A total of 170 candidates are sitting the coming Bombay solicitors examinations next month, although after only 6 per cent passed the last round of the tests the tests will not be made easier.
Of the 170 candidates sitting the exam between 19 and 30 April, around 30 are taking the test for the first time.
However, candidates who have first attempted to take the test in 1992 are also sitting these April exams, for which each of the subjects will be held on alternate days.
In the most recent October 2009 exams only 11 out of 186 articled clerks passed.
"It is not Twenty20, it is a full cricket game of five days," said Bombay Incorporated Law Society secretary and examiner-in charge Dawood Mandviwala.
"I don’t want to make anything easier - I want to make it more competitive," added Mandviwala, explaining that while some lawyers have requested the solicitors exams to include vivas or multiple choice questions, he believes this would dilute the quality. "We want students to exercise their minds."
"During British time, if you wanted to practice in law first you had to pass an exam to qualify yourself to the standard," he explained. "Today what happens is very unfortunate – any person who attends any course of law can attend any court."
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
- A Solicitor
- What is this “qualifying” exam? What benefits does it offer / what doors does it open?
- Are advocates registered with the Maharashtra Bar prohibited from doing transactional / commercial advisory work which solicitors do?
- Students from the national law universities join Mumbai firms as associates and don’t take the exam. What’s the deal there? Is it for lawyers studying in Maharashtra only?
(Interesting thing on this note – apparently law students of Delhi have to do a mandatory 3 month internship in final year)
"In Mumbai (Bombay), the British solicitor-barrister system is in vogue. To become a solicitor, a candidate has to complete three years of clerkship with a senior solicitor and then pass the solicitor's examination conducted by the Bombay Incorporated Law Society. Clients in Mumbai (Bombay) prefer to deal with solicitors, and many firms do not allow non-solicitors to become partners."
So is that the only thing? Its "in vogue". Qualifying the exam opens door to an otherwise closed partnership / it leads to jobs for some people? National law people are making partners without qualifying the exam I believe.
However, I definitely value a solicitor who has passed this "unnecessarily tough exam" , but it is absolutely ridiculous to spend three years with less pay and hardship to pass an exam which the rest of India do not recognise. In future, any national law firm or foreign law firm will not even care to keep articled clerks and waste their time and resource on them.
i can't believe ppl still give this exam
But all you 'bacha or baba log' who join these firm know that they use the tag ABC, Advocate & 'Solicitors' firm. I am in the future most probably going to write to the society stating that these so called sweat shops which have youngsters who just put in hours by doing due diligence (nothing more than expensive stenos who are anal on commas etc) which in their words is a higher understanding of laws than 'interpretation of statues' and knowing DTAA, Income Tax Act, Companies Act, SEBI and FEMA laws, Property laws etc as their back of their palm.
A Solicitor - Papa
2. Everybody knows who are the lucky few who pass the solicitors exams.. the lucky few who have influential parents who have access to the question.. its an open secret.. I know thre r a few who actually study and pass the exam and i have tremendous respect 4 them.. though why any1 wud waste their time takin such an useless exam is a psychological debate for another time.
3. And all you ppl who have passed the solicitors exam or aspirants.. please tell me by ur exalted lawyerly skills.. where on earth is it written that u can only be called solicitors if you qualify an exam passed by a well registered society.. thak u keep claiming it as some sort of birthright.
4. As 4 ppl from the laws schools .. they r faring well becoz wat the law schools teach u are the skills of analysis, logic and reasoning and that is all that is required for the practice of law.. and not by learning law statutes by rote as is required to pass the solicitors exam.
5. its a misconception that solicitors dont do due diligences.. they do.. even after finishing their sols aftr slogging their ass of.. if they have to join a law firm they join as A0s and go through the same paces.. the amount u learn by working in a law firm as an associate 4 3 yrs is way mor than wat u learn as an article clerk (its a joke). And well the law schoolites have already become partners of most firms in record time.
6. And there is a reason why the big law firms like AMSS, Luthra, Khaitan, AZB, Trilegal etc atre doing so well as opposed to the Crawfor Baileys, Mullas and Wadia Gandhys.. becoz they embrace the law school phenomena opver the archaic concept of solicitor.. last hrd wadia gandhy is also lining up at the law schools and have been doing really well becoz of thm.
If you want to use the tag, give it the due credit. If not, then please refrain and restrain yourselves from using it. As simple as that!
Please counter the pen ultimate paragraph of this message. That’s it, in your words, stay relevant
A Solicitor
I am from NLU, Jodhpur and I have no qualms in admitting that I studied my fair share...But the sols is a tough exam...Kudos to the people who manage to pass them....
