Tweet from Shubhankar Dam:

At an event in ILI, someone called Prof MP Singh the Bodhi Tree of Indian academia, especially public law. It's hard to think of a better metaphor. Few will ever match his kindness & compassion. Today, a giant fell and left Indian academia poorer



https://x.com/shubhankardam/status/2030277605539119558

Can I deny sharing my last drawn salary citing confidentiality reasons?

For context, I am an Associate currently at a Tier 3 firm who is looking to move out. I know that most HRs ask for past salary slips, whereas we don't know their budget for the role giving them the upper hand in salary negotiations which I feel is totally unfair. Additionally, asking pay slips is illegal in other countries but is not so in India due to which HRs continue to exploit us. Can I just not share my past salary details or would this be considered as arrogant thereby making me lose my chance entirely? Has anyone tried this before. Please advise.

🕉️🕉️🕉️ 🙏🙏🙏

1. Madhava Menon: Opening batsman. An institution builder and great administrator. Set up the inning beautifully.

2. BS Chimni: Middle order. One of India's greatest legal scholars and someone with global standing. Continued Menon's tradition of having solid visitors and excellent people on the governing bodies. Not a hands-on administrator like Menon, but administrative skills are secondary when your opening batsman has got you off to an excellent start.

3. MP Singh: Middle order: Excellent administrator and a very respected scholar. Alum of Columbia University, many years of experience at DU. Hired Shamnad Basheer, Sudhir Krishnaswamy and many young scholars at the rank of Professor. Poached Sudhir (an Assistant Prof at NLSIU) and directly made him a professor, saving him 10 years of service. Same with Shamnad, who was still a PhD student. Many other good faculty hired: Sourav Bhattacharya (NALSAR-Michigan alum), Chinmayi Arun (NALSAR-LSE alum) etc etc. Encouraged tons of credit courses by alumni and guest faculty from law firms and industry. Gave full autonomy to SJA to decide these courses. The NUJS Law Review flourished under MP Singh and became India's top legal journal at the time. In the later years of his tenure, the TMC came to power. Mamata began by appointing her astrologer to the NUJS EC (see report below). MP Singh refused to accept this appointment and rejected all other types of interference from the TMC.

https://www.barandbench.com/news/mamata-banerjee-recommends-astrologist-nujs-executive-committee-nimai-banerjee-ready

Menon was like Gavaskar, Chimni was like Pujara or Dravid, Singh was like Tendulkar or Kohli.

After this, all VCs were appointed under the TMC: Ishwara Bhat, Amit Talukdar, NK Chakraborty and now Nandimath. Don't need to comment further. I will only encourage people to compare the composition of the NUJS governing bodies then and now. 🙏

One of my younger colleagues had very poor written and oral advocacy skills. However, he was tenacious, would never backway from challenges, and we knew he would be the first person in and last person out on tough days. He had good people skills too. I hired him at a time when I needed someone who could handle last minute challenges as our team was often engaged at the last minute in many litigations.

He is doing very well today.

Would he have been hired without al push? No. In fact, the person who interviewed him for my team rejected him.

This is an exception and not the norm. 9 out of 10 people are hired for drafting, research and then groomed for better advocacy skills.

You know your weakness. Work on it.

Hi Cat Eater,

Since college, I had my doubts about my ADHD, but as soon as I started working, I had to get it diagnosed, and I have been on medication (stimulant and non-stimulant). My work significantly improved, I feel like the fog has cleared up, and whatnot. Although after getting diagnosed, I asked my doc if i should disclose this at my workplace, he asked me not to because, from his experience, his patients faced some or the other kind of discrimination after disclosure of their diagnosis. On a lighter note, he asked me to disclose it if I start working for a US or EU-based firm.

But apart from this, do let me know if I can help you in any way with managing symptoms and work.

Soli Sorabjee is mentioned. Hardeep Puri copied Soli Sorabjee on an email sent to Jeffrey Epstein on 16 February 2017 https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02660090.pdf

I became a lawyer at 27, became a corporate lawyer at 29, and started working in firms at 30. If I can do it at 27, you can too. Just try for a good college that gives internship options and work your ass off in those internships. I would advise against a drop, but it's your choice.

