We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
However, remember those are people with UK non-law degrees. A partner at one of the MC firms, for example, has a degree in ancient history from UCL. Others are clacisists from Oxford. You haven't taken into account the British sense of insularity: with a foreign law degree, especially a non-top-five NLU one (read: a degree from a not-good university), it is hard to place you - gage where you are, etc. And anything that falls into that bracket is, in the majority of cases, easier to reject (from the point of view of a law firm graduate recruitment officer or partner unless there is substantial good stuff in other aspects of the profile), especially when that means "non-NLU". This blind recruitment stuff is increasingly happening, but not as common as pro-social mobility advocates would like. Remember all their talk about "social mobility" and broadening the base of universities they recruit from and so on is (1) the world's best packaged bullshit (the statistics speak for themselves - see who are the majority of folks getting into UK law firm jobs and promoted, people with UK Russell Group LLB or non-law degrees followed by SQE/PGDL etc); and (2) to the extent it is said in good faith and something they intend to do, that applies far more to their own context (Russell Group vs. non-RG and so on) rather than to our contexts. Indeed, they have reasons not to want to broaden their social mobility talk to our jurisdiction: already UK employers are getting blasted by politicians/the government about relying on foreign recruitment. Knowing how desperate Starmer is to show like he's clamping down on immigration, were I him and were I to hear that law firms are talking about social mobility in recruitment from non-UK jurisdictions, I would: (1) go to Nigel Farage's constituency office in Clacton-on-Sea; (2) hand him the keys to Downing Street; and (3) flee the country (or if I had a more traditional soldier-like sense of honour, ask the tough guys at the SAS base in Herefordshire for some of their pretty toys and use one of them to blow my brains out). That's how out of touch the writer of this comment is with the UK environment.
As for the non-law degree students themselves, I have myself observed the dynamics around those, having done a UK LLB and having run a student society at my uni dedicated to helping non-law students get into city law firm careers. The knowledge and skills gaps in most cases are quite significant and unless a particular non-law applicant were to be absolutely amazing in various ways, it would be very hard for them to get a TC. Were this applicant (I will use the word "applicant" instead of the social media slang "OP" for the sake of sophistication) to have the kind of background they do topped up by a UK LLB, they wouldn't be as hard to place. They would have some fancy stuff on their profiles which typical UK law students don't have, which would make it easier for them to get experiences that even UK law students with good profiles are fighting like cats and dogs for.
Finally, these master's programmes you mention? They are, at the end of the day, master's programmes. They are called master's programmes - and not regulated by the SRA's barrister counterpart, the BSB - for a reason. Because they are academic programmes. They don't help you get into a UK law firm job. Either better to do an NLU law degree like NLSIU BALLB and get in the way those kids do (and those guys are quite smart, so therefore can directly apply to vac schemes) without the bother of an LLM, or better to do something like what this applicant is contemplating.
There might be many reasons that this applicant might find what they are contemplating an unattractive course of action: immigration uncertainties, the rise of Farage, the UK economy being in a sorry state... but this logic needs much more problematising and scrutiny than what it is receiving.
PS: Sorry for the strong language in para 2 above. One of the things that irritates me about India is that many people seem to have a very flawed understanding of how the UK works and yet they are taken as experts. This included yours truly BTW, before I went there. Might still do so, to a certain extent, I suppose.
Thank you for your second para. It's not as of BCL or LLM had not crossed my mind. But many are saying LLMs are useless for non academia jobs. And that BCL is primarily depended on your UG grade, which brings me back on square zero
I don't understand why do you feel I am narcissistic. Mentioning that my 12th grades meets the grade equivalencey criteria of UK University is not narcissism. It's merely a fact. I never said that I am automatically qualified to be admitted there, because there are other factors like EC, SOP, LOR, etc
We Indians hate to speak frankly about important things and trends because we prefer silence and connivance, but it is a known fact that the Indian corporate legal market is over saturated at the mid and high levels and renenue has stagnated too. More partners mean higher cost cutting with clients, and Claude AI is helping new gen partners match in quality without requiring juniors who would've handled the grunt work.
2027 onwards will be exponentially worse because its a vicious cycle as explained above. Firms like to say "Oh we will be shifting to the PPO model!" so they are able to employ free fresh monthly talent without promising in hired numbers. Its a classic strategy.
You wouldnt believe me when I say that in 2022, people were handed out PPOs based on single online internships, even compromising on quality because the markets were defiantly successful and required more labour, (tech/ infra/ lawyers etc). 5 years since, companies are making up excuses to layoff entire teams.
If you are in the 2027+ batches, you must learn to market yourself, as skills and legal knowledge dont suffice anymore. You must market yourself in providing faster product (using latest AI models), efficiently and most importantly better that the others.
