Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025

Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025



Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025


Delhi High Court

Malkit Singh @ Money @ Manny Singh & Ors vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 31 July, 2025

                          $~71
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          %                                            Date of Decision: 31.07.2025


                          +      CRL.M.C. 2908/2025
                                 MALKIT SINGH @ MONEY @ MANNY SINGH & ORS.
                                                                           .....Petitioners
                                              Through: Ms. Sadhna Singh, Advocate

                                                    versus

                                 THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
                                              Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the
                                                        State with SI Ankur, PS Tilak Nagar
                                                        Mr. Ashish Pratap singh, Advocate
                                                        for R2


                                 CORAM:          JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA


                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. Petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.178/2017 of PS Tilak Nagar for
offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC on the ground that the complainant
de facto (respondent no. 2) has compromised the disputes with the
petitioners.

2. Statements of petitioners and respondent no. 2 have already been
recorded by the concerned Joint Registrar. I have again spoken with
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 present in court and it is stated by them
that now, having compromised all their disputes, they are living together

CRL.M.C. 2908/2025 Page 1 of 2 pages
Digitally signed by GIRISH
Signature Not Verified GIRISH KATHPALIA KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.07.31 17:27:38 +05’30’

Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:31.07.2025
17:55:18
happily and also have a daughter currently aged 04 years. Respondent no. 2
submits that she does not wish to pursue prosecution of petitioners.

3. Having spoken with the parties, I am satisfied that it would be in the
interest of justice not to push them through trial.

4. Therefore, the petition is allowed and accordingly, the FIR
No.178/2017 of PS Tilak Nagar for offence under Section 498A/406/34 IPC
and proceedings arising out of the same are quashed.

Digitally signed by

                                                                                GIRISH    GIRISH KATHPALIA
                                                                                KATHPALIA Date: 2025.07.31
                                                                                          17:27:20 +05'30'

                                                                                   GIRISH KATHPALIA
                                                                                        (JUDGE)
                          JULY 31, 2025/as




                          CRL.M.C. 2908/2025                                            Page 2 of 2 pages
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEETU N NAIR
Signing Date:31.07.2025
17:55:18





Source link

Davis Polk associate says he was fired after refusing to stop publishing columns on legal issues

Davis Polk associate says he was fired after refusing to stop publishing columns on legal issues


Law Firms

Davis Polk associate says he was fired after refusing to stop publishing columns on legal issues

Updated: A Davis Polk associate says he was fired four hours after presenting the law firm with a column he intended to publish on the Trump administration’s ability to track protesters.

Ryan W. Powers says he wrote the column on June 12, the day after he was told his previous newspaper columns on legal issues violated an internal policy at the law firm. The policy apparently gave the law firm wide discretion to block employee speech on topics it viewed as relevant to its interests, he says.

Many large law firms have policies similar to Davis Polk’s, according to employment lawyer Jonathan Pollard of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. “Lots of law firms won’t publicly talk about their content creation or publishing polices—because they know that’s a bad look,” he tells the ABA Journal in an email. “But it is widespread.”

According to University of Virginia School of Law professor J.H. (Rip) Verkerke, it is “standard practice” for law firms to bar employees from making unauthorized public comments about clients or the subject matter of any representations. Some may even prohibit speech that could harm the interests of the firm or its reputation.

“I believe, however, that it is quite unusual for a firm to interpret these policies and retained rights as a license to fire an associate for any political speech of which they disapprove,” says Verkerke, who teaches employment law, in an email. “Based on the information that is publicly available, perhaps the most likely motivation for the firm’s action was a desire to avoid offending the Trump administration.”

Powers explained what happened in a Substack article and a podcast called the Parnas Perspective. Bloomberg Law and Law360 have coverage.

Powers started writing columns for local newspapers after the Trump administration cracked down on the legal profession with executive orders targeting disfavored law firms and pressure on bar associations to change policies.

“So, I started writing—on my own time, completely outside of work,” Powers wrote. “If the law was becoming harder to trust, I figured it should at least be easier to understand.”

When he was warned about the law firm’s publishing policy, Powers wrote, “No explanation was given—only that something had been flagged, and I was expected to stop. I refused.”

Powers received the warning after writing another column on privacy issues. It concerned the dangers of unchecked federal surveillance and how companies like Palantir Technologies had built tools that could be used to profile and monitor Americans. Two weeks later, the New York Times reported that at least four federal agencies were using a Palantir product that could allow the Trump administration to merge their information, raising concerns that the government would compile a master list of personal information.

Davis Polk had represented the financial advisers to Palantir in an initial public offering.

Powers sent the column he intended to publish to three law firm leaders in an email reviewed by Law360. He wrote that if the law firm rejected his request to publish, he would like a written explanation of the reason.

“Instead of any answer,” he told the Parnas Perspective, “I got a knock on my door about four hours after the article was sent to them.” He was fired immediately and given only a few minutes to pack his personal belongings.

Powers views the Davis Polk publishing policy as ambiguous. Punishing speech without a clear explanation preserves power and silences lawyers who are “the first line of defense in a constitutional crisis,” he writes.

