Thanks for your feedback. At the end of the day, I don't really mind whether we are first on all stories or not, and I don't think most readers are too concerned as long as we keep up with the important things and do interesting and fair stories. That said, there are some misapprehensions in your comment, which I might as well address since I'm here.

Generally, for the avoidance of doubt, whenever B&B or another publication does report something first (without a press release about the same thing having been sent out, etc) we give them credit in our stories as having reported it first, which I think is fair to both our rivals and our readers.

By contrast, I understand B&B have a policy never to attribute to other publications for breaking stories (and they seem to play a little fast and loose with what they term 'exclusive'), which to non-regular followers of the space can maybe make it look like they're scooping more than they are.

Specifically, background and process in the examples you mention:

- CAM WFH was actually press released by the firm before B&B wrote about it 'exclusively'. We waited before publishing since we usually prefer including also answers to some of the important questions and including more details. This could mean our stories sometimes come a bit later but I hope they are also more informative rather than just being puff pieces: www.legallyindia.com/lawfirms/cam-to-launch-flexi-work-policies-post-march-2021-office-re-openings-chennai-hyd-to-move-to-biz-centres-20201024-11716

- Shonali joining Luthra - yes, they got their story out before ours on that one and that's fine. We did hear about it around the same time and might have published before them, though we were also reaching out for comment from the parties and confirming whether the hire pre-dated the dispute or not, and only then covered it: www.legallyindia.com/lawfirms/rajiv-luthra-sans-saraf-hires-alum-shonali-choudhry-in-mumbai-as-partner-20201023-11715

- DSK deputy managing partner news went out as a press release yesterday but without much interesting information. We are intending to do a more in-depth look at what this means, if possible, since by itself the story is pretty bland without more information.

- Lawyers articles: as a policy, we currently don't accept articles by lawyers and firms, though we receive regular requests for this and have done so in the past. I'm not sure how much value it adds to readers but please do share your views on if you'd like such articles as part of the LI's editorial.

Either way, each to their own, live and let live, etc. I think LI coverage is doing fine for the most part. But I would be happy to receive readers' feedback any time, of course :)