Year long internships do not always help if you don't have a clear understanding of law. Guest lectures and moot courts are required along with internships. Year long internships are fine from 4th-5th yr onwards but before that its not required. Moreover, its important to be sincere and smart instead of being obedient.

Can we really understand our laws?

‘Smart’ ones know how to escape the law, ‘sincere’ ones know how to follow it and ‘obedient’ ones follow blindly.

If you don't really understand your laws then how will you explain it to our demanding client ? If your client is an experienced legal counsel, he will drill you.

A blind follower can never rise after a certain level, because he does not stand to any reasoning while following the law.

Hi sage,

I certainly don't agree with your theory. When you're actually practicing law, you can't have distinctions like those.

No law firm or no lawyer, however obedient at work, follows the law blindly. If that was the case, no one would hire us. When I said "obedient", I meant obedient in relation to directions given by your boss. Not when it comes to the law.

Again, sincerity is more to do with your work ethic and less to do with following the law. But to respond to your statement, the sincere ones would work hard enough to find a way for their client to follow the law and yet not take on too much of a liability.

Smart - well, our job, most often, is not to "escape" the law. Its more to structure a an option by manouvering around it, while being within its confines, to be able to do what you want.

Of course, you can learn the laws and their applications/ implications but I meant Understanding in the context of the big picture – ‘why these laws are there in the first place’. WHOM are they serving?

GLC Pass-out - You mean you’re obedient to your boss and not to the law?!!

Well at least you’re obedient to someone who can be understood, potentially.

Hi sage,

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. When I said "obedient", I didn't mean "blindly obedient to the law" - I meant listening to what your senior says and doing your job. I put more emphasis on that in my early years than trying to outshine every other lawyer in the firm by coming up with asinine inane legal theories which would result in some amazing breaking discovery in the field of law.

I don't quite get what you mean with respect to your question, either. Am I a law-abiding citizen - of course I am, just as much as the next guy. Is that what you were getting at?

Hi again A,
A clear understanding of the law does not necessarily come from being taught by "guest lecturers" (which, btw we have plenty, practically our whole faculty are "guests") and sitting in classrooms (which we also have and many people do attend), but rather comes from reading the law and applying it on the job. When you work you realize that everything you really understood about the law doesn't entirely work that way - you have to know how to apply it, whether its litigation or transactional work.

For example, the concept of stamp duty is something N-law students know so little about, which is fair because the only place where people really nit-pick about it is in Bombay. But ultimately when you come to work at the law firms here (in Bombay), stamp duty issues can make or break a transactional structure. And that is not something you can be taught in law school or by a "guest" lecture or by a moot court.

I did a lot of moots during my time in college. And yes, they give you a very good understanding of some aspects of the law, because of the amount we research and draft for them. But they're simply not enough - working (for a time longer than a month) is much more important.

Sincerity is what I meant to connote when I said "obedient". Maybe that didn't come across - but its also what I think "uncle" was trying to say. Like I've said in a comment below, I find GLC students far more eager and ready to do any and every kind of work than N-law students, partly also because they know they can work in a place for much longer and so they need to make a good enough impression to be retained back for more than a month. I find a lot of a N-law students merely twidling their thumbs because they know they're out in a month with a certificate and a name for their CV. They know that their CGPA is what counts during placements and the top firms will hire people based, maybe not solely, but primarily, on that. And yes, being smart is very important as well. But being sincere and obedient is most important in your early years. Your boss will appreciate obedience and sincerity and a willingness to do any kind of work he/she throws at you much more than sheer brilliance - which I honestly don't think an N-law student (who read and understands the law well and who moots) possesses more than a GLC student (provided the GLC student has mooted and/or worked substantially).

I appreciate your comment on year long internships not being very helpful in the first couple of years of law school - I agree with you, mooting takes precedence during those years. But those who do work in those years as well, definitely have an edge over the ones who don't. To put it quite simply - they've just been doing it longer so they'll have a better grasp on how the law works when you're actually practicing it better than the ones who don't work.

On a concluding note, I understand my earlier comment came off very harsh on N-law students and I apologize for the same.

Dear GLC passout,
How could you say N-Law students don't have understanding or little understanding of stamp duty as compared to GLC ? (btw, I am not from NLU but from a non-National law school). I can also say that I met a GLC student who was drafting a writ petition of mandamus and didn't even know that public authorities get affected by Mandamus. The understanding of writs will come only when you listen to lectures first then research on it in the library for hours. Because, in law firms, the seniors don't have enough time to explain you "why mandamus is being filed", instead they will show you how to draft a petition for mandamus. But, if you attend Moots then eminent judges or lawyers will always try to question you the "why" part and box terrific questions at you. Again, coming back to stamp duty, yes its a technical issue which may affect transactions. But, please don't say that GLC-ites understand it better than NLUs. Lastly, please tell me why do big law firms prefer NLUs first then GLC ? Moreover, why an LLM in Ivy league or Oxbride given so much weight-age by international law firms ? You consider it to be useless because you work in a bania law firm, which don't understand the importance of an LLM from abroad and even doesn't know that international client's needs can be better understood if you have an LLM degree from abroad.