In his interview with the Parnas Perspective, Powers said the law firm’s publishing policy is “morally weak and poorly justified.” He believes enforcement of the policy “compromises the integrity of the institution and every attorney in it.”

“This isn’t just about one firm,” Powers wrote in his Substack article. “It’s about BigLaw: an industry increasingly beholden to power, where employers are quietly deciding what their lawyers are allowed to say—not just in the office, but in their lives beyond it. When sharing legal knowledge is treated as a problem and silence becomes the expectation, the danger isn’t just to lawyers who speak up. It’s to the rule of law itself.”

Powers, a Harvard law graduate, was a tax associate who was hired at Davis Polk in October 2023.

Davis Polk is declining to comment, a spokesperson told the ABA Journal.

Story updated on July 17 at 1 p.m. to include comment from Pollard. Story updated at 3:10 a.m. on July 18 to include comment from Verkerke.





Source link

William Neukom, former ABA president with influence ‘from boardrooms to ballparks to courtrooms,’ dies at 83

William Neukom, former ABA president with influence ‘from boardrooms to ballparks to courtrooms,’ dies at 83


Obituaries

William Neukom, former ABA president with influence ‘from boardrooms to ballparks to courtrooms,’ dies at 83

William H. “Bill” Neukom (ABA Photo)

Former ABA President William H. “Bill” Neukom, formerly the chief lawyer for Microsoft and the ex-CEO of the San Francisco Giants, has died at the age of 83.

Neukom, known for the bow ties he wore, served as president of the American Bar Association for the 2007 to 2008 term. During his presidency, Neukom established the ABA Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and organized an ABA members’ march on Washington, D.C., to support protesting Pakistani lawyers seeking to reinstate the rule of law.

Neukom was also a retired partner at K&L Gates and the co-founder and chief executive officer of the World Justice Project, an organization that promotes the rule of law. He and his children founded the Neukom Family Foundation, which supports nonprofits in the fields of education, the environment, human services, justice and public health.

“If you don’t have the rule of law, you can’t have human rights,” Neukom told the ABA Journal in 2020 when he won the ABA Medal, the association’s highest honor. “If you don’t have the rule of law, you can’t have open, participatory governments. If you don’t have the rule of law, you can’t have an inclusive economy. And if you don’t have the rule of law, you can’t have a peaceful existence.”

Former ABA President Bob Carlson called Neukom “a true lawyer leader…He dedicated his time, treasure and considerable talent to making the world a more just place.”

Current ABA President William R. Bay said that Neukom showed that the law is a calling rooted in service to others and a commitment to strengthen justice and freedom.

“From boardrooms to ballparks to courtrooms, Bill’s integrity and vision were deeply influential across the globe,” Bay said.

Neukom served the ABA in several capacities. He was chair of the ABA Young Lawyers Division, chair of the Fund for Justice and Education, and chair of an ABA task force to advance the rule of law. He was association secretary and a member of the Board of Governors and the House of Delegates. He is also a former member of the ABA Journal Board of Editors.

According to the ABA, Neukom started his career with a diverse practice that dealt with civil rights cases and representation of community organizations. He was dedicated to the importance of education and in addition to his work with Stanford, also was a trustee emeritus of University of Puget Sound and Dartmouth College, his undergraduate alma mater, where he served as chair of the board from 2004 to 2007

Neukom lived in Seattle with his wife Sally, according to K&L Gates. Together they had five children and 16 grandchildren.





Source link

In ‘pervasive’ trend, some law firms reward partners by creating new tiers or more shares

In ‘pervasive’ trend, some law firms reward partners by creating new tiers or more shares


Law Firms

In ‘pervasive’ trend, some law firms reward partners by creating new tiers or more shares

Some law firms are adding more certainty and equity for top rainmakers by creating new tiers or more shares to boost their base compensation, according to a report by Law.com.

The changes to compensation structure are “one of the most pervasive trends” right now, says law firm pay consultant Blane Prescott, who spoke with Law.com earlier this year.

One firm making a change is Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, the article says. Under its prior system, top performers received 500 shares in the firm and were eligible for a bonus in addition to their share compensation. Last year, the firm changed the system to award more than 500 shares to top partners while reducing eligible bonus amounts. That tied higher compensation to equity and made it more predictable.

Another example is Latham & Watkins, which uses a points-based compensation system. Previously partners were assigned 300 to 900 points. The law firm created two new tiers of points so that top performers get 1,300 or 1,700 points, leading to an increase in base pay, according to a prior Law.com report on the change.

Increasing base compensation for top performers can leave more money in the bonus pool for other partners, said law firm consultant Lisa Smith in an interview with Law.com. She warned of a downside, however.

As partners scramble to be placed in higher equity tiers, firms could fall victim to a kind of grade inflation, she said. Firms will need to be very clear about what kind of performance is needed to attain the top levels.

“Managing those kinds of expectations becomes important,” Smith told Law.com.





