Have you read about the Tulip Mania? Crypto is the same. Just ensure you're not the one left holding the bag.

And yes, I think the tech behind crypto has its uses: cryotocurrencies OTOH have no intrinsic value and are not a repository of value. This mania is a classic "greater fool" mania.

The other risks to consider which are India specific:

1. Cryptocurrencies are proposed to be banned by the Government: https://www.prsindia.org/theprsblog/ban-cryptocurrencies-understanding-proposed-legislation

2. If you're a firm lawyer, just ask yourself, why wouldn't the Government ban cryptos? The FEMA checks and balances are bypassed by cryptos and in a country which doesn't allow full capital convertability, it makes no sense to "invest" in cryptos.

If you want to do a YOLO WSB style speculation in cryptos, then atleast understand that it's a YOLO speculation.

And don't tell me how much you've already made: bad decisions don't equate to bad returns in the short term.

Saving strategy:-

1. Save minimum 30% of your fix monthly payout
2. Investments-
a. MFs (SIP)
b. ELSS (SIP) (Tax saving) (1.5 lacs since PPF pays peanuts as against 14-18% CAGR of ELSS)
c. NPS (50k annually)
d. Health Insurance (1st parents, 2nd your self and 3rd spouse- if applicable) (children in case you have them)
e. Equity (Stocks) since I invest a monthly sum every month. I see it as an EMI
f. Small stacks of cash- 20k-30k each month into FDs (emergency funds)
g. Bonus payouts (50%- invested into stocks, 30%- lumpsum MF, 20%- FD or household yearly maintenance expense)

3. Try and remain debt free. Cash is the king and makes you take financial and life decisions with relative ease.

4. Do not spend more than 1/3rd limit of your credit card. Helps you maintain a healthy credit score for larger financial goals in life.

5. Prefer to live like a poor and stack up your investments which will surprisingly start compounding after 3-5 years.

6. Try not to take EMIs and treat your monthly disciplined investments as EMIs.

7. Barring HRA/ LICs/ Home Loans- lawyers can easily save 2.5lacs/ year with basic investments. DO NOT INVEST ANY LESS. Its your money. Use it wisely and buy peace.

8. Play for next FY on 1st April and not 1st Jan of the next year. Buy mental peace and discipline.

Prioritise health and sleep over everything. You will need both to be a successful lawyer. All-nighter can be anything but definitely not a badge of honour. Don't strive for that. Make 10 mins for yourself. Do a quick stretch everyday or move your body soon after you wake up. Just because it's late night and client or firm is paying for it, don't eat crap - make healthy choices to the best of your ability. A lot of it will not make sense but don't live with that ignorance. Ask if you can but if that would work against you then don't hesitate to approach anybody however it may be to get that knowledge. You will feel frustrated, angry, miserable and even sad sometimes - don't react to it, reach out. These are transitory and will pass. Have a broad end-game in sight. Every day need not be a move towards that but keep it in your consciousness so that you are able to spot opportunities to move quickly and shift to next gear. You will meet all sorts of people - kind ones and cruel ones, develop equanimity in dealing with both. Indian capital markets is sometimes a lot less about law and more about market practice - never forego an opportunity to be in a conversation where that is practice. Observe. Good luck my friend and Godspeed. Last but not least, never bullshit.

As a Cap Marks associate, there are a few things you can brush up before you join, which will help you in making good impressions while also helping you out once the slogging starts:

1) Get better at MS Word: As a Cap Marks lawyer, your primary job will be drafting/commenting on offer documents. Offer documents are legal docs and need to be formatted perfectly. Learn all the tricks - repeating headers in table, Para spacing, alignments. The more shortcuts you know, it is better as it will save you a lot of time.

2) Become aware of the Cap Marks transactions that your firm might be doing right now: you will necessarily be working on the precedents from these transactions, so it will if you already know the specifics of these transactions.

3) Read up on the types of transactions: equity transactions - IPOs, QIPs, FPOs, etc. Debt transactions: NCDs, international bonds, etc. Browse through offer docs of various types of transactions and try to get an idea of the basic law points.

4) ICDR: These regulations will be your go to for equity transactions, so get an understanding of the basic framework.

5) Enjoy this time off!! :Because once you start, there will be no end!

Such incentives are rare, and are the wrong way to assess a legal function. It also depends on which department owns the budget for legal advise.

In some companies, the legal function gets a budget, and is supposed to provide all legal advise within that budget.