Hi A,

Firstly, as to "big-law firms" preferring NLUs over GLC. Hmmm, its something Ive been struggling to understand myself. I don't quite agree that all "big-law firms" (whatever they might be) prefer to take NLU students over GLC students. When any law firm is recruiting there are several factors involved. A lot of GLC students don't opt to work with "big-law firms" (I'm presuming you're referring to Amarchand and AZB?). A lot of GLC students are already placed with law firms in their 3rd year by virtue of signing their articles, which means they work for 3 years and then get retained by the same firm when they graduate. Plus, a lot of them take up litigation with counsels and solicitor firms.

Secondly, I don't mean to say that every NLU student has no understanding of stamp duty and that every GLC student has a better understanding of the same. I merely meant to say that stamp duty, as a concept and how it affects transactions so deeply, is something you will understand only when you work and never in law school - no matter what law school you're in. And considering many GLC students work a lot more than NLU students, its a fair proposition.

Thirdly, I can completely believe that a GLC student had no clue about writs. There's no excuse for that. But I disagree that to understand writs you need to "listen to lectures first". If you merely pick up a commentary on the constitution, before you draft a writ, you'll understand that its to be directed against "public authorities". Yes, moots help there too because to establish jurisdiction you will have to get into that territory. You dont need your seniors to sit and explain it to you - it merely requires you to be a bit proactive and not be stupid - after all, its not rocket science.

And finally, please don't presume what kind of law firm I work in and whether I service international clients or not. I've been working for quite sometime (after and during my college years) and I assure you, international clients don't care if you have an LLM, as long as you understand INDIAN LAW, practically and in theory. An international client interested in doing business in India will never flock to a law firm because they have LLM qualified lawyers - they'll come to you because of your reputation in dealing with Indian law. And please disregard this misconception you have about how an LLM helps you understand the needs of an international client - it does nothing for you, but allows you to practice in a foreign law firm, which, if your priority is to practice in India, is quite frankly a waste. You clearly don't have a lot of clarity on how the practice of law actually works and I suggest you work a bit more before you take up a permanent placement.

If you are working on a transnational contract or if you ever have to visit any foreign jurisdiction on an arbitration matter to represent your client then an LLM from abroad definitely gives you an edge. Recently, my senior visited ICC Paris on an arbitration to represent a company based in Mauritius (although it was owned by Indians). His LLM from NUS on Commercial Arbitration helped him a lot. Moreover, there exists a perception among legal counsels of foreign companies that an LLM from abroad will be able to understand his needs more than an Indian qualified lawyer. Please remember that Indian corporate law is still in its nascent stage as compared to the West and hence, an LLM gives you the edge (surely in certain areas, if not in general).

"Indian corporate law is still in its nascent stage as compare to the West" ? How is that even relevant to our discussion. If you want to be practice law in India, Indian law is what you need to understand. Generally, Indian lawyers try not to advise on any aspects of foreign law! So I really don't quite see your point.

An LLM gives you an edge? Okay, in your example, fair enough. Good for your senior. He did an LLM in commercial arbitration and he just happened to represent a client at the ICC? I'm presuming he's working in a firm that does a lot of international commercial arbitration, so in that sense, of course his LLM counts, I suppose. What I was trying to get at is that if you go to Harvard and do a General Corporate LLM, I really don't see what value that'll add (compared with how costly it is) if you want to come back and practice in India, where, correct me if I'm wrong, we advise only on Indian law and nothing else. Period. How does it give you an edge then!? How does an LLM help you understand the needs of a foreign client? What if your LLM is from a European university? How does it help you service an Australian client better? You'll be able to assist and advise your client the best if you understand Indian law - which I don't think law school (ANY LAW SCHOOL) really helps you understand - its a combination of your independent reading of the law and work experience that will really help you get the law - theoretically and practically.

I hope my point is clearer now.

Do you know how many noble laureate Harvard produced ? More than 30. How many did GLC produce, for that matter Bombay University ? Dude, let me tell you that Harvard LLM is justified to be "costly". Moreover, if you do a comparative analysis of US securities law and Indian securities law, you will see the difference. Infact, 2 US clients specifically wanted to have an idea of Indian securities law as compared to US laws (relating to investor protection) before investing the Indian capital market. So, you can only explain him the comparisons if you have clear understanding of US laws and for which an LLM gives you the advantage. All foreign universities teach their students on a global perspective where guest lectures from manifold global institutions deliver their lecture.

