As first reported by Bar & Bench, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas lawyers have found themselves unable to access Legally India and our rival legal news website Bar & Bench from their work computers.
Legally India has confirmed that the websites are inaccessible from at least two Cyril Amarchand offices.
One Cyril Amarchand lawyer told Legally India that “the kids have been crying all day that they can’t access your website”.
We understand that no internal announcement has been made about the policy change, if any, but are reserving final judgment on the reasons for the sites being inaccessible.
We have reached out to Cyril and Vandana Shroff for comment and will update when we hear from them.
Update 20 April, 10:30am: Have received word from Cyril Amarchand management, they’re looking into what’s happening, though prima facie it doesn’t seem like a deliberate management decision.
Update 2- April 13:42: As reported just now, Access has been restored at Cyril Amarchand. The block was apparently a consequence of new security processes having been introduced.
A comment left on Bar & Bench stated: “I have clarified with the IT department and bar and bench and the ‘other’ website are part of a global blacklist and not a technical error.”
The only time we can recall that we were blocked by a law firm so far, was in 2009 when FoxMandal Little, as it then was, temporarily blocked access to Legally India after a flood of comments on a story regarding the firm’s salary deferrals.
Have we told you yet that we have an Android app? Get it here free, it’s quite fast and friendly.
Editor’s note: Any thoughts about why we may have been blocked welcome in the comments. Can associates confirm if any other sites are inaccessible? Livelaw? Buzzfeed? Lexis Nexis? My personal pet theory: too many billable hours went into the BD account code when associates were browsing LI, claiming they were researching the competition…
Comments
Bottom line - this is an AR backlash.
All I know is that at many organisations the IT department is a bit of a blackbox that most managing partners don't understand much about, so it's conceivable these decisions are not scrutinised too tightly.
I also don't think, from my perception, that CAM management has been so upset about our reporting of the Ashwath leaving news that they would start blocking websites for that reason. It seems slightly out of character, to be honest.
And, as pointed out above, it's slightly counterproductive as it just gives makes a website more exciting to visit when it's semi-forbidden (particularly since everyone has smart phones these days).
Finally, it's also strategically risky from an HR and lateral recruitment perspective (I'd rather work in a place that didn't block my web-browsing, leaving me to responsibly manage my time).
That said, I don't know the reasons right now. If we do find out, will let you know.
In this case, I don't know anything yet other than LI being blocked. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt here for a while, which seems like a reasonable thing to do, no?
I have been following this entire NUJS debate on the other thread. Given that you are a journalist, perhaps a refresher course may be in order. Journalists do not print stories they know. They print stories they know and are able to verify. I would assume that the verification would have to be from independent sources. It may be the same reason as every year but unless the CRC or another credible independent source has confirmed the intention, it is (probably) against every principle of journalism to print it as a story. I believe they have a term for it - yellow journalism.
A news story has no place for opinion. The fact that the non-disclosure is aimed at hiding figures from firms is your opinion. I believe the correct place to express opinions is the editorial and not a news article. So say what you will, your views are misplaced (in the wrong article) even though your intention may be noble.
I only hope that better sense will prevail. At times, its good to accept mistakes and rectify them.
We have our sources, prior experience, and plain logic that all support our interpretation that the RCC/college won't disclose because they have a big batch and don't want to scare off other recruiters by the fact that a large number have already been placed.
We have yet to hear *any* alternative explanation from *anyone*, whether RCC or anonymous commenters, however outlandish. So if you have an alternative explanation, please do share.
In the absence of that, we'll stand by our story.
I am not on the correctness or otherwise of the policy. However, you should know that this is not a story but an opinion expressed by the editor (or whatever your designation is) of an online news portal. That is the difference I hope you understand.
Another thing, it is your view not a story. It is your interpretation and opinion on why they are not disclosing. Propriety demands that such a view is disclosed thus and not as confirmed news.
I may be wrong but I have not come across a single comment or response from LI stating that the reasons for non-disclosure THIS TIME was to keep it away from recruiters. Will be happy to be proven wrong. Waiting for the links.
