Hi, OP here. Thank you so much for the detailed reply and warm words of affection. This means alot to me.

I am also suffering from lonliness. I fear this coupled with constant anxiety will lead to weak heart condition, migraine, etc.

My situation makes me sad as I one of those who constantly spend time in fitness (gym, running and general constant masti mood). However, this is my battle to fight.

Story of all genz who don't study in college, laugh when faculty expects seriousness and then feel it difficult to actually work and not argue using AI hallucinations. Review how you are working. If u didn't put in actual hours in college, do it now. Learn to read write and review.

Hi,

The issues you have pointed out are common to many advocates when they are starting out. Attention to detail is a skill you acquire over a period of time, and it can be developed to overcome these issues. May I recommend the following:

First, please find time to read. The more you read, the more accustomed you become to spotting flaws and looking for details. Reading agreements and legal pleadings does not count in this category. While it is important to do as much work as you can in your area of interest, and your reading speed will improve over time, reading other material develops this skill much faster.

Second, may I also suggest that you read Tony Buzan's books on speed reading and mind mapping. If you find it hard to concentrate or have difficulty reading, you can also use AI tools these days to turn books and other content into podcasts.

Generally, don't get disheartened, because perseverance is an important skill. Personally speaking, I understand where you are coming from, because I came from a similar background. I an a partner at a tier 1 firm now, but I also started out facing these issues. I come from humble beginnings too, and these things simply happen. What helps in the long run is reading more, persevering, and not giving up. One principle I have always followed is that no matter what, no one can outwork you, and I have built that into my routine. Please take heart and carry on.

Spot on. One of the main reasons why the NLU demographic has shifted from elites to the masses is because of reservation. With that, comes a shift in aesthetics and cultural preferences as well.

One point though. You say that this has created an “artificial majority” and shifted trends “mostly for the worse.” But the masses wouldn’t see it that way. They would argue that it is a true majority reflecting the realities of India. More people in India speak in Hindi than English, consume Bhojpuri pop songs than The Strokes and Radiohead, or even Beyoncé and Billie Eilish.

So the masses would say that the older NLU demographic was an “artificial majority”.

Note: THIS IS A THROWAWAY ID I have been in this college for a long time, I will not be revealing my identity or year because I DONT WANT TO GET DOXXED I saw yesterdays post and it was so funny because toady literally ANURAG FUCKING THAKUR, BJP's MP was invited into our college as chief-guest, it is an EXTREME UNDERSTATEMENT to say that ILC is "right leaning" IT IS NOT RIGHT LEANING, IT IS EXPLICITLY RIGHTIST We have had leftist profs, and we have liberals profs and openly queer and trans students, left wing students obviously - but DO NOT BE FOOLED, it is still A VERY RIGHT WING PLACE TO BE. First of all if you are not from Delhi or NCR, DONT COME HERE - Currently no hostels exist for us, they ae being in the west campus and will be active only after five to six years. Secondly, the entire politics is controlled (in this Uni) by Jats and Gujars, (I had a Jat boyfriend once I am not casteist I am just plainly stating the truth if you know DU politics you know the reality), we recently got our first pan-university student leader elected in the Internal Complaints Committee - guess what he is a Gujar, and also from ABVP. Our college doesn't vote for DUSU elections, but the internal politics is very clearly demarcated between ABVP and NSUI. WHO MAY I STATE ARE LITERALLY THE SAME THEY HAVE THE SAME PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT BANNERS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS EXIST. The faculty is - alright, like we have some good faculty, some boring faculty, mostly fine faculty - its ok..ayish. I would say that the academics is bearable, plus being in DU has atleast this advantage (This is until they shift us in West Campus where we share the space with Savarkar College on land built by destroying slums). On the students - as the older post pointed out: A large number is an old boys club: Children of Burearcrats, established lawyers, politicians, judges, army colonels. you get the point but atleast so far we havent had any major fights or issues BUT THATS ONLY BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE A HOSTEL YET SO EVERYONE GOES TO THEIR HOMES AFTER CLASSES. Most of them are from NCR only and their family is alumini of the Faculy of Law only (multigenerational). This college will be a "success" only on the facts that the students already have a huge advantage over others. I wouldn't be surprised if you see a number of them going into the judiciary, bureaucracy or politics THEY ALREADY HAVE FAMILY IN THESE FIELDS. Also can we SPEAK ON HOW STUPID THE STUDENT POPULATION IS, like EQ-Wise, not like academically, First of all they are EXTREMELY FUCKING PRIVILIGED so they dont know how life is outside their little bubble. Secondly they glamorize the worst male examples in their respective batches as being uniquely intelligent or "cool" First year students (latest although its too early to judge them) cant stop fighting each other EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE BEEN HERE FOR ONLY ONE AND A HALF MONTH (yk which "Baap Judge Hain Mera" crowd I am talking about) Second year students cant stop glamorizing LITERAL RAPISTS (yk who I am talking about) Third year students fetishing those who come in the literal end of every day smelling like cigarettes to disrespect profs and those who bootlick every single BJP ABVP goon in Delhi only for them to abandon him when college takes action against them (yk who I am talking) Fourth year students have a huge drinking proble (HONESTLY I CANT BLAME THEM) and wannabe chattra netas who have never done anything good for the students. SO IF KNOWING ALL OF THIS YOU WANT TO COME TO LITERAL SLYTHERIN OF INDIAN LAW SCHOOLS THEN BE MY GUEST. Also ffs DO NOT TURN THIS POST INTO A PAN-COLLEGE CONTROVERSY the profs are already on our asses because of all the RTIs and confidential E-Mails, I CANT STAND ANOTHER DAY OF NIDHI LECTURING US ABOUT RESPECTING YOUR ELDERS.