First get off social media cold turkey. Best decision you'll ever make. No insta, no Facebook, nothing. At best keep LinkedIn for job and career stuff. Avoid watching reels and shorts like it's the plague.

You like doing human things with humans. Focus on that. Don't let AI slop ruin your vibes.

For the anxiety thing, try a few minutes of meditation in the morning followed by pranayama or breathing exercises and yoga. This really helps. May sound like uncle advise, but it helps slowly and surely. If you still feel it's not helping or if your anxiety is interfering your day to day life, please see a mental health professional. Let the professionals give you solutions. Try Rockethealth or Amaha or other reputed online platforms if you can't visit physically or don't know who's good in your city. Internet can't fix your anxiety or your depression (get this formally diagnosed and treated please. It's a term thrown around recklessly).

Lastly, excercise at least 3x a week. Excercise gives you free anti-depressants. Don't discount the importance of this please.

Cheers and all the best.

Hello fellow readers,

I have three years of experience in data protection (work includes GDPR, DPDPA and other similar laws) in India and have worked with top-tier clients in this space. Since my law school days, I have aspired to work in Europe; however, I do not plan to pursue a foreign LLM, at this point of time.

I have seen some seniors, across different practice areas such as capital markets and M&A, move to foreign law firms after four to six years of experience; however, most of these transitions were to offices within Asia (say, Singapore or Dubai).

I would be grateful for guidance on whether it is realistically possible to enter a European law firm in the data protection/tech regulatory space without completing a foreign LLM. If yes, then how and if no, then how do I go about it?

Even if you or someone you know has made a similar move in another niche practice area (say, IPR, taxation, etc.) without an LLM, I would really appreciate you sharing those experiences, as they may be helpful for others exploring similar career paths.

Thank you in advance.

The way I see it, you should see a therapist and I do not mean that in negative way.
I think maybe due to lack of financial incentives you do not feel motivated to work as you do not see growth where you are so you feel demotivated. Also, you may not be enjoying the kind of work you are doing, combined with lack of connections with anyone at a place where you spend 9-10 hours at may zone you out.
You may have ADHD, but understand this, you are the captain of your own ship, you gotta understand the rewards that will come from your hardwork. That may motivate you.

I was interning in my first year of law school at a Tier 1 law firm in litigation. One day, the Partner called me into his chamber and asked,

“Are you working on anything right now?” I hesitated and said, “No sir.” So he handed me some work on the Societies Registration Act and a bit of stamp duty stuff. As I was about to leave his chamber, he stopped me and casually asked, “By the way, do you know what a society means?”

Now, I had this terrible habit back then of saying “yes” to everything just to sound smart. So I confidently said, “Yes sir.” And then I explained: “Sir, a society is like… where people live. With parks, roads, buildings…” (Basically I described Gokuldham Society from Taarak Mehta 😭). The Partner just stared at me for two seconds. This man was an Oxford grad.

Then he calmly asked - “Which year of law school are you in?”

I went - “Sir… first.”

He nodded and said,
“Dude, you better brace up.”

I replied,
“Thank you sir.” 😭

And I walked out like I hadn’t just ruined my own career in 30 seconds.

This is going to be an old uncle lecture, but here goes.

If you're from the 2026 batch, then you haven't experienced being a lawyer. I get your sense of disillusionment - I've been down that road. But here's the thing; law school doesn't (and can't) teach you how to become a lawyer, and it makes little difference how many "professors of practice" have taught you. Realistically, law school can never teach you the realities of the profession, because each practice area in each city in each country will turn out differently. Law school will help you understand basic concepts, and that's pretty much it. Becoming a lawyer is something you start learning the first day on the job and then keep learning till you quit or die - it makes little difference if you're a corporate/transactional lawyer or a litigator. You will have boring days and you'll have riveting, intellectually stimulating ones. You need to learn to plough through both.

The "profession is built around talking jargon and moving documents"? How does that make it any different from other white-collar professions? You're just using different jargon and moving around different pieces of data. That data you're "mechanically" moving around may be stultifying to you, friend, but it means a LOT to your client's commercial or personal prospects. And, for the record, NOBODY talks more jargon and moves around more pointless documents than litigators, since you harbour the impression that litigation involves more skill than a corporate law.