And, please, do enlighten me and everyone else over here, where you get that the perception among "legal counsels of foreign companies" is that an Indian lawyer with a foreign university LLM will understand his company's needs better?! I'm sorry, but that's absolute hogwash. My firm advises several foreign clients and they rely on us to advise them on commercial and legal matters concerning the Indian market - why should they care if I have an LLM from Yale, if they're a company based in Spain or France or even England looking to invest in an Indian company, as long I understand Indian corporate law? How will that help me? Will they be more comfortable with me because I might have a hint of an accent?! I just don't see any logical sense to your argument.

Ha ha ha ha,

yes I have worked with a number of international clients, and none of them asked me why I did not have an LLM...

You have no clue why sitting in the class makes sense and why interning at the firms makes sense, do you? Is there any developed jurisdiction where year-long internships and lack of classes are viewed as the right way to learn the law!!! And, Ivy league degrees are possibly high priced, but useless? Dude ... wake up ...
And what's the point of saying Ivy Leagues (it refers to certain and NOT all US lawschools) are useless and N-law students are crap!

Hi W+F,

Yes, you understood absolutely fine - I truly place more value on work experience than on attending lectures. Understanding the law is one thing - I find so many N-law students who simply don't know how to apply it. Because of sitting for "excellent" lectures, so many N-law students get caught up in the theoretical aspect of the law, but don't really understand how to use their "knowledge" of the law in the practical sense. Every second of research is spent on trying to develop (albeit miserably failing most of the times) some "genius" concept of legal theory, rather than putting in the time to get some work done.

Again, I didn't mean to generalize - if thats how it came out, I apologize. The partner I work for is an NLS Grad and the sharpest, most brilliant lawyer I've ever worked with.

What I was trying to hit back at in my earlier comment was that its more important to be obedient in the early years of your career and learn on the job, rather than possess some great legal theoretical knowledge. To learn the law you need to read - not necessarily have your hand held and be taught. But to understand the law you need to be put in a situation to apply it. And that is something you only learn when you're working at a stretch for more than a month.

I've seen certain N-law students comment on how some work is beneath them, whereas the GLC students take everything that comes their way, because we understand that everything you do (even if its just making files sometimes or researching on something trivial) teaches you something new. To be a great lawyer you need to be able to apply the law - to do that you need to learn the law from a practical perspective, which I just don't see in the majority of the N-law students, who many a time possess great academic knowledge, but quite a terrible understanding of how, say, transactional advice is given, corporate structures are formulated or for that matter, in litigation, even how our courts really function (which contrary to popular N-law belief is nothing like a moot court!).

And yes, I find LLMs useless. Completely useless. And I didn't mean to say N-law students are crap - I simply meant to say that they don't understand the practical side of the law as much as a GLC articled clerk would.

And yes, thank you. I'm awake. Good morning.

Yea uncle is quite funny! I wonder who he would resemble amongst the big lawyers…

First off, I am a N-Law grad, so I have a vested interest in this discussion. Secondly, as someone who has been involved in hiring lawyers, I think I can speak with some authority on why recruiters prefer N-law grads to GLC or other similar college grads.

Year long internships by themselves prove nothing. The quality of the firm you've worked with, the feedback from your supervisors and the type of work you've done is far more important than how long you have actually interned.

When hiring a fresh grad, the decision ALWAYS comes down to whether the grad has some of the basic skills required to practice corporate law. Your understanding of jurisprudence (for N-law grads) and of stamp duty rates (for GLC grads, apparently) mean nothing whatsoever. People can be easily taught stamp duty rates. But it is far more time consuming and expensive for organisations to hire people who cannot read the law quickly, interpret and analyse the law effectively and write clearly. N-law grads all have some modicum of these three essential skills. GLC and similar law school grads simply don't.

Invariably, this lack comes not from lack of intelligence or understanding, but from a lack of training. N-law grads have to prepare a ton of projects to graduate. Each project, no matter how shoddy (unless totally cogged), requires some amount of reading, interpretation and writing ability. Repetition ad nauseum sharpens these skills, as compared to GLC or CLC grads. Hence recruiters love picking up fresh grads from NLS, who can be groomed far more quickly than an equivalent grads from other law schools.

For more experienced hires too, the N-law tag carries a lot of weightage, since it assures the recruiter of these basic skills. And to let you in on a small secret, it shows some basic inter-personal skills, since N-law grads have to fend for themselves in hostels, and don't (usually) have the luxury of living and working from home. Not to say that other law school students don't have these skills or don't stay in hostels, but a smart recruiter can gauge this very quickly.