Source link

You can talk about your mental illnesses. It’s good for business

You can talk about your mental illnesses. It’s good for business



“You can’t talk about your mental illnesses. It’s bad for business.”

I’ve heard this countless times in various forms. And for a long time, I listened.

I bought into the idea that silence was safer, that vulnerability was a liability and honesty could cost me everything.

Eventually, I couldn’t be quiet any longer.

I bought into the idea that silence was safer, that vulnerability was a liability and honesty could cost me everything.

Eventually, I couldn’t be quiet any longer.

The legal profession clings to an outdated belief that vulnerability undermines professionalism.

It doesn’t. In fact, professionalism demands vulnerability.

Vulnerability—when handled with intention—is not weakness. It’s maturity. It’s leadership. It’s human. And in a fast-evolving profession and world, we can’t afford to cling to a culture that punishes the human experience.

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 1 in 5 U.S. adults experiences mental illness each year. For lawyers, the numbers are even worse: we’re 3.6 times more likely to suffer from depression than the general population. I know those numbers aren’t abstract. I’ve lived them. I know firsthand what it’s like to live with mental illness and I’m here to say: Silence is not strength. Silence is suffocation.

The legal industry has operated on a belief system that equates strength with stoicism, success with self-sacrifice and vulnerability with weakness. In that world, showing signs of mental illness isn’t just uncomfortable—it feels like career sabotage. Admitting you’re struggling becomes a risk to your reputation, your competence, and your future. It breeds a constant fear: If they knew the truth, would they still trust me?

I know that fear intimately.

Outwardly, I was composed and reliable. But behind the scenes, I was unraveling—hiding panic attacks behind closed doors, wiping tears away in bathroom stalls and spending precious energy managing the mask of “togetherness” to maintain the outdated image of how a lawyer should be.

The emotional labor of that concealment is exhausting. It’s a second job layered on top of an already demanding profession. It breeds burnout, isolation, diminished productivity and a creeping sense of inadequacy. And those are just the internal effects. When we normalize silence, we don’t just hurt ourselves—we enable a culture that harms everyone, including our clients.

Here’s the irony: A profession built on advocacy should not demand self-erasure.

But the profession is changing.

We use technology to work smarter, not longer. We leverage social media to build community and share truth. We’re beginning to prioritize people over pure productivity. New crops of lawyers are changing the tides. They value connection and imperfections as a way to stand out, not hide. The best lawyers I know today are not the ones who hide behind robotic professionalism. They’re the ones who lead with empathy, communicate with clarity, and show up with authenticity. They’re not afraid to say, “I’m human, and I’m still excellent at what I do.”

Mental health advocacy is not a deviation from professionalism: It reflects where the profession needs to go. And lawyers who embrace that role aren’t liabilities. They’re leaders. They are human.

For me, the turning point came slowly, then all at once.

I reached a place where the dissonance between how I felt and how I was “supposed” to act became unbearable. I started opening up—first to close colleagues, then more publicly. And the response? Not what I feared.

Clients didn’t run away, they ran towards me. They said, “It’s refreshing.”

Colleagues confided in me, “I have the same thoughts”, they said.

Instead of diminishing my credibility, sharing my truth deepened my relationships and enhanced my work. Sharing my vulnerabilities has given me more opportunities and a platform to speak. Transparency didn’t make me weaker. It made me real. It made me trustworthy.

People are desperate for authenticity in this profession. They want permission to be honest. Sometimes, they just need someone to go first.

So here it is: a call to lawyers, law firms and legal institutions. The legal profession stands at a defining crossroads and we as a collective group can decide how we want to proceed.

A 2022 survey conducted by the American Bar Association indicated that 81% of attorneys who reported a decline in their wellbeing were experiencing anxiety and 43% were dealing with depression. A 2023 study conducted by the University of Chicago found that almost half of the surveyed lawyers considered leaving the legal profession due to burnout or stress in the last three years.

We must do better.

And doing better means taking action:

Make space for honesty. Create environments where speaking up is safe—not brave.

Redefine professionalism. Let it include vulnerability, not deny it.

Break the silence. Normalize open conversations about mental health at every level.

Build protective policies. Formalize mental health protections into firm structures and industry standards.

Back words with infrastructure. Provide universal access to EAPs, flexible schedules, sabbaticals and mental health stipends.

Lead by example. Partners and leaders: Take off the mask. Set boundaries. Rest publicly. Model the balance you want others to believe in.

When lawyers thrive—mentally, emotionally, and physically—our entire profession becomes stronger:

• Clients get sharper advocacy, grounded in empathy.

• Firms increase retention and reduce the hidden costs of burnout.

We can’t keep pretending mental illness doesn’t exist. And we can’t keep punishing the people who dare to name it. The next generation of lawyers are watching, and they’re asking for better.

Be the reason they believe the law can be a place where people matter as much as the work.

You can talk about your mental illnesses. It’s good for business.


Allie Levene is the founder of Levene Legal, which specializes in providing affordable and accessible legal services to small businesses and nonprofits.


ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”






Source link