation for complaining, even if the ICC recognises the complaint. Now imagine the professional and workplace repercussions if a complaint is actually proven false, and if the person she (wrongly) accused remains her manager, etc.
Fact is, women usually have very little to gain by making an ICC complaint other than risk to their career, and in the rare cases they are successful, (possibly minor) punishment for their harasser. On the other hand, they have a lot to lose as the process is also stacked against accusers.
In this case, the LI conversation had not ever named the faculty member. The Instagram video referred to had been very widely shared already and the GNLU student body and administration were clearly aware. It was also clear that the recording was not manufactured (though in cases like these it is also obvious that the video can never be the complete story either).
The intention behind hosting discussions such as these is therefore to give oxygen to these kinds of issues and to allow for them to be debated on the basis of their respective merits. There have certainly been some very well-thought-out and balanced responses in this thread alone that have been quite elucidating and interesting.
And some of the responses will hopefully also create more empathy from students for teachers, many of whom are having as hard a time as students or anyone else in this pandemic.
At the same time, we would hope that it would also raise further awareness with faculty and administrations about the struggles students are facing. Most faculty will be aware, but in stressful times such as these, accidents or miscommunication can also happen, and it is certain that these kinds of incidents are not isolated or limited to GNLU either.
1. This discussion does not name any faculty member, and the link to the Instagram post, which had been widely shared and read and that included the name of the faculty member, had been redacted upon request on LI.
2. The discussion also raises a legitimate issue common at a lot of law schools (and also workplaces) at the moment on how to deal sensitively with pandemic-related issues, including extensions, bereavements, etc.
3. As far as we understand, there is no dispute as the fact that the things alleged to have been said were in fact said.
4. There appears to be a public interest in this kind of discussion being had.
If you disagree with the decision, please let us know with specific reasons for why this discussion is not valuable and should be removed.
>There’s a good chance most of the problems in your life and work come down to insufficient slack. Here’s how slack works and why you need more of it.
All emojis actually work in comments, as of a few months ago, but you'd need to either use your phone keyboard or your Windows/Mac insert emoji-type tools to do so. Would people prefer a button in the chatbox itself that allows selecting emojis (similar to Telegram/WhatsApp, etc)?
If you have any feedback or suggestion about where the buttons might be better placed, please let us know in this thread.
There is also the option of disabling the "Object" button completely and just having a single button. If this is something that you think is a good idea, please do let us know.
Also, it was high time anyway that we removed the BETA tag from the button: we feel the section has really taken on a life of its own and a lot of the topics started and conversations had are enlightening, enriching and sometimes also hilarious and ridiculous. Thanks to everyone who has been part of the beta and has made it fun and surprising.
On that note, if anyone has any other thoughts or suggestions about the conversation function or format, please share suggestions below and we will try to implement.
We are aware that some of the conversations functionality may still be a little rough but would be keen to improve usability or add features that readers request.
Even ignoring any outright WW3 possibilities, how would that scenario play out positively and happily for everyone? The Taiwanese for one might be getting quite worried about their future... What about the trillion-odd dollars of sovereign debt the US owes the Chinese? And how might China retaliate, economically or otherwise? And how would you begin to assess how much of China's foreign assets will be expropriated? And do you do this if China continues to refuse full inspections? Or only if a smoking gun is found that a lab did intentionally or accidentally release a virus? And how would you implement this? Via the UN Security Council where China has a veto? The US by itself? Loose multilateral alliances of countries where the benefit in punishing China may not be clear to any one of them?
We're always happy to hear constructive suggestions and thoughts.
1. Did China obstruct the WHO and other investigations into the origin of the virus? Yes, most probably.
2. Is there currently any actual evidence it was an intentionally or accidentally released bioweapon, beyond the circumstantial? Not really.
3. Do we know for sure that it has not escaped from a Chinese lab? No, unless you're Donald Trump.
4. Should Trump or others have been making the claim that they believe it was a bioweapon without such evidence, purely on the basis that they hope it is a possibility? Seems like a primitive way of doing diplomacy.
5. If China doesn't want to cooperate in an investigation, how exactly is the global community going to force it to cooperate or muster the political will to do so? Answers on a postcard.
6. Considering much of the world is still fighting the pandemic and will be for some time yet, would anyone really have the political will to confront China over this, when people are dependent on Chinese vaccines, and risk a global trade war on the precipice of a possible economic crisis? Outlook not likely.