You feel that your friends are more "skilled" because they're finance bros or tech bros? They're not. They just have a different set of skills than you and they're as untrained and inexperienced as you are. Besides, who will they turn to down the line when they want to restructure their businesses, or want advice on navigating new SEBI regulations, or when they're being sued for a breach of non-compete? They're going to turn to you. Your skill is helping these people get out of trouble, or get to where they want with their lives and their businesses. If you help them, they'll come back to you again and again, because they trust you. It's the same reason why most of us prefer to go to the same accountants or doctors or hairdressers - because we trust them with stuff that is personal, sensitive and really important to our well-being. A lawyer's true skill is the trust that they build - with clients, with colleagues, with courts and tribunals.

Is practicing as a corporate lawyer mechanical compared to a litigator? Up to a point, yes. But I know plenty of litigators who got pigeonholed into specific types of disputes who have the same complaint. You want an example of mechanical? Try doing merger/demerger scheme matters year after year and you'll see what 'mechanical' truly means.

I've dealt with all sorts of clients in my two plus decades of practice - startup CEOs not old enough to buy a drink, flash hedge fund managers, algotraders, genius programmers, civil servants, cops - you name it. Many of them would be bankrupt, screwed over by unethical investors or in prison for being frauds or just stupid and overconfident. They're not - because of us, unskilled, banal lawyers.

I started life as a gen corp/M&A lawyer, then did some cap markets, and then became a litigator (which I currently am). One of the reasons I moved to litigation was because I too felt that a corporate/transactional practice was process driven and boring. To my surprise and delight I discovered that my new litigator colleagues, while more familiar with court craft, didn't know how to read financial statements, thought ROFR was a dog's name and were clueless about FEMA other than it existed and the ED could come after you if you violated it. This was a huge disadvantage to them while dealing with a particularly tricky shareholders dispute. So, yes, I got bored with corporate law, but I had learned skills that were (a) not taught in my premier NLU and (b) none of my coworkers had. You see where I'm going with this?

This is somewhat out of context, but I feel this applies to our profession. One of my favourite movie monologues from Margin Call:

"If you want to do this with your life, and do it well, you need to believe that you are necessary. And you are. If people want to live like this...with their big cars and these houses that they haven't even paid for. Then you are necessary. The only reason they can continue to live like kings is because we've got our fingers on the scale in their favor. And if I were to take my finger off...then the whole world gets really fing fair, really fing quickly."

If you still want to get a degree in another discipline, sure, you be you. But remember that you're doing it after spending 5 years studying for a profession you want to ditch before even spending a day practising it. Good luck.

A0 mistake

We were working on an advisory for a foreign client and I had done a shit ton of research for the matter. My practice area is smaller and more niche so not a lot of research comes as easily as Gen Corp / disputes.

Turned over the research, sat with my seniors, finalised everything into one doc and got ready to send it to the partner. Started proofreading the doc on a whim right before sending and realised that I had switched the appeal status for two cases with the same party name (one of these was a writ and the other an appeal).

Completely lost my shit because I knew that it had the potential to change our legal opinion (which could take days longer) and hyperventilated for a full hour - finally summoned the courage to message my PA - who promptly got on a call with me - only for both of us to come to the conclusion that it didn’t really impact our assessment and a couple of words had to be changed. Apologised to the PA about 10 times only for them to say it was completely fine, and it caused no issues. Made the change - sent out the doc to partner and subsequently to the client - life went on.

Moral of the story is that fuckups are only as big as we make them out to be (usually).

My anxiety however, continues to pervade my daily work life, and I do check a case status thrice before I open my mouth about it now :p

1. During my time as an A0, I had to prepare and send my senior some 125 signature pages to be signed next morning. It was my first month in the job and I didn't knew that emails through Outlook are actually sent around 5-10 seconds after hitting the send button. I was working on this till very late; was super sleepy so just pressed the sent button and immediately put down the laptop lid (before the mail was actually sent) and went to sleep. Unfortunately, the email was not sent and remained in my outbox. Senior kept waiting for the signature pages to be sent to the client. He even called me but it did not wake me up. Eventually, the signing was delayed. My Partner was super angry and I was scolded a lot. Nevertheless, the signature pages were sent in the afternoon and were signed the same day.