I joined a Tier-1 law firm right after law school and worked there for about a year before I was asked to leave. During my time at the firm, my seniors expected me to be available late at night, follow instructions without question, and produce work with no errors. I worked hard, stayed available, and always tried to follow directions but I know that I made mistakes in my work product. I was not given standard templates and had to choose them myself, and even when I checked with my seniors before using a template, I was later blamed for choosing the wrong one. My seniors never included me in any discussion, still asked me to work on deliverables at extremely strict deadlines.

I felt that whenever I did good work, I and my work were rarely appreciated, but whenever I made a mistake, I was heavily criticised. There were times when I cried every day because of the stress. When I was removed from the firm, I was not given a clear reason. The HR simply told me that the team is highly competitive and I had not been as competent as my peers. I am struggling to deal with it and finding another opportunity is difficult, if not impossible. It's scary because I have a loan to pay off and I do not have a source of income anymore.

The student can clearly be heard saying “Jaldi kar buddhe.”

Granted that the prof was wrong to grab the student by the collar, but the increasing chhaprification of student behaviour in India is becoming intolerable. Wokeness does not mean behaving like a roadside goon.

https://youtube.com/shorts/CpHOCbiuQOY?ra=m

That’s a very poor theory of mind for why people commit suicides. Failing one mid semester exam in law school is not determinative of who commits suicide.

The instructors job is to mark fairly- you either know the answer to the question posed or you don’t. It’s not to decide who is a suicide risk and give them free marks.

Any normally developed young person should be able to fail a couple of exams once in a while and take it in their stride and go on to improve themselves. That’s the point of examinations. That’s the whole point of academic life. If you’re not able to - you need better intervention than someone giving you marks you didn’t earn.

Look up Jason arday, look at what social promotion does. It only sets people up for greater and greater failures. People who lie to you aren’t being kind to you. An instructor who lies to you about your answer script or your readiness for job market isn’t being kind to you- they’re setting you up for greater failure because they value them feeling good in short term over you actually succeeeing long term.