Cheers.
1. In the absence of any alternative reasonable explanation, all that's left is what we know to the best of our knowledge. The proof is in the pudding, and sometimes, particularly when we are stone-walled, we can not get 100% confirmation on a story. Here, we were confident enough in the reason to publish.
The only thing that would make us publish an apology or retraction on this matter, is if we were to get an alternative reasonable explanation or an on-the-record statement from the RCC. If that were to happen, I would be the first to hold up my hands, but I can't deal in hypotheticals of 'what if your facts are wrong', because I don't think they are, fundamentally.
2. We generally try not to mix opinion and facts, but occasionally we do and it's very obvious when we do. Take this very article's headline, which starts with "highly amusing". That's opinion, not fact. It was clear from our story that it was a strong editorial stance we were taking on this issue.
I agree, it's slightly harsh to pick on students and RCCs, and we almost never do. But this RCC disclosure issue is one that we feel very strongly about and we'll keep making that heard.
You'll find us taking similar positions on other, arguably more important issues, such as BCI transparency, law school administration transparency, or law firm transparency.
The point really is evident when you say - "The only thing that would make us publish an apology or retraction on this matter, is if we were to get an alternative reasonable explanation or an on-the-record statement from the RCC." Since you do not wish to deal in the hypothetical of 'what if your facts are wrong', perhaps you should extend it your facts per se instead of taking a judgment call on whether it is right or wrong.
You still have not confirmed if any source, person or entity has told you the cited reason for non-dislcosure. I do not think an apology or retraction is necessary but perhaps a clarification that the reasons for non-disclosure are as per LI's opinion may be apposite.
May I also suggest a healthy open and transparent debate on the LI editorial policy. The reason is simple. The legal fraternity is a small and incestuous one. Anything said or done spreads like wildfire and has a far greater chance of affecting the reputation and relationships of all stakeholders. Perhaps it is time for LI to open up to this and engage with the readers on this issue de hors any discussion of a particular college, recruitment, articles in in-house journals etc.
After all, one must be the change he seeks to bring.
Cheers.
Here it is, just checked, though it was loading slowly - maybe our server was struggling from too many comments :(
http://www.legallyindia.com/law-firms/breaking-cyril-amarchand-corporate-star-ashwath-rau-quits-in-advanced-talks-with-azb
Actually, THE MADAM should make the Operations Leader or the CFO or a COO the in charge of IT too. like so many other professional firms. As it stands the current crop of IT in CAM is meh!
It seems all the good ones have left the firm. Their peon network is often surly and complains about how GOOD PEOPLE cannot last in CAM. So maybe this is really from IT. You can never know. Encouraged by JUNIOR, as you put it.
Put a frog in normal water then slowly boil the water, and the frog will swim around lazily till it drops from burns without doing anything to get away.
Looks like these guys are on a slow boil - only not recognizing it.
But yeah, B&B do twist themselves in verbal knots sometimes *not* to mention us on stories, which is almost as amusing as this story :)
On a separate note this also goes on to show why it is important to swim in the deep end. You may inherit a legacy but to build something from scratch and sustain what you have built upon goes on to show a lot about your character. Well done SAM. A lot of them had put you behind your younger sibling when the split happened. Clearly you let actions do the talking. CAM looks like a WWE show.... all noise and glitterati.
Well its time for CAM to show its prowess and what it is are capable of. CS needs to stop taking advice [...] and get his nose close to the ground. Thats how you assess the ground realities.
From all I can tell, I really don't think the Mumbai Shroffs have been ticked off by the coverage - the mindset of both Delhi and Mumbai Shroffs with respect to PR has evolved a lot in the past years.
In part that has been caused by generally increased reporting that we have done on the entire law firm industry (to blow our own trumpet), as well as the whole Shroff family fight - after that kind of stuff happens and is covered openly in even mainstream newspapers, I think it's impossible not to grow a fairly thick skin about media coverage and realise that good news and bad news come and go and it's not worth getting worked up about them too much.