7. Even if it were eventually proved that China manufactured the virus and released it accidentally, exactly what is the world going to be able to do about it, much as the world has not been able to do much to stop human rights abuses in China for decades, its annexation of territory, claims over Taiwan, its Belt & Road diplomacy strategy, militarisation of the seas, being the world's largest greenhouse gas polluter and so on... Exactly.
https://www.legallyindia.com/lawfirms/private-vax-overdrives-how-law-firms-struggle-getting-corporate-jabs-and-why-most-might-prefer-doing-it-quietly-after-samcares-20210514-12106
By "NLUJ alumn":
This is not accurate.
I once did back-of-the-envelope calculations when I was still in college and realised that the fees from the students just about covered the salary of the professors and not much was left for capital and non-recurring expenditures.
So, I did a quick google search (it took 5 minutes - and yes, I am free right now) and the numbers are all publicly available.
The college even today hardly has any money left after paying its staff. It weirdly takes pride in not receiving any "maintaining expenditure" from the UGC [see Para 19 of this judgment: indiankanoon.org/doc/180877490/]. I checked the latest budget and the difference between the income from the fees charged to the students minus salary of staff and utilities (water + electricity + internet) is ~INR 75L - that's not much for an institution and certainty leaves little for capital expenditure. I am not even accounting for the many other expenditures which would naturally arise. Another interesting piece is the absence of interest payments - which would indicate that the college didn't build its infrastructure by taking credit / loans.
Budget: www.nlujodhpur.ac.in/uploads/23162009101146.pdf.
The newer buildings: the moot court hall, auditorium, library, administrative block, second mess, badminton court, etc., the college couldn't have constructed them without Government / UGC grants. The grants released by the UGC are also publicly available. The annual reports for 2011-2012 and 2013-14 set out the amounts released to the college by the UGC - I reckon a fair amount of the newer construction took place from these grants.
2011-12: www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/Annual_Report_2011-2012_English_Final.pdf
2013-14: (www.ugc.ac.in/pdfnews/7938259_Annual-Report-2013-14.pdf)
So, you see, your education is also being subsidized by the Government.
If anything this is unfair, given that the typical student profile in most National Law Universities is upper middle class and upper class. The annual per capita income (accounting for the Indian billionaires) is INR 1.25L - and 99% of the students of NLUs can afford 1.25L, either directly or by accessing credit. I would reckon (and this is an admittedly anecdotal guess) 90% of the students spent more money in a year than the annual per capita income.
While downvotes are definitely not scientific (and sometimes accidental), so please don't take them personally, in this case it's conceivable certain readers might have objected to the opinion that a life in Canada is better than in India.
First of all, take what time and mindspace you need, don't get pressured at this time into returning to work until you feel ready and more prepared, your mental well-being is more important (however, in some cases getting back into a gentle work routine or some sense of normality can also be helpful for people to process and distract themselves from the everything).
The above link also contains some useful blogs on how to cope with grief ( https://www.harvardbusiness.org/grief-and-resilience-support-amid-the-covid-19-resurgence/ ), also on how to return to work ( https://hbr.org/2017/04/returning-to-work-when-youre-grieving ).
But everyone deals with grief differently and a lot will depend on external circumstances (which are obviously not easy right now).
In your case, would you say that your firm being at all accommodating and understanding and is there someone in a position authority with whom you feel you can be somewhat open about how you're feeling?
Also, have you considered seeing a professional grief counsellor or a therapist? It might sometimes help to be able to talk about how you feel to anyone, especially someone who's not your immediate family or professional environment.
Lots of love from LI, hope you begin to look up and forward soon.
If anyone has any links to articles or advice or thinking that has cheered them up or managed to make their or someone else's life even a little bit better, please share this below.
And if you are facing any particular difficulties and feel like it seems there is no one to talk to about these, please feel free to share these anonymously and perhaps someone is in a similar situation or can offer a valuable perspective.
This comment thread will of course be strictly moderated.
Quote: Quote: https://www.harvardbusiness.org/resilience-resources
It's worth trying to apply Occam's razor here, as in many similar theories, in that the simplest explanation being more likely than elaborate webs of conspiracy.
1. There is a lot of medical and scientific research that Covid-19 is very similar to coronaviruses actually found in bats in the wild, where they mutate fast and such viruses do and have regularly jumped across species to humans, so there is a very plausible explanation that this virus was not engineered and the vast majority of scientists currently still agree with this assessment. Also worth considering what rationale would scientists studying this stuff for years and decades have in this case not to happily blame China if they've found evidence for this already? 'Liberals' are happy to blame China for human rights abuses, such as prison camps and freedom issues, so why would (even left-leaning) scientists censor themselves if they found any evidence for the China lab theory?
https://theconversation.com/heres-how-scientists-know-the-coronavirus-came-from-bats-and-wasnt-made-in-a-lab-141850
2. Is it theoretically possible the Wuhan lab was studying these viruses and they managed to escape? Sure, you probably can't 100% rule that out at this point (though you can't rule out that aliens created it, or that the Illuminati or some international terrorists secretly engineered / released the virus in China to sow chaos). But is there any actual proof or hard evidence of this? Or does it seem much more likely that the theory was claimed as fact by Trump (who infamously cares as little for facts as does the CCP) because he wanted to blame China politically?