I was an associate with a law firm which collaborated with Druva Advisors in 2015. Our law firm was founded primarily by ex ELP partner/ associate partners. Dhruva wanted to build an indirect tax practice which was our firm's primary practice (apart from that we had a small litigation and commercial practice which Dhruva was not interested in). The law firm was rebranded with Dhruva prefix. I do not know how the equity worked. Dhruva continued to run and operate from a different office and our firm operated under a new brand name from a different office. We were told that the new law firm was a JV between Dhruva and our law firm. Our base pay was increased by 50 percent thanks to Mr. DK. During that time except for ELP all indirect tax firms used to pay very very less. I remember LKS used to pay 4-6 lakhs per annum. TLC legal etc also used to pay very less. Mr. DK had recently come out of one of the big fours and this was a very big news because he was a very well recognised professional. Ultimately the collaboration did not work out because Dhruva wanted to absorb the IDT partners leaving the lit/ commercial work practice separately. At that time, there was a news of CAM and Dhruva also engaging in talks to collaborate. Our MP (ex ELP) wanted to use Dhruva's name, but, at the same time, wanted to continue to work from a separate office, continue his friend/ partner's practice of litigation/ commercial transactions, and be independent, which, of course was too much to ask for given it was Mr. DK who they were trying to piggyback on. From an associate's perspective (who had only to gain from the recognition and corporate structure which Mr DK had brought in) it was a complete win for us whether it was pay or corporate structure or recognition. Again, from an associate's perspective, having a boss over our original MP/ boss also gave us a feeling of security because before that our MP's decision or word were final. These decisions were most of the times illogical. Mr. DK was more into management, relationships with media/ clients/ government, and growth unlike our MP who was solely into execution. That difference gave Mr. DK an edge over our MP. Unfortunately, our MP could not continue and our Dhruva firm broke away from the collaboration. 1 out of 3 original partners (who was also ex ELP and was a brilliant guy who was a self made man unlike the other two who came from family with client connections) went to Dhruva. Our litigation partner left a few years later and MP moved to Khaitan and Co leaving most of the team on their own.

Slightly dated input as in my time, we had some 120 folks. Out of the 120, an average of 20-25 people would typically get PPOs from their internships, primarily from T1s. Another ~20-25 would get placed in T1s/higher paying T2s on Day Z. Then, Day 1 and onwards, people would get placed in T2s, boutique firms, in-house positions etc till there were vacancies that came across Nalsar's way - this would go on throughout the final year and typically sought to cover everyone who'd applied for the placement drive, and typically place 30-40 people. The rest, who either did not apply or did not get a job, would typically either go for litigation or LLMs - or, as a last resort, be added to the next year's roster of Day 1 placement drive.

So, in summary, unless you're academically ranked in the bottom 15-20%, you'd get at least 3-4 interviews from somewhere.

That said, I can't imagine that the number of people being placed in these drives has gone up significantly even if the batch size has.

Hi all! I'm a second year law student and I feel really far behind as almost everyone around me has somehow figured out their niche. I loved visiting the High Court, however I feel like the patience required for litigation isn't in me. Also getting into academia (either here in India or abroad) is an ambitious goal which I would like to fulfill quite later on in my life as it burns quite a hole in the wallet.

I was wondering whether there are some primers on corporate law? I am quite inclined to TMT and Dispute Resolution (albeit having zero practical knowledge of them both), if any one of you could provide me with information regarding the same. Like, what this career entails. what should my CV look like, the avg fresher salary etc etc.

Thanks a lot guys! Any help at all would be deeply appreciated.

Hey guys, 4th year law student here. The plan has always been litigation, all my internships have been litigation-based: trial court, HC, SC, state side, defence side, commercial litigation, WCC, judicial, I've done majority of it (no tribunals or arbitration, though). Skill wise, I'm good with research, decent drafting, filing, courtroom skills, or anything clerical, basically the majority of what I could learn at these internships. However, I don't claim to know everything. What skills should I mostly focus on right now to land a job, also how to, (the places I interned at can offer roles, but I come from a middle class family and litigation pay isn't enough)? And if I try to switch to disputes at a T1 firm now with zero internships there, will I be able to land a job or sustain myself? Being an unemployed graduate isn't an option for me, so I need a realistic plan. I have an above average class rank, a mid low tier NLU tag, and longer work hours (12 to 15) aren't an issue for me. any kind guidance skill wise, cv wise, basically any guidance would be appreciated.

Just a fun fact - whatever work product you would've delivered in your "10 years in the profession", would be significantly less than the work product generated by Chatgpt in 88 hours to solve a math millenium problem (and just FYI math PHDs usually end up dedicating their entire careers to solve one such math millenium problems).

I get how people on this thread are trying to explain how humans are more capable than AI. I would have been in the same boat if I was new in profession because I would like to bet on my knowledge and capability which in turn will develop a skill which shall be distinct than others.

However, AI has become lot better in the last couple of years and if right context is given, it can give great output in a very short span of time, which humans can't compete. I totally agree that humans can't be replaced completely, but the amount of work a law firm or an in-house department that can do will be more if they use AI. AI is here to stay since its helpful. I am not looking to replace my future hiring plans with AI subscriptions, but I would certainly expect a better work product from team since they have tools at their disposal.