2. A few months later, I issued a CP Completion certificate to investors even though one of the CP was not completed. Informed my senior about this and he panicked a lot after learning about this blunder. We soon contacted the Company Rep to issue us the completely executed document which was the missing CP. Resent the CP Completion email. No one said anything and we never discussed about this mess I created.

Corporate Lawyer A1 here:

I was working on a PE/VC transaction representing the Company. The investor counsels finally gave the greenlight and I was supposed to circulate the document for signing. It was Diwali Time and I was in celebration mood. So I didn't check the pre-execution versions thoroughly and just updated the placeholders, formatting etc. and circulated the transaction documents for signing on DocuSign. The investor counsel calls me few days later saying that clause referencing on the circulated doc is incorrect and to edit it in the final doc. I started checking the document to correct the clause referencing and meanwhile realised that there was a major fuck up - i.e. while I was formatting the document before circulating on DocuSign, I had also deleted several important clauses like liquidation preference, pre-emptive right etc. by mistake. Now the document I had circulated on DocuSign to all parties didn't have these clauses and only I knew it. I couldn't cancel the DocuSign document since majority of signatories have already signed it and also since Promoter had wanted the document executed on Dhanteras, which day had already passed by then. I was afraid that the investor/their counsels/client/ Partner will find out and was super stressed. Once the document was fully executed on DocuSign, I downloaded it and tried editing it. But since few clauses were missing in entirety, editting was difficult since DocuSign had the envelope ID on top - which meant I couldnt add a new page in between with the missing clauses. In the end I finally added pages in between and copy pasted the DocuSign envelope ID to the new pages so that it didn't look like it has been added. But still because of these clauses insertions in between the formatting ended up very fucked up - by which I dreaded my opposing counsels would figure out the manipulation I did to the document. I sent the updated executed doc to investor counsels and dreaded their call regarding the docs. Finally days passed and investor counsel didn't notice and nobody noticed and finally I felt relieved 😅..

I have been doing this for dog's years so I had to think back (not becuase I haven't badly fucked up since but because I have gotten very good at solving any bad fuck up since).

We had to send out some documents on a deal, and there were very similarly named founders in competing companies. In one, we were representing the founders on the deal - one of whom was named Karan M (name changed obviously lol). In another deal, we were representing an investor (ABC VC) who investing in a company run by a founder named Karan A.

Accidentally sent a mail with one of the transaction documents - not super confidential - but still having some data that I was supposed to send to our client Karan M, to lawyers on the other side, as well as the other counter-party founder - Karan A.

Karan A then contacted: (a) our client, ABC VC, and told them that I fucked up, (b) our client, Karan M, and told him that I've leaked confidential information of Karan M's company to Karan A, and (c) Wrote a mail marking ABC VC and my partner calling me out for being careless and saying that he doesn't want to work with ABC VC because he's not sure if the confidential information being shared by him (Karan A) with ABC VC would be safe in our law firm's hands.

Thought my life had ended in that moment honestly.

But I was quite lucky to have two good things happen to me then: (a) My partner was a gem of a person - atleast on things like this (an absolutely asshole to work with, but stood by his juniors on everything, and (b) Our client ABC VC was an amazing client who I had, personally done several deals with.

Both got onto a call with Karan A and absolutely tore him a new one for escalating a minor issue. Told him that it was a genuine mistake that can happen to anybody - and that he was the one who escalated and spread more confidential information.

I still got a talking to, but nothing that was the end of the world.

I now double check my "to" and "cc" fields multiple times before sending out.

lets assume that you have X PQE in India (in the UK, no one really asks whether it is post AIBE or from the day you joined after college). Usually they remove 2 years at the start, because in the UK there is a 2 year training/qualification period post UG degree (previously it was LPC, now it has become like bar exam called SQE, but 2 years experience is still required, although someone even without a degree can technically sit for SQE 1). Although in India law is for 5 years and in the UK ug law is for 3 years, this 2 yr discount is still automatically added to Indian PQE. Then depending on the work and CV, the UK team will again add a variable deduction of 2-3 years, so in practice any Indian PQE below 4 years has little value. As this is discretionary and no HR team will ever say this upfront, if you can negotiate with the hiring partner you may get some leeway, however, it is rare. So rule of thumb is X - 4/5. sidenote: Laterals have kind of dried up.