In other companies, "routine" work like contracts and commercial transactions, advise on regulatory matters, and other general advise to the business, is managed internally.

Some companies use law firms for non-standard work (M&As, IPOs, fund-raising, disputes). Such events are one-offs and include a budget for professional advisors (tax, legal, consulting). There can be a long process to choose the advisor, and to formally provision a budget, but once this is approved internally, there are no prizes for cutting costs.

If there's a change to law that can affect the business (the RBI guidelines on e-mandates is an example that can impact streaming companies), we will recommend to our business that we engage a law firm to advise, because this is a significant legislation that can make or break the company. A law firm is more likely to have their ear to the ground, and are also able to speak with government officials on a no-names basis. The business normally pays for this one-off advise, and they have an incentive to scrutinize and review costs. There is an internal approval process, but once approved, the Legal Department does not get points for keeping costs below budget.

Coming back to the "routine" work, where there's a discretionary budget for legal advise- in companies, every department head gets assessed on many things, including whether or not they have controlled their budget. Cutting costs may be a small part of your performance review, but it's not the biggest factor at all. In fact, many in-house counsel are regularly asked to cut "routine" costs- by building in-house capacity, or by rate negotiations.

This means that if your budget for one year is 100, and you used up 85, you will be asked if you can manage the next year with 80 or 90. If you spent 120, there can be a review process to see if you could have spent lower amounts, or whether the extra spend was because of a non-standard event like a large arbitration.

The summary of this long post is that there is no direct monetary reward that is linked to cutting costs. It is part of your job as a senior manager at the company.

Different companies have different rules on equity. You cannot compare Unilever with Amazon with Zomato (to pick 3 names at different stages of their growth trajectory). The GC will get equity (ESOPs or RSUs or grants) in line with the other functional heads.

I am an M&A lawyer with my own boutique firm. When I am hiring freshers, people with some existing knowledge of M&A are at the top of my list ; and publications / moots / class rank do not really matter to me.
Here is my advise:

1. Familiarise yourself with the standard documents signed in most M&A transaction - share purchase agreement, share subscription agreement, shareholders agreements and business transfer agreements. Knowledge of non-compete, indemnity and AVM provisions would be useful. There are several samples in public domain.
2. Read up and try to understand the process for NCLT approved schemes. This is a highly technical and procedural form of M&A, and not well known to many lawyers. Could help impress a potential employer.
3. Smaller firms tend to represent smaller companies, some of who could be start-ups - read about legal restrictions and permissions specific to start-ups in India.
4. Study FEMA provisions on FDI / ODI - these come up a lot in M&A transactions.
5. Most M&A firms / teams take-up a lot of general corporate advisory work, especially when transactional work is slow. Be mentally prepared for this, and try and keep-up with amendments to Companies Act, 2013, its rules and SEBI Regulations (the websites of regulatory authorities are a good source).

Also, if your college projects didn't teach you this - please pick-up word formatting skills. This skill is sorely lacking in many lawyers, and can make your work so much easier and better looking!

I am about to enter 4th year of an average law school in the country. After experimenting I've realised where my interest lies: M&A, PE-VC and Capital Markets.
However, it's very overwhelming seeing a crowd of students going in the same path, doing better internships and publications than me, having better University tag. I really am interested in making a career in this niche area of law. I am looking for current working professionals on what skills do I need to build other than knowledge of law, in order to actually end up with a decent (don't see the dreams of ending up in tier 1 firms right out of law school).

I am a fifth year law student, starting my law firm career in about 3 months. I have heard a lot of negative things about law firms on this forum lately. The optimist in me doesn't want to believe that all is so bad at law firms.

Can we please narrate the good things about law firms? Hopefully, these experiences along with the previous thread will perhaps give us a better and balanced perspective about law firms.

Hope and positivity,
Curiously on LI since 2018
Curious kidd

Remember the time you were clueless while applying to your first internship, and your senior stepped in to guide you? Or the time you knocked on your senior’s door so that he would conduct a mock interview for you?

With classes shifting online due to the pandemic, it has become increasingly difficult for juniors in college to approach seniors for guidance. Most juniors are not getting the guidance and are turning to folks who are charging them for drafting something as simple as a Cover Letter or a mock interview.

As much as I want to help, I alone cannot mentor each of them one-on-one. Thus, I am planning to create an informal network of seniors who work in law firms (A0/A1/A2/ SA1) who can guide juniors still in college about the internship and recruitment process, and be better prepared for law firm life in general. Each senior will be paired with only one junior (Don’t want to overburden anyone). Your seniors were there when you needed them, maybe it’s your time to pay it forward.