I would suggest young lawyers to spend more time understanding the law and client requirement (by attending more negotiation calls etc.) as that will help you develop your thought process which coupled with technology will make you a better lawyer. Along with that start working on your prompts so that you can give better context to AI. You should be better equipped rather than fight it. I also understand that young lawyers don't have luxury of time due to immense work load, but threat is knocking on our doors, so for the sake of self-preservation see what one can do.

PS: I have spent 10 years in the profession.

It's called the churn and burn model. I have been in two firms like that, one was consciously like that and the other unintentionally.

The management, + few trusted home grown stockholm syndrome seniors stick on. Rest everyone else at the bottom changes every year or two years.

Where it was unintentional was because the owner was lazy, he didn't want to be a mentor, nor did he want to practice law. He just wanted passive income. So no guidance, mentorship, I quit.

Where it was intentional, as someone pointed out, has to basically do with allergy of paying fair wages, for the value extracted from the associates, from their exploitation. Here there will be little to know WLB, they will give you WLB occassionally. But the payment will be bad compared to what they extract.

So if a client pays the firm 100 rupees, you will be paid like a rupee, for the whole year. And remember the firm is generating 100 rupees from you, from 15 other clients. But you will only get 1 rupee for the whole year. Not 15 rupees, 1 rupee. That's the value that is extracted.

Compared to a larger firm which may pay you a better fraction.

I would appreciate some advice and perspective on what happened with me and how to protect myself in case fate decides to play this cruel trick with me again. Sorry for the long post!

In my previous job at a law firm, I (M) worked with an Associate (M) who was two years senior to me and a Partner (F). For some reason, the Associate seemed to have an issue with me and would repeatedly give negative feedback about me to the Partner. The associate had joined just a month prior to me.

I found out about the feedback when the Partner and HR told me I was being given one last opportunity to improve my performance. When I asked for specifics, they said I needed to “take ownership of my work,” “be more proactive,” and that I was “rude.”

One example they cited was that I had supposedly refused to review work assigned by the Associate. This never happened, and I had WhatsApp messages to prove that I did accept the work and sent the work to him too, but the Partner and HR refused to look at the messages and also did not give me any other examples of my supposed incompetence. When I asked for an example of when I had been rude, they said “rude not in terms of personality but for other things”.

The Associate was also allowed certain freedoms, like leaving early from the office, that I wasn’t given.

He was frequently rude to me, but as a fresher, I was afraid to speak up and risk losing my job. On one occasion, he threatened to complain against me for submitting my work late by 2 hours, as he had asked for it in 30 minutes when I had actually sent it after 33 minutes. I raised this with HR and the Partner and pointed out that Outlook showed the exact timings of when I had actually sent the mail. They said it wasn’t a big issue and that they “believed him and believed me too.” The following week, I was asked to resign due to poor performance. I didn’t argue because the stress had become too much.

Initially, the Partner had seemed fair to both of us, but over time I felt her becoming colder towards me and increasingly friendly with him. I spent a lot of time wondering whether I really was as incompetent as they made me feel. Later, a callback intern complained to me about his behaviour, which made me realise that he was behaving with the intern in the same manner as he had been with me.

I’ve now found a much better job and am genuinely happy with where I am, but I still feel hurt and wronged by what happened. How do I make sense of what happened with me and let go of the past and make sure I don’t find myself in a similar situation again? I couldn't have complained against him because the handful of times I tried I was simply dismissed by the Partner.

Assume the firms themselves are often helpless in identifying who is actually doing this kind of freelancing work. I know of a Tier 1 counsel who, while still working there, set up a small boutique practice back in 2022 and has continued operating under that banner. I have been across the table from him on multiple deals.

If you ask him, he would probably say he is doing it because he is ambitious and trying to build something of his own. From a personal standpoint, I can understand that. At the same time, it does raise an interesting question from the firm’s perspective - particularly when Tier 1 firms often have minimum billing thresholds, which can make it difficult for younger lawyers who are not yet partners to independently originate and service smaller mandates within the firm. So, while the arrangement is certainly debatable from a conflict and employment-policy perspective, one can also understand why some lawyers end up taking this route.