To mod: Can you please edit my post to say 2026 will be my breakthrough year and I will find the best opportunity out there. On contemplation and support from the Legally India, I realised that I am being too negative and pessimistic about things. Could you edit my post to thank the community and correct the folly that I committed- putting negativity into universe and expecting good things in return.

Are these spam/rage bait posts? The utility of degrees from foreign universities in India (especially from the UK universities) is one of the topics that gets people most fired up on this platform. It's just that the choices seem so pat every time: NLS vs. Oxford, NALSAR vs. LSE... just too many of these cases sound too good to be true.

(a) The answer, assuming you are sure you want to work in India

Addressing this question in good faith (as an Indian citizen who chose to study law in the UK as an undergraduate with the aim of working in the UK), the answer to this seems pretty obvious to me, as long as you are sure that you want to work in India. Choose NALSAR. Very difficult to explain without becoming boring (and I don't want to get into too many small details), but British and Indian legal training is very different. The mental outlook, the way things are done... all are very different. There are also concepts that are there in India which are not there in the UK, for example. Loads of other differences in the legal cultures. They are worlds apart at this point. If you want to work in India and are absolutely sure of that, just go with NALSAR, I'd say.

Responses to some potential objections:

1. Going to LSE would allow you to be dual-qualified: Not untrue. But doing your foundational legal training in England, rather than India, when you want to work in India, is a bit... well, meh. Frankly, the best option for being dual-qualified isn't available to you - the two country law degree, a system which, it is true, the British have, and India doesn't. In the British system, you get the option of doing a four year LLB, with two years in the UK and two years in another jurisdiction (the U.S., France etc) - this is a degree that makes you eligible to qualify in both jurisdictions. To take your example of LSE... LSE has a tie-up like this with Columbia University in the U.S. True dual qualification, in a way that would meaningfully make you ready for primary practice in India, would mean participating in something like this. But Indian universities don't have such programmes, sadly. At the same time, being molded, on a foundational level, in a different legal culture would mean you'd have to unlearn/relearn a lot of things, once you came back to India. Had India had dual-qualification degree arrangements with the UK (like how UK unis have with French, German, American counterparts), that would have given you genuinely good preparation for life of practice in India, while also helping you dual-qualify, and help you be ready for practice in another jurisdiction, if you should ever want that choice. Under the current system, LSE would give you fab preparation for practice in England, but not at all for life as a litigating lawyer in India.

2. The headache:

(a) You'd have to do a lot of follow-up study of Indian law after completing your LSE degree, and, in fact, would need to not just take the AIBE, but do a bridging course as well. So abandon any romantic ideas you may have about returning, flushed with success with your English legal education, Nehru-style. No red carpet, only loads more study and formalities.

(b) Knowing India, you'd probably get a lot of snied comments about why you chose to return. India is a country where people tend to look down their noses at idealists, so any talk of returning out of love for country or even love for parents, etc, would be met with raised eyebrows; in their minds, people are more likely to think, 'This person couldn't make it in England, so has come back'. The trouble is, lawyers are not better than non-lawyers in front - indeed, lawyers are some of the most prejudiced, as far as this mentality is concerned. Therefore, you'd need to gain some experience in the UK to dispell any questions about your profile, before coming back to India. The trouble with that is that you'd probably have to end up spending a lot more than just the three LLB years in order to do that because of the British solicitor-barrister distinction, which India doesn't have:

(i) Were you to choose to become a solicitor, you'd need to do a further training course and exam after your LSE LLB called the SQE (which takes about a year), and two years of post-SQE work experience, called a training contract (in England and Wales, you need both exams and work experience to even qualify as a lawyer). Assuming you get a TC right out of university (which would mean the law firm that offered you a TC would pay for your SQE) and don't have to stay here on a graduate route visa gaining paralegal experience or something, you'd be spending six total years in the UK - six years of becoming integrated into the UK professional environment, six years of missing out on being integrated into the Indian professional environment.

(ii) Were you to choose to be a barrister and then go back (barristers are the lawyers in England and Wales who do the bulk of litigation work), like with solicitor training, you'd have to do an additional year of training known as the bar course, after which you'd have to do a pupillage in a barrister's chambers (a one-year-long period of on-the-job training); only after this do you get your practicing certificate. The trouble with pupillage is that it's dreadfully competitive and hard to get, even for the best law students. For many practice areas, your CV for pupillage applications may be boosted properly not just with an LSE LLB, but with a master's (LLM, or if you are good enough to get into Oxford for a master's, the BCL). Therefore, you are once again (and this is if all goes smoothly), spending about five to six years, not three years, in the UK.