If you’re interested, leave a like or comment. If enough people like this post, maybe we can make this a reality. I will respond later with more details. Cheers.

Hi, taking cue from a recent helpful thread on tips for A0s, I seek to ask the professionals working in dispute teams, the following:
a. Which areas of law should one brush up their basics on? Apart from arbitration, CPC
b. Any other tips to perform better as an A0 in the team?

My list. The criteria are research + publications + leadership positions + reputation + prestigious positions outside college (e.g. Facebook board and Delhi Judicial Academy head) + public perception and acclaim.

1. Sudhir @ NLSIU
2. Mrinal @ NLSIU
3. Liang @AUD
4.Nigam @ Munjal
5. Anup @ NLUD
6.Aparna @NLSIU
7. Chauhan @ NALSAR
8.Rahul @NLSIU
9. Prabhash @ SAU
10. Bhuwania @JGLS

@All JSA ppl - Its simple maths. I dont know why you havent figured it out yet. I figured it out 5 years back when I joined.

Suppose you made 500,000 as 8% for an FY. That means you made the firm 5 lacs / 0.08 = 62.5 lacs in that FY. By the 3x rule, your salary should be justified till 20.83 lacs (62.5 divided by 3). Suppose you are an SA. You got 24 lacs as salary, 5 lacs as 8%. Thats 31 lacs (well above 20.83 lacs). That means you had a bad year and the year end bonus you get will be getting will be on your partner's discretion and on how well the team did.

Another example - suppose you made 10lacs as 8% for an FY. That means you made the firm 10 lacs / 0.08 = 1.25 cr in that FY. By the 3x rule, your salary should be justified for atleast 41.6 lacs (1.25 cr divided by 3). Suppose you are an SA. You got 24 lacs as salary, 10 lacs as 8%. Thats 34 lacs (still below 41.6 lacs). That means you are (at the very least) ENTITLED to a 7.6 lacs year end bonus.

There are some stupid caps above which you total salary cannot go, even if you billed a million dollars. And thats the reason why I will leave one day. But notwithstanding my cribbing, thats broadly how things work at JSA - super transparent, provided you can do a bit of maths.

Hi,
I have been compiling salary figures from people who joined as A0s or from earlier LI comments. The following are the figures, to the best of my knowledge. If there have been any updates/errors, would be glad to correct it. For Luthra, AZB N, Trilegal, I am confident of the figures. Other firms, I think I am correct, but there is a decent chance that I am wrong by a lakh or so.
KCo - 14.4 (no bonus last year due to covid) +1.2(bonus in a normal year)
Tri - 15.4 (incl. bonus)
SnR - 18 (if you get max bonus). While the exact figure might be wrong, I think they pay the highest in the market.
SAM - 15 (no bonus)
CAM - 13.5 (no bonus, I think). Disc: I could be really wrong about CAM. I remember this figure, but I can't recall who/where I got these numbers from.
AZB Noida - 13.8 + 2.3
Luthra - 15.6 incl. bonus
TTA - 17 (if you get max bonus. This figure is kinda sus though)
Indus - 13.5 (I think this is all inclusive)
JSA is apparently 10 LPA to Junior Associates and becomes 13 +1.2 once you become an associate (this is from an earlier LI comment, and I have not verified it).
NDA - as we saw in the other LI article, is 17.4ish, but is a salary as against the retainership model of other firms. as a comment had stated in that article, this brings down the take home figures for an NDA A0 substantially.

SAM partners start at 85 lakhs with a 50 fixed - 50 variable mix. This means that with a 200% bonus possibility, they can (and some do) earn up to 1.27 crores in a year. For someone 9 years out of law school that is bloody brilliant!!

Quite disgusting to see incorrect information as well as the usual frustrated rants of oh partnership doesnt matter etc from those who are probably not at tier 1 firms or those who didnt make partner at tier 1 firms. Set up your own firm people if you have an issue.

If that's what you really want to do, you could try it out for a few years and see what it's like. As long as you keep in touch with your referees and try to do other things like publishing/ lecturing alongside, it should only add to your chances of getting into a premier institution with a scholarship. If you're doing it with the hope of being elevated, that's a pretty big chance to take. The question is whether you like the job and can handle the system/ atmosphere within which you work. If you plan an exit option into it, you might be able to try it out and see. And if decades of that job seem like too much, you might go study/ litigate. It's smart to think outside the box and not just do what all your classmates are doing.