(PS Please excuse the grammar, im high rn)
and Indira and Sanjay Gandhi were right in trying to sterilise the educated masses.
her resignation on 20.01.2026. It is stated that the Plaintiffs are a married couple and experienced legal professionals of established standing…
The Plaintiffs assert that the continuous series of content circulating on social media against them is also communally provocative, attributes baseless professional misconduct, bias and unlawful conduct to the Plaintiffs– all the while making gratuitous and inflammatory references to their personal life with the intent to provoke prejudice, hatred and targeted harassment…
A perusal of the tweets reveals that a substantial amount of content includes statements that can be construed as communally inflammatory. References have been made to the personal lives of the Plaintiffs in the context of their political inclinations, which indicates a brewing campaign by those who have opposing political inclinations.
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showlogo/1776265732_d1393a2381a17a5c_smp_3182026.pdf/2026
OpIndia statement:
Muhammad Ali Khan, the first plaintiff, is an advocate of the Supreme Court of India who publicly lists himself as a member of the Indian National Congress’s Media Team on his own X page. This is his declared affiliation, not a description put forth by critics…
Fundamentally, it is a matter of legitimate public interest to determine whether a public policy manager at a major social media platform, one with substantial influence over content moderation decisions affecting hundreds of millions of Indian users, has a potential conflict of interest due to her spouse’s active political role. It is a question that regulators, oversight authorities, and individuals in democratic democracies routinely and correctly pose to institutions holding private influence over public discourse. It is not defamatory to ask that question. Accountability journalism is what it is…
Free press cannot operate if publishing information that is publicly accessible exposes a news organization to injunctions that it was unable to challenge. Free public discourse is the very bedrock that democracy stands on and every public person is open to scrutinity – including Khan and his wife.
https://www.opindia.com/2026/04/meta-india-compromised-pro-congress-leadership-scrutiny-facebook-anti-modi-propaganda/
Overall, a Macbook will likely last you longer than a Windows machine, so the need to upgrade frequently is substantially reduced.
And yet the usual response is that you are paid for this, or that you chose this path. But sometimes I find myself wondering if I really chose all of it in the way it turned out....
That's how
It reminds me that the only thing standing between justice and injustice is my corporate law firm.
Sure there's pressure to make targets and build your own book. In a Tier 1 firm like the one i work with there's generally enough work going around for you to make targets and the actual execution work is mostly done by the associates again.
If you have/build a good team (which is the real clincher honestly) and are generally competent, clients will keep coming back to you and the book gets built.
You have more flexibility with respect to work hours and the ability to take time off to be there for your kids and weekends are more free.
Honestly, law firms are pyramids and it's worst at the bottom. Salaried partner is like the second or third highest rung of the pyramid (depending on whether you're at a promoter run firm or not) and it's amongst the best places to be in a law firm, honestly.
Go to a hospital ASAP (DONT SHOWER OR CLEAN OR ANYTHING), get a "rape kit test" done. Then proceed. Also is this ▮▮▮? This happened to me not too long ago.
Also the comment about people leaving is five months old, when so many associates left one after the other. No offence, but if you don't know about the work culture (▮▮▮ ) or the fact that so many people left last year, I have to doubt whether your comment is genuine or whether it's posted by one of the partners anonymously. Again, no offence.
Whether my msc study period will be counted as a gap year in my practice and do I need to get my license suspended?
Note: I will be linking my prospective msc thesis with law.
Both SG Tushar Mehta and ASG Aishwarya Bhati have been regularly opposing abortions for minor rape victims and for minor unwanted pregnancies. They have been calling it murder. While abortion must be considered carefully, Tushar Mehta and Aishwarya Bhati's approach is incorrect and imposes their ideological views on minor rape victims who are forced to complete pregnancies, deliver babies, and hand them over for adoption. Justice Nagarathna in this case asked the right questions on 24 April 2026.
Update - So Justice Nagarathna allowed the abortion. That is the right decision in case of a minor rape victim.
I recall a case before Delhi High Court Chief Justice Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal in July/ August 2025. A minor rape victim wanted to abort. The Court was initially inclined to allow and doctors initially agreed.
ASG Aishwarya Bhati intervened, and a revised medial report was filed by the doctors stating that abortion would involve two procedures, first to deliver child, and second to kill it. And the Court was encouraged to call this murder. The Chief Justice questioned the Petitioner's Counsel saying she was asking them to direct murder. The result was that the abortion was denied. And the minor was offered free medical support for 5 years including for her psychological welfare. While the case was being heard, the minor was essentially in police custody in hospital, to prevent any unauthorised abortion. The High Court decision in that case failed the minor rape victim. Forcing a rape victim to deliver a child is unconstitutional and violative of her human rights. And compelling an adoption of an unwanted rape conceived child by a minor has its own life long trauma. Aishwarya Bhati also got the doctors to say that the abortion posed medical risks to the minor as it could potentially cause life long damage to reproductive abilities. The doctors were never asked to state that these risks were minor. Am glad that Justice Nagarathna has clarified the law.