The trouble is that those are the only ways to prove that you chose to leave the UK because you wanted to, rather than because you couldn't make it. And with the barrister thing, that's especially competitive. Unlike with solicitor training contracts, barristers' chambers do not fund your bar course training. You join an organisation called an inn of court, and apply to them for scholarships. For international students, they will expect you to demonstrate that you are committed, long term, to a career at the English bar, as might many chambers on your pupillage applications. So you have to fake a commitment you won't have, which is very hard to do (and the British way of doing things may sound elaborate, but is very good at detecting those who aren't committed).

(b) The answer, if you are not sure that you want to work in India

If you aren't sure that you want to work in India, go for LSE. LSE is an absolutely fab law school (I didn't go there). Loads of awesome career doors will be open for you in that case, it has some of the best legal scholars in the world and all that sort of thing. For example, if you wanted to work in a magic circle law firm, your chances would obviously be far more if you were to go to LSE, than if you were to stay in India - that's obvious, LSE is a British uni, after all. Far more LSE students get UK law firm jobs than do NALSAR students. If, at the end of the day, you decide that you do want to work in India, then the time spent outside might count as a worthy sacrifice/good learning experience. And of course, you would be dual-qualified (or eligible to be, if you had taken the degree but not pursued the solicitor or barrister training pathways further).

The only ambiguous

I'm the person who made the original comment you're replying to.

Essentially, although the salaries are higher in London, the taxes are (far) higher and so is the cost of living if you live in a nice part of London (and even more so if you want to send your children to private school). Far more bang for the buck in India in terms of finances - the lower taxes and lower cost of living mean you can afford a lot more and have more disposable income, not to mention there are simply more opportunities in a growing market and country like India.

On the other hand - there are lots of things about London you can't measure in money. How do you measure the value of living in London and not choking on the way to work like winter in Delhi? Or using it as a base to see Europe and the world and have friends from all over the world and work with the best people in the world? Ultimately it depends on what is important to you and what you want from life - but if money is all you want (nothing wrong with that) - trust me, stick to India.

Yes, if you come to London when you're 26 and work hard for 5 years and live carefully and save money and go back at 31, you can probably save more than you can in India, but after 5 years you probably won't want to go back (and you would have wasted the opportunity to experience London and Europe) and once children and spouse enter the picture there are a lot more factors in the equation. And if you want that kind of 5 year plan you're better off going to Dubai or Singapore where the taxes are lower anyway.

As I keep saying - money is the wrong lens with which to consider that kind of move - what kind of life do you want?

Bro/Sis chill. I am writing this after having a highly stressed filled Saturday afternoon. Not getting a T1 law firm is not the end of the world. Having said that I have friends who are from HNLU working in my T1 firm. Since its your 2nd Attempt I think you should join HNLU. At the same time keep your eye open on things better than T1. In house, govt PSUs academia etc. Or try for an mba after law. Respect + Secure future is not guaranteed by T1 NLUs.

In modern professional life, the capacity to build a family is not some romantic abstraction; it is closely tied to competence. Those who are capable tend, over time, to acquire not only financial security but also control over their schedules, and with that the ability to delegate, to buy time, and to create space for life beyond work.

Evidence of this is visible even within the most demanding Tier-1 firms. There are senior partners—sixteen years into practice—raising children, living well, and remaining professionally formidable. Many of them are driving BMW's and Mercs. Some are already being chauffeured in Maybach's. Their lives are not miracles; they are outcomes of sustained competence.

By contrast, there exists a quieter cohort: individuals unable to secure or sustain meaningful work, living in permanent uncertainty, often dependent on their parents well into adulthood. This is not bad luck masquerading as injustice; it is usually the absence of aptitude meeting the realities of a competitive profession.

The conclusion is uncomfortable but necessary. One should enter—and remain in—this profession only with the conviction that one has the temperament and ability to build a complete life within it. If marriage or children feel impossible because of the job, it is not the job that is slowly destroying you. It is the mismatch.