Hello, the data is quite interesting, and yes ideally we should see a bell curve, however in some circumstances the long one sided tail can be seen, this can happen due to the following factors - negative marking, proportionate advantages, differences in qualilty in the upper and lower quantile region. If we cut of the tail at 70, we have minimal discrepancy (i.e. we have a normal distribution +- 5). So we are faced with two probable reasons for the 2020 histogram - there was a clear difference in quality of students who had taken the exam (there are two bell curves, which have merged) or one group of students were disproportionately affected due to some reason (technical or preparation). I am a Bayesian so I would tend to prefer the second alternative.

@ Genius:
I stand by my previous criticisms of many of the academic decisions made by Prof. R. Venkata Rao during his tenure as NLSIU Vice-Chancellor between May 2009 and July 2019. The most prominent of these were the following:
(a) repeated misuse of provisions for re-evaluation; including hundreds of instances where the answer scripts were never sent to any external or internal teachers.
(b) the non-appointment of permanent teachers for over a decade; the last proper round of permanent recruitments of faculty had happened in September 2006. NLSIU had to wait till February 2020 for another round of permanent recruitments.
(c) non-application of mind in the allocation of teaching responsibilities, with several foundational courses having collapsed for a long-time.
(d) no serious scrutiny of course plans or teacher performance,
(e) blindly accepting student requests for condoning attendance shortages, even where students had hardly attended 50% of the scheduled classes.
(f) granting blanket extensions for project submissions and the like.

Such laxity was frequently justified in the name of popularity. All of those criticisms were made in my own name and they have been in the public domain for several years now. I am happy to discuss these points further with anyone who wants to do so directly. You are most welcome to call me or send an email. I will not engage further with anonymous comments here.

At the same time, I strongly condemn the practice of making anonymous allegations such as those made in Comment 4.1.1. by a person using the pseudonym 'What About?'. Whoever has written those comments should have the courage to come out with credible evidence to support some of the more serious allegations, be it against any person. Otherwise, it is quite pointless to be making such allegations now. I agree with you that handing out mementos to guests and providing hospitality to visitors is a trivial issue.

While I did openly support Sudhir Krishnaswamy's appointment last year, it is quite a stretch to claim that I and some others have 'planted him as VC'. That part of your statement is plainly wrong and deserves to be rebutted. His name was duly recommended by a Search-cum-Selection Committee consisting of Dr. M.P. Singh, Mr. K..K. Venugopal and Mr. Arvind Datar, which in turn was appointed by the NLSIU Executive Council. The mobilisation of opinion among alumni and students only started after there were visible efforts to obstruct the completion of the appointment process. I do have a high opinion of Sudhir Krishnaswamy's scholastic abilities and his commitment towards academic excellence. So do many others who have studied or worked with him over the last two decades. That is why many of us supported his appointment. That does not mean that his decisions are above criticism.

The experience of the past year has shown that he has rushed into several administrative decisions without adequately considering their impact on students, be it the hurried drafting of rules for conducting online exams (May 2020), the lack of clarity owing to the changes made to the scholarship policy (August 2020) and most evidently the attempt to hold a separate entrance exam earlier this month. This only shows that the wider NLSIU community (faculty, students, staff, alumni) must be vigilant in pointing out the fallacies in such decisions.

After the NLAT was announced (on September 3, 2020) I did reach out to Sudhir (phone call on September 6, 2020) and directly cautioned him about the very real possibility of writ petitions being filed against it as well as the adverse affect it would have on relations with the other Vice-Chancellors of the various NLUs. Several others had directly conveyed the same message to him. I was constrained from commenting on the NLAT publicly since the matter was sub judice until September 21, 2020. Furthermore, Prof. Faizan Mustafa had already put forward most of the arguments against it in the public domain. In my present institutional role, there was no need for me to express any disagreement with what Prof. Mustafa has already said through his articles published in LiveLaw or the videos uploaded on his Youtube channel. The situation is very different from that in 2012-2013 when I had criticised some of the academic decisions made by Prof. R. Venkat Rao. At that time, I was employed at NLSIU and it was my professional duty to draw attention to academic malpractices at that institution when most of the faculty members were keeping quiet out of fear of administrative retaliation. Let us compare that with the present situation. I have been employed at NALSAR since June 2013 and Prof. Mustafa who has a considerable public platform had already taken on the mantle of criticising the sudden decision made by NLSIU. There was also a public clamour against the NLAT announcement, especially from law aspirants, coaching centres and a majority of present NLSIU students as well as alumni from recent batches. Most of the objections were already being voiced quite effectively and the case was argued with competence before the apex court.