So the next time you feel unable to comprehend why firms (and companies) prefer to hire (and often promote) N-law grads, remember that with internships, its not how long it is that matters, but how well you use it.

Hi In House Counsel,

Yes, you do have a vested interest - as do I, so I'm not going to put much emphasis on that.

Firstly, by stamp duty, I did not mean "stamp duty rates". I meant the concept of it, and how transactions are structured in order to avail the benefits of the law dealing with stamp duty. It was an example I wished to give about the practical side of the law, where you learn on the job by application and not in college. GLC students are not taught the Bombay Stamp Act in too much detail either. I just wished to point out that its something we learn when we're interning.

Secondly, I respectfully disagree with you when you speak of the fact that year long internships prove nothing. You stay long enough in any place - you'll learn much more than you would at any place where you've stayed a month. Its simple - a year at say, Kanga & Co., will teach you a lot more than a month at Amarchand. Sorry to say, a month long internship really doesn't serve any purpose. On the corporate side of the law, save for random, unrelated research work, you don't learn anything about how transactions actually happen. And when it comes to litigation, a month will barely expose you to anything.

Thirdly, I partially agree with you when you say "the quality of the firm you've worked with, the feedback from your supervisors and the type of work you've done" matters more than how long you've worked for. Maybe you haven't noticed, but we do intern and sign our articles at pretty good firms in Bombay - we even work with firms in Delhi, and with corporate houses and with counsels (most of the times, for periods of two months or more). How do you feel about AZB & Partners? Lots of GLC students do long-term internships there. And Khaitan & Co.? They have some articled clerks and some long term GLC interns. How about Nishith Desai & Associates? And Trilegal? Bharucha & Partners? Any of these places satisfy your criteria for a "good quality firm"?

Fourthly, your "three essential skills" - its mindlessly ignorant of you to claim that only N-law grads have a "modicum" of these skills, while GLC and similar law school grads don't. You live in a bubble, my friend. A big, huge N-school bubble. That tends to happen when you're from an N-school.

Fifthly, thank you for sharing a "small secret" with us. We, lesser mortals that we are, would never have figured that out. But I would like to let YOU in on a little secret - the average N-law student is not a demi-god. What kind of logic is it that N-law grads build their inter-personal skills by living in a hostel because they don't have the luxury of living and staying at home, but GLC students who, apparently, live in the lap of luxury and opulence, don't have them? Seriously, where do you work and recruit for again?

So the next time, you stand up on your N-school pedestal and look down upon the lower class law grads, maybe you should try and think about one thing - being from an N-school does not automatically make you a legal luminary; when you get out of law school, nobody has any clue of what goes on in the real world.

Wow! Dude, the chip on your shoulder is showing! You clearly have read what I have written, since you've repeated it in your post, but I'm certain you've not understood most of it. And unlike you, I will refrain from going into personal digs on why there is such lack of understanding.

Instead of getting touchy about why N-law grads actually do better at their jobs (in terms of promotions and recruitment, and often, in terms of work product), you seriously need to drop your persecution complex. NO ONE IS OUT TO GET YOU OR GLC! Its just that most employers hold views similar to mine and have had this view for many years now. Get over it.

So the next time you want to respond to a post disagreeing with you, at least read it AND understand it in full before shooting off an angry repartee.

I stand in similar shoes as you. In my view, you have to play the wait and watch game. Do not rush it with this foreign client of yours and neither should you rely on this client alone for your practice. Keep engaging the foreign client in question but look actively for others, especially Indian clients to see you through your early years. Best wishes!

How do u win work from Indian clients?

Well, I do the following: (not exhaustive and necessarily in that order)

- try to remain known as much possible in legal circuit as well as relevant media;

- starting with executing work at discounted fees if situation demands(giving an opportunity to client to getting a feel about me);

- talking to prospective clients regularly even if initially it doesn't convert into business;

- executing ALL that comes my way very diligently; and

- having informal referral relationship with accounting firms.

Guess, if its a first generation practice, parents and close relatives are from non-legal background and not influential personalities; then around 5 years would be a reasonable period to getting the practice established?? Having said that, it is quite subjective and might vary.

Quoting anon:

I have my own practice after having worked for leading law firms; building totally new clientele altogether.

The foreign client in question, since its beginning in India early 2011, is being solely advised by me. Client is satisfied too. The retainership arrangement is being discussed for about a year now. Client has agreed to it but not implemented as yet. Clients business in India is not full-stream. Client is avoiding company law compliances as well and choses to pay penalty for non-compliance later. Parent company is doing very well. Its family-owned business totally.

I'm very keen to commence this retainership as it would give some stability to my set-up.

Any thoughts how this retainership can be implemented immediately?

Any thoughts ??