A Melbourne junior lawyer has been dismissed from her job after a TikTok video in which she criticised the demands of legal practice went viral, sparking a wider conversation about workplace culture, junior lawyers’ expectations and the limits of employees’ freedom to speak about their experiences online.

Natali Curukovski, who had been practising as a lawyer for only three weeks, posted the video describing her early experience in the profession as disappointing and emotionally draining. The video attracted almost 280,000 views and generated a mixture of support and criticism from viewers.

‘Soul-sucking’ legal career

In the video, Curukovski spoke candidly about the pressures she encountered after spending years studying and training to become a lawyer.

She complained about constant deadlines, pressure to work beyond ordinary hours and the expectation that young lawyers would continue attending professional development programmes and reading additional material outside their regular duties.

For her, the transition from legal education to professional practice had created a sense of déjà vu. After spending years studying law, she said she felt as though she had entered the profession only to find herself facing more deadlines, reading and professional obligations.

She also expressed frustration about the impact of her working routine on her personal life. Among other things, she said she could no longer keep her puppy at home because she was required to spend five days a week in the office, a situation that had left her emotional. Curukovski went further, questioning whether the profession provided young lawyers with a meaningful work-life balance.

She argued that legal practice could become less about helping people and more about generating profits for businesses, leaving employees to exchange their time and personal freedom for a salary.

The TikTok that cost her her job

The video remained online for about a week before Curukovski revealed that its popularity had reached her employer. According to her account, she was called into a meeting and asked to remove the video. She refused.

She subsequently received a termination letter ending her employment with immediate effect. Curukovski disagreed with the decision, maintaining that she had not identified the law firm, disclosed confidential client information or revealed details about particular cases. Instead, she said she had been discussing what she regarded as the broader experience of junior lawyers.

She also acknowledged that she had understood the potential consequences of posting the video publicly. She said she had been prepared to walk away from the position once the video began attracting significant attention and knew there was a possibility that it could eventually reach her employer.

Following her dismissal, she said she felt excited about the uncertainty ahead and described the experience as giving her a sense of freedom. Her immediate priority, she said, was to reunite with her puppy.

Law firm rejects portrayal of workplace

Curukovski’s former employer declined to comment specifically on her termination, citing the confidentiality of its human-resources processes.

However, the firm strongly rejected the suggestion that its workplace culture required junior lawyers to work excessive hours. The firm said it was proud of its workplace culture and mentoring programme, particularly its approach to supporting junior lawyers.

According to the firm’s statement, employees work on a 9am-to-5pm basis and receive a fully paid one-hour lunch break. It said employees who choose to work longer hours or take shorter lunch breaks do so voluntarily.

The firm further said it actively discourages employees from working beyond 5pm because it does not consider such practices healthy or necessary.

It said newly qualified lawyers are not permitted to take their laptops home or access work emails through their mobile phones, measures it described as intended to protect their wellbeing and keep work within working hours.

The firm also stated that lawyers with less than two years’ experience are not given billable-hour targets during their first three to six months. Once targets are introduced, they are reportedly set at between two and three billable hours a day, while senior partners have a maximum expectation of five billable hours daily.

Source: Daily Mail