Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas 
News

[Exclusive]: CAM Equity Partners voluntarily decide against drawing salaries for this year, tweaked ratio of compensation for other lawyers

Pallavi Saluja

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas today announced some variations in the salaries of its lawyers.

Confirming this development, Managing Partner Cyril Shroff said,

“ We are in survival mindset and unafraid to take bold decisions. The partnership is solidly behind me. We believe that moving more into variable pay is both pragmatic and humane. As we are currently not doing job or pay cuts...I am very proud of my firm and the maturity it has shown."

Currently, the firm has decided against effecting job cuts and salary cuts. However, for certain categories of lawyers, the firm has tweaked the ratio of fixed to variable compensation, moving some amount of fixed compensation to variable.

About 20-30% of the fixed compensation of the salaried partners is being moved to variable compensation for this financial year. For Principal Associates/Senior Associates, it would be around 10-15%.

Significantly, Equity Partners of the firm have voluntarily decided not to draw any salaries for this financial year.

There is no change for Associate-level lawyers, junior employees, and staff of the firm. Basically, there will be no change in the compensation structure for lawyers with an annual package of Rs. 25 lakh and below.

The firm will review its decision in June. This is all subject to how the situation changes with the pandemic.

38.5% women lawyers find legal profession discouraging; 33.1% experienced gender bias: SCBA survey

Rajasthan HC mandates QR-coded IDs for gig workers, regulation of influencers, SIMs to tackle crimes in digital era

GLC Kozhikode tells Kerala High Court that several law colleges in Kerala lack BCI affiliation

Delhi High Court refuses to restrain Dr Reddy's from manufacturing, exporting Ozempic like drug

Clicking photos or videos of women without consent during non-private acts not voyeurism: Supreme Court

SCROLL FOR NEXT