From the perspective of Contract law and Tax law, it is not unlawful. However, the contract should not have any restrictive covenant in this regard and the income should be disclosed while filing tax returns. As retainers or otherwise, different form 16s can be filed against one individual taxpayer.

Let’s not rewrite history or throw stones from glass houses. Trying to paint AG as the radical here is peak intellectual dishonesty, especially when it ignores institutional reality. AG’s past academic engagement with Human Rights Law is a matter of public record: evolved, nuanced, and critical across the board. Meanwhile, let's talk about actual systemic alignment: ED is calling the shots on radical stances, from geopolitics to institutional policies, while holding the ultimate leverage over promotions and appraisals. AG simply did what any faculty member under structural hierarchy must do when assigned an official brief - which, by the way, was strictly about PM/CM disqualifications, not Kashmir. If we are going to audit ideological loyalty and institutional accountability, look at who holds the administrative gavel and steering wheel, not the person executing mandated committee duties under pressure. AG whose recording was leaked in 2021 was teaching Kashmir in context of Human Rights Law and Theory course (ragebaited classroom discussion) and his views on the subject-matter have shifted ever since over the past five years (AG is critical of all political decisions and all political parties, but is arguably the top-5 best Constitutional Law teachers at JGLS along with AS, NS, SM and AS). ED is a bigger leftie than AG can ever be conceived to be. ED who is a Rajeev Dhawan ex-chamber associate and Janet Haley's self-proclaimed mentee (the radical LGBTQIA2S+ scholar), however, not only publicly supports a one-state solution for Palestine (with no possibility of an independent Israel), but also a completely independent Kashmir. Just see her express these radical views during Faculty Pedagogy Workshops or the past Research Events. She previously also publicly supported SP (2021, brahmins and anti-hinduism), SD (2023, bumble and anti-JSR) and VQ (2026, remarks on JGU Chancellor). She even said that JGLS has never fired anyone for holding political views and will never fire one for expressing radical views through classroom teaching, no matter who gets offended. ED is also the one who decides promotions and appraisals, so AG can hardly be blamed for deposing here (one has to do what the boss says). Plus, as per the government records, AG only briefed the committee on the disqualification of PMs and CMs who are detained for over 30 days and not on Kashmir. The ultimate responsibility on whom to choose to address the committee, whether Naveen Jindal is BJP or not, lies with the ED and the more incompetent VC (who confirms ED's decisions).

DU doesn’t reflect the eat of the country, where Gen Z is overwhelmingly supportive of the CJP. Look at NLSIU, which boycotted the CJI, or NALSAR, which went on hunger strike.

Also go to the youth in our villages. They all want Abhijeet Dipke as India’s first Gen Z and Dalit Prime Minister in 2029.

Blud said this. Not sure why his books are in our library then???

"These are third rate men. They are not people with vision. The members of the Constituent Assembly were first class men. People like Ambedkar framed the Constitution. Compared to the people in power today, I don't I think I am in the same country."

*"We are not made for democracy. We are made to be ruled by a strong man. Like Kemal Ataturk. I have said repeatedly that India needs a strong man, not adult franchise. I haven't seen anyone yet. I hope it does happen in my lifetime."

"I am totally disillusioned. I don't believe in adult franchise at all. We have no reverance for our Constitution. We have no distinction between ordinary and Constitutional law. We are third rate, unfit to be a democracy. People blame the Constitution today to shift the blame from their shoulders. Because the people who framed the Constitution are dead and gone. You think this is a country to live in?"

https://rediff.com/news/1998/jul/14nani.htm

Last year, the Indian Supreme Court passed some harsh comments against a young officer who was sacked from the Indian Army. The Supreme Court upheld the officer's termination. You can read more about the case here: https://scobserver.in/journal/sc-upholds-dismissal-of-christian-army-officer-for-refusing-to-enter-temple-sanctum/

I haven't found any reasoned article criticising the Supreme Court decision, until I came across this link: https://medium.com/@indiansamson/the-curious-case-of-lt-samuel-kamalesan-and-what-it-tells-of-todays-india-53ecc5ea94f8

Do you folks agree with the Supreme Court or with the critique ?

The same author has written a critique of the FCRA too: https://medium.com/@indiansamson/how-the-indian-government-is-weaponising-investment-laws-against-minorities-49def16db560

I am looking for arguments for and against, invoking provisions of the Constitution and the Army Act 1950.