3. Even in the event that it is true and the virus did escape from a Chinese lab, does that make it a bioweapon that China intentionally released on the world? That seems unlikely, especially considering that for a bioweapon, Covid-19 spreads so easily and uncontrollably as to be almost useless, as you can't use it without infecting the entire world and yourself. As far as grand plans and conspiracies for world domination go, this one is a hugely tricky and risky one to pull off, and could have been carried out in a far more cloak and dagger way as to be not so obviously undetectable.
4. If we want to assume that the virus did escape from a Chinese lab, for argument's sake, the more likely explanation would be that it accidentally escaped. In that case, would the liability for that be on par with Chernobyl, Fukushima or countries responsible for climate change? And who would that liability attach to? The individual lab or workers there for potential negligence? Or the Chinese government for not having strict enough safety rules in place for virus research? Or just strict liability? We would welcome opinion from international lawyers on this point.
At the end of the day, as long as she doesn't write the paper herself for the students, how is this different, for instance, from rich kids who can afford a private tutor or postgraduate to help them with their studies, or having a parent or sibling who's an advocate or academic helping them, or them studying with a friend in college and jointly preparing for an essay, or even someone who has the economic resources to buy lots of textbooks to use at home that might be directly relevant to the essay topic.
Full decision (and details on panel composition) here: https://oversightboard.com/decision/FB-691QAMHJ/
Quote: Nevertheless, big and interesting decision (though if cynical you have to wonder how much the existence of such a board simply exists to give Facebook a carte blanche and moral cover to continue its current practices; after all, Facebook doesn't really seem to care if it spreads genocide or blocks presidents on its platform unless its bottom-line is affected).
Regarding amplifying things on Twitter, LI is not particularly active on Twitter but we are told that 99% of Indian Twitter these days is sadly full of calls for resources and offers of help and lists of places to procure Oxygen from etc, so there we are not sure how we could help with our somewhat limited reach, which mostly goes out to fairly privileged English-speaking lawyers who already have access to many better and more bespoke online networks and resources about how to deal with the pandemic than LI.
All the best, please stay safe and healthy,
LI
End of the day, it probably doesn't really matter to applicants whether one of the (usually) older NLUs got 20 Tier 1 law firm jobs or 30. The bigger issue for applicants which deserves highlighting and transparency (but doesn't necessarily need a ranking) is that there aren't enough of those popular Tier 1 or even tier 2, 3 or 4 (or whatever) law firm jobs available to even a fraction of graduates.
In some ways it's similar in principle to our 'recruitment power ranking' from a few years ago: https://www.legallyindia.com/lawschools/law-schools-recruitment-power-rankings-2013-14-20141031-5253
One issue with it is that we have not received very many of the 2020 recruitment results. We have requested some more but getting numbers accounting for the entire batch is hard. On that note, should the metric also account for batch size like it did previously (multiplying the percentage who got jobs in a batch by the average score). On the one hand, it seems fair. On the other hand, many colleges or RCCs don't seem to track the entire batch very effectively and smaller batches have an advantage there.
We have requested several more recruitment figures from several NLUs, so all thoughts on the above would be welcome.
Online resource of useful links relating to Covid assistance by state: https://covid19.nalsar.ac.in/crowdsourced-data/
https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/nalsar-students-launch-covid-19-crowdsourced-resources-portal
[Moderator transferred from standalone post to collect here with other links]
The pay in the judiciary is not great and the job is often thankless and whether you rise to the apex of the profession, in the high courts or Supreme Court, can be as much about playing politics and networking and luck as about talent.
Interestingly, it seems like this inter-generational pecking is nothing new. Boomers also thought Gen X was undisciplined and lazy, and the parents of the hippies/boomers thought the same about that generation.
Fact is, times and standards of work and life change, and perhaps the younger generation has increasingly understood that there is more to life than just money and working hard, and that other pleasures in life are as or more important. And that's not necessarily a bad thing and might eventually also bring very tangible benefits to the rights of boomers in workplaces (even if only belatedly so).
In short, you might not understand them (or each other), but try to be kinder to each other.
For the time being, this is the official statement: https://www.legallyindia.com/lawfirms/r-i-p-khaitan-1st-year-nliu-2020-batch-devansh-srivastava-passes-away-after-cardiac-arrest-20210316-11997
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JFmM2Sn6fU
As far as we understand, the bar exam had always previously been an open-book exam.