And yes if you want to be a solicitor.....a recognised solicitor...you jolly well better'd have a certificate to show so....otherwise you're like the rest of us
if you have n LL.B., you're a lawyer - if you're enrolled with the Bar Counsil, you're an Advocate
nothing more, nothing less
And yes, Solicitors from Bombay are recognised at various places...They can appear directly before the Supreme Court without giving the AOR exam (I believe this is correct based on what I've heard from SC as well as Bom HC advocates)...Also, Bombay solicitors can qualify as an England and Wales solicitors by merely giving a few exams...
So there is a lot of covetedness associated with the title....I'd be privileged to have it...
I suggest that if you've been given a raw deal by the Sols, or if you didnt pass, I would recommend you not make the accusations you are making...Do you have any basis on which you're saying papers are leaked, etc.
I doubt cause you don't even have the guts to identify yourself on this post....
Gone r those days when such exams used to be very important .
As for me having any basis of saying papers are leaked.. u will understand that i dont as in that case such practice would not have continued.. its an open secret which everybody knows.. ur statements and i quote "And yes, Solicitors from Bombay are recognised at various places...They can appear directly before the Supreme Court without giving the AOR exam (I believe this is correct based on what I've heard from SC as well as Bom HC advocates)...Also, Bombay solicitors can qualify as an England and Wales solicitors by merely giving a few exams... " are on the basis of wat u think at least.
Moreover try and understand .. the term solicitor is not defined by the Bar Council.. its just a registered society which claims that it has the god given right to impart such a title.. which some people fall for.. actually there is no legal basis for the same.
And finally as far as getting a raw deal is concerned please.. understand... that i have done my studies well and dont need to get affirmation as to my legal skills or get a psychological stamp to tell me that i am good at my job
Assumption would lead me to believe that you are in one of the larger corporate firms in Mumbai or Delhi which have such a tag. If you want to counter me, please confine yourself to the reason why firms use the tag and at the same time do not give it the due respect. The answer is 'money' and 'foreigners' would recongnize them better than a firm which consists of mere 'advocates'. This is not fair and certainly not equitable.
Either a firm gets rid of the tag 'solicitor' (in which case I have absolutely no problems) or retain but give 'solicitors' credit. As simple as that!!
All that i am trying to establish is that a "solicitor" is a form of a law practioner as opposed to one who advocates in court and a person does not have to pass an exam conducted by a registered society to be called as that.
You become a solicitor in the UK by passing the QLTT which is compulsory for all law practitioners. However in India, there is no such rule or law which prescribes that u need to pass the so called solicitors exam to become a law practioner or be called a solicitor. Such a practice is not prelevant anywhre except in Mumbai whre .. well .. it is considered as a matter of prestige.. which it is.. but it should be limited to that.. one cannot claim the right over the title of solicitor just because of passing such an exam. What if tomorrow a registered society comes up and starts conducting an exam, on passing of which they start conferring the title of "advocate" does that mean a person has to pass that to be called an advocate.
I have immense respect for people who pass the Bombay sols (its way tougher than the QLTT i have been told) .. but that should not in way indicate that one has personnal fiefdom over the title of "solicitors" in India (Tell me does the Solicitor General of India have to pass the solicitor exam in order to call himself that) nor should it indicate his superiority or competence of the individual concerned.
And i will appreciate reasonable counters and not populist rhetoric in response to my above contentions.. till then i rest my case.
The point here is that success is always based on merits and not on degrees....... e.g. a senior counsel currently was a clerk in bombay high court in whose chambers all the SOLICITORS stand in queue for his advice............. No intention of degrading solicitors here......but please dont make hue and cry about it..........
Do you all Solicitors think that if AMSS or AZB drop "solicitors" from their name, there practice will be affected ?........no ways............. its the quality and merits that works..............
Welcome to the generation of 'U', '...' and etc.
Having only recently passed out from a 5 year law-school, i cannot claim to know how or why the AMSSs and the AZBs assumed so much importance in the PE or M&A space, but the fact is that from what little i have seen, the larger firms today seem better equipped to handle this area of work. However, in areas like conveyancing and litigation, it appears that the said larger firms have little to no presence (and we can only assume that this part has been forgotten in this conversation since the billing and visibility in these spaces is comparatively lower).
However, to generalise this way or that in a LLB v. Solicitor debate would be entirely wrong. At the end of the day, when the stakes are high, i doubt any client will say that even though one lawyer seems the best at his work, i will settle for second best on the basis of a piece of paper of lack thereof!
@#12 Without commenting on any other of your points, your point no.6 is completely baseless!
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first