The pandemic has obviously heightened sensitivities all around and there is definitely a trust-deficit at the moment. What has happened in the last 32 years of the institution's history is less important when compared to the needs of the present. As for the personalised advice about 'taking losses', I can assure you that I have taken many of them over the last 20 years and I am still very much here. I do intend to continue doing my job with honesty and transparency irrespective of which institution I am employed at. If that is ostensibly a cause for 'further embarrassment' in the coming years, so be it. That is the path I have chosen.

So my institution had students give exams on the LMS and we would keep an eye them through group video calling software. Everyone cheated period! Cons of the system as per my personal experience:-
1. Poor video resolution specialy if there is a light source behind the candidate. Very much dependant on CONSTANTLY good Internet speed and video freeze regularly occurred.
2. Too much static noise in audio. Impossible for laptop's microphone to detect whispering. Don't believe me? Call someone from Zoom/Meet/WebEx/Teams using laptop's microphone and unless you shout yourself hoarse, the other person won't be able to hear properly.
3. If any instruction is given out to a particular student, he'll feign audio issue and ask to repeat which gives him time to close the tabs and remove any meterials discreetly.
4. Eyes can't be mapped through human proctoring even if resolution is best. You just need the secondary screen to be beside the main screen. Also what if the candidate claims that he's using an Android Tablet on landscape as the mode of giving exam? In that case he'll be looking to the right of front cam and again kitnaa right dekh ra hai, ye kya CBI investigate karega, if student is in merit and denied admission on the basis of AI.
5. JARVIS is not real and we humans have our limitations.

I say, he was being bold by pushing for underlining of defined terms. As a client, when you receive a document where you see underlined definitions, you get excited! You think here is a tech savy lawyer saving you the trouble of 2 windows or scrolling. When you hover over the underlined term - nothing happens! NOTHING!

I worked at WG for several years. Its an excellent place, with amazing culture. I was in the corp team, so will speak for that. The firm has more than a century of legacy, so it tends to be old schoolish at times, but other than that its a great place to start and you are sure to find great mentors.
(However, (as someone else mentioned already) - they will definitely not appreciate you writing /inquiring this way on a public forum.)

My apologies for the lengthy rant, but I'm always surprised to see comments like these under articles about hires, moves, promotions, and other achievements. Sure, you might not have heard of them, but that doesn't mean nobody has. They are notable enough that a substantial number of people care to know about them and obviously they matter more than you know since LI carried a story about it. If LI kept reporting on the majorly known people, you wouldn't get any news beyond a select few partners from a few firms. You didn't know about them, buy you opened the article and [presumably] read it, and now you know about them. Nobody is born famous, they cultivate it. If you are only interested in the lives of the already rich and famous, maybe don't open articles about 'nobodies' and stick to your CAM/SAM/Luthra/AZB or Bollywood gossip?

Why pull someone down? Please let me know what is achieved by stating this on a post mentioning a major move in their career to a firm that a whole lot of people do know of. Are you somehow mistaken that this entire website was built to cater only to you and what interests you? Or is it just a way to hide your envy and be happy when a few other lonely sods like this comment?

Also, I wonder if are you someone who works in indirect tax? If not, how will you know who these people are? You wouldn't know the names of most of the senior advocates practicing in Delhi, but asking "Who are these people?" will only make you look foolish and not dent their reputation in their circles - and those are the circles that matter. "These people/firms" are known enough; I'm sorry but you will just have to take my word and this LI article as proof of that.

@ Kian - hi, would it be possible to use some standardise phrases to avoid confusion in future - 'computer based testing' to denote tests which are taken on a computer and at a common physical location (usually an exam centre eg. GMAT); 'online proctored tests' to denote exams taken on a computer (monitored through AI or human) but at home (eg. current LSAT), 'online tests' to denote exams taken on a computer (not monitored) taken at home (eg. end semester exam/assessments).

Hi Kian,

If you're interested, even the AIBE is scheduled to take place in August. Although practically every examination of any kind has been deferred, the BCI has not adjusted it's timing in any manner keeping in mind the pandemic.

The delayed examinations and announcement of results anyhow means that a large number of students won't be able to give the AIBE, and those that have gotten provisional registration and have been able to sign up for the AIBE would be subjected to the risk of getting infected or not giving the bar altogether this year.

If you're interested and do a story, at least some discussion about the issue may take place since we know the BCI follows LI keeping in mind the last time you did a story on the AIBE they filed a defamation case against you, if I recall correctly.

I hope your law is better than your grasp of statistics. Next time, review the data before you spot a "trend":

2019: 7 NLS graduates. (https://www.legallyindia.com/lawfirms/cyril-amarchand-promotes-19-to-partner-4-to-partner-designate-20190531-10564)
2018 - 2 NLS graduates. (https://www.legallyindia.com/lawfirms/breaking-cyril-amarchand-promotes-12-partner-5-in-corporate-20180820-9492)
2017 - 3 NLS graduates (https://www.legallyindia.com/law-firms/cyril-amarchand-promotes-21-to-partner-20170328-8377)

Corporate and Litigation - it all depends on what you want.

Corporate is good for steady money;
You work hard for ten years and then you bear the fruits of labour with more steady money and better work life balance;
You don’t do any cutting edge legal work - but there will be days when you feel fulfilled and After ten years you will have time for family, hobbies, social work and life in general;
It is an easier bet as even a mediocre person with a lot of hard work will get all of the above;
If you are a star then - more money and more time to live a full life.

Litigation - absolutely no money for the first ten years. The Salves of the world don’t pay;
If your family is connected, very high chances of you doing well - go for it.
If you are not connected, everything depends on your merit and luck.
If both these factors are aligned, in fifteen years time you will be doing useful work, making money, but doubt you will have any time for anything else.
If you are a mediocre person and have no connections, you are in deep shit. In fifteen years, you will be just about to take your family to Manali for holidays and life will be a struggle - no time and no money.

Litigation is a gamble. More risk, more reward. So make your choices on what YOU want.

As for negativity at work - it is there everywhere. You will rise above it if you focus on your work and not on others work.

Did you have any answer to the actual questions raised? Yeah, I didn't think so. There must be something deeply wrong with the psychology of people like you, who thrive on rankings, showing how X is better or worse than Y in your opinion, all the while knowing that you can't possibly match either X or Y in your real life. It's a bit sad, really. You need help. As for NIRF, it's already there. The only existing government ranking in the country. Regardless of the debates surrounding its methodology, it is the only available option. Why would it need to be further vindicated? And even if it does, what makes you think you or anyone else including Kian is qualified to do that?
Just to show how toxic people's thought process has become here, I keep seeing every day how people who are not from NLU backgrounds are name called, badmouthed, their work and ability being questioned all the while by people who actually have no idea about it. Same goes for people without having a foreign degree in their CV. Every single person who makes these vitriolic judgment calls actually have no idea how education works or is supposed to work, regardless of the degrees they might have. A case in point, I came across a young NLU grad some time back, who despite having all necessary qualifications to get an NLU teaching job, has chosen to work at a small rural college instead. She believes that she can make a difference there and the nearby districts and their schools and colleges by spreading awareness and basic education about rights. Most of her work is voluntary, brings her no recognition, doesn't leave her any time to do higher research or fancy publications in SCOPUS journals that less than 5% people in the legal world actually read. In the eyes of people like you, she would belong to the dregs of legal academia, since she would have none of the spiffy factors that have been deemed by trolls to be considered the only qualifications worth having. Yet she has chosen to do this by letting go of more lucrative, so-called prestigious options. And she's making very small, but incremental and steady difference. To people who are actually educated, her contribution would be considered as much if not more than a 'star NLU faculty' who gives nineteen interviews to the dozen, says all the PC terms, annually publishes papers in SCOPUS indexed journals and always attends the latest conferences. However, neither any existing ranking nor trolls like you would ever be able to capture or realise that. Which is your failure, not anyone else's. Having known Professor Menon personally, I can say with certainty that he would have appreciated what this person has been doing. Your or anyone else's certificates or votes pale into insignificance before that.

Fair enough, in that case, aim for: NLS, NALSAR, NUJS, NLUJ and NLIU. NLU Delhi is also a good choice, and is increasingly being viewed as an alternative to some of the older NLUs.

Having said that, do bear in mind (and I'm sorry in advance if I'm disabusing you of notions to the contrary) that your expectations from the colleges themselves (in terms of facilitating your preparedness for a job at firms) should be close to zero. With very few exceptions, most of the courses offered across these universities aren't great - most of your learning will be pursuant to your own initiatives, aided by on-the-job learning that you may (but aren't sure to) receive during the course of internships, and perhaps moots/publications.

What these colleges do offer you are, reputation (yes, brand does matter), possibly a benevolent alumni base to draw upon, peers of above average intelligence (but many of whom may be exceptionally smart and well read for their age), and decent infrastructure in terms of libraries, subscriptions to legal databases, etc. How you leverage all of these will be up to you; but expect very less/no institutional support.

The amounts are not as much as you are making them sound. She has been quite transparent with both projects and the total amount of the grants is published in NALSAR's Annual Reports. AFAIK (as an outsider who frequently visits NALSAR), the grant for the first Ford Foundation Project on Socio-Economic Rights (2013-2017) was USD 3,30,000 (approximately Rs. 2.2 crores over four years) and for the second project on Justice, Cooperation and Care (2018-2022), the amount is closer to USD 5,00,000 (approximately Rs. 3.5 crores over four years). While the institution will obviously receive a certain share of this money, the money is being spent to support a team of independent researchers/Ph.D. candidates/non-teaching staff as well. Some funds were used to organise a well-attended International Conference in November 2017. This is how projects are run in Universities all over the world. There are at least two books (on Housing Rights published by Cambridge University Press and on Land Policies published by Routledge) that have been produced by the first of these projects and the second project will probably produce 4-5 more. So it is a wise decision on part of the current NALSAR VC to retain Dr. Amita Dhanda as a Professor Emerita after her retirement in November 2020. This way she will be able to complete her second research project and also keep the peace between the warring factions among the faculty. In any case, the Emeritus appointment can only be extended for a maximum of five years (i.e. till 2025 in her case). So at some point, she will have to move on from the institution. For now this is the right decision and I am personally very confident that some of the bright Ph.D. candidates at NALSAR will benefit immensely from Prof. Dhanda's feedback and international networks.

Fair point but before making these accusations of academic inbreeding, people must show also show that there were other candidates (who, in terms of the accusations put forth in this thread, would be non-NLS people) who were more deserving than the ones selected. If you cannot show that, please limit your accusations when and where such inbreeding actually happens.

Academic inbreeding: local challenge, global problem

Philip G. Altbach, Maria Yudkevich & Laura E. Rumbley
Asia Pacific Education Review volume 16, pages317–330(2015)

"Our perspective is that faculty inbreeding is problematic and, where it exists, is often associated with a whole range of worrisome issues in relation to the academic and administrative functions of higher education institutions and systems. It limits the scope of hiring the best possible candidates for academic appointments—from both within the country and internationally. Inbreeding tends to entrench the academic culture already existing in the institutions where inbreeding occurs (Padilla 2008), and makes change and reform even more difficult than would normally be the case. It solidifies hierarchical relationships within departments and faculties and enhances the power of senior professors (e.g., Rocca 2007; Godechot and Louvet 2008). It may also create particularism—for example, in the form of applying preferential hiring or promotions standards for some (internal) colleagues or candidates—as opposed to universalism, which implies the same treatment for all (Blau 1973; Bridgeland 1982). Inbreeding may perpetuate unfair power dynamics reflected in society more broadly—and may be particularly detrimental to women and others traditionally excluded from academe (Wyer 1980; Pan 1993). New ideas, concerning the academic discipline as well as the organization of studies and the curriculum, may be more difficult to implement. This occurs because both faculty and administrators consider the status quo to be “natural” and beneficial, and their interests are squarely invested in established academic and administrative arrangements. In short, new perspectives and new relationships do not take hold as easily where inbreeding is prevalent, and departments, schools, and the entire university are less innovative and open (for various examples and discussion, see Smythe and Smythe 1944; Pelz and Andrews 1966; Velho and Krige 1984; Horta et al. 2007). In the twenty-first century, where knowledge is rapidly changing and increasingly globalized, inbreeding engenders traditionalism, which limits excellence and innovation."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12564-015-9391-8

Fair enough. They applied for the position in February, the result came out now. The appointment letter issued by NLSIU should require them to consent to the terms and conditions, and to do so by a particular date. It's an offer and they are at their will to accept or deny. It's standard work-contract situation. Once they confirm that they accept appointment, I think NLSIU would publish formal list of appointees. Some of these people might have notice period to serve, inform their existing employers etc.

@Kian - reporting this message. I know it will pass your weak community standards test. But I think people need to report and flag more often just to make a point. You allow a lot to pass anonymously in name of opinion which is just a fear of the other.

JSA’s equity model does not have to “afford” it equity partners.

Each equity partner gets a specified percentage of the profit pool plus a fixed retainer component.

New entrants to the pool (usually home grown) get a small percentage (1 % or lower).

Laterals (rare, unless you are bringing in a substantial and established practice, which the firm does not have or wants to build on AND are generally a pleasant person, although notable exceptions have slipped in and continue to exist) get a negotiated share of the profits their practice generates until the next profit share re-set.

Every 3 years, the elected Compensation Committee re-evaluates every equity partner’s (yes everyone’s) profit share based on various determined metrics, including revenue generated and contribution to firm building. Your profit percentage could move up or down, based largely on how your practice has performed financially in the past 3 years.

When partners retire (Jyothi, Berjis) or leave (Sumanto, Abeezar), their share of equity returns to the pool.

So, how much you make as an equity partner at JSA really depends primarily on what you are bringing to the table.

On that note, will leave your word where it presently remains.

@Guest

As someone 8 years into academia I find this comment absurd. Doctoral studies are the most important years in the training of any would-be teacher. Both the institute of study as well as the thesis are serious indicators of qualification. The standards, the quality, the doctoral committee and the peer group at good universities ensure that average / poor candidates wash out very quickly. I did my Ph.D. research from a Sutton 13 university in the U.K. and it was a well known fact that the bottom quarter of doctorates awarded in my cohort would never get approved at Oxbridge. Getting a thesis defended at Yale is so far removed from (for example) NUJS that a comparison is laughable. Doctorates from places like NUJS or NLU-D are worth very little in terms of achievement or quality.

The content of a thesis is obviously important but the rigorous nature of doctoral study programs at top universities is simply not comparable with Indian NLU-model law schools. Close to anyone who clears the Ph.D. admission test is guaranteed to get one in a few years barring personal feuds with supervisors or domestic issues. On average a thesis from a good university is much superior to one from an NLU. I have also found that even the much reviled "Traditional Universities" are more rigorous in their Ph.D. programs than NLUs (specifically barring NLS and NALSAR).

The data published above also indicate a striking divergence between the faculty of NLU-D and NUJS not only in quality but also in diversity. The former has faculty who have as doctoral alma mater, 18 different institutions while the other has 7. A total of 11% of the NLU-D faculty did their doctorates internally. At NUJS this figure is 48% (and 70% from universities in West Bengal). I do not want to speculate too much but such numbers are deeply worrying as an index of faculty quality and display a homogeneity that is usually actively avoided by responsible universities. At least in the U.K. such a proportion would immediately lead to an investigation by Universities UK followed by a visit from a team from the All-Party Parliamentary University Group within the year.

I also take exception to the vapid generalization that "Any academic worth their salt knows that there are numerous reasons why Indian academics choose/are forced to do their PhDs from the places that they work in". As an academic myself I can state that this is simply not true. PhD candidates may occasionally be teaching assistants for a term but no reputable university will recruit in such large numbers from its own outgoing doctoral cohorts. I have firsthand knowledge of this from TISS, Allahabad University and ILI (in total I spent 3 years in research at these places). If NUJS chooses to do so it can only be due to a severe dearth of candidates or some horrendous management.

Again I do not mean to cast aspersion on NUJS as a law school but if the data on the doctoral backgrounds as published above is correct, it does show a very poor mix of faculty as compared to NLU-D.

[I am using my second family name (initial in India) so those active in academia will know me]

The stay order has been vacated. The selected names were supposed to be confirmed at a Executive Council (EC) meeting on February 28, but several SC Judges are down with swine-flu and hence that meeting has been pushed to March 15. As it is, most of the new appointees will only be joining service from July 2020.

The case filed in Dharwad was a frivolous one. There is no obligation to explicitly state the applicable UGC Regulations in the cover page of the advertisement. Being a State University, NLSIU is bound to follow the UGC Regulations for shortlisting candidates and conducting the interviews. The rules have been followed to the letter.

NEWS ALERT: For the first time in many years NLSIU is advertising for faculty positions (13 in all). Details here. An ad has also been placed in TOI.

https://www.nls.ac.in/academics/faculty-recruitment-2020-2/

This is the beginning of Sudhir's strategy to recruit A-grade faculty. Many good candidates will surely apply.

Quote:

The Supreme Court Collegium has proposed the appointment of Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi and judicial officers Rajendra Badamikar and Khazi Jayabunnisa Mohiuddin as Karnataka High Court Judges.

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/collegium-aditya-sondhi-rajendra-badamikar-khazi-jayabunnisa-mohiuddin-karnataka-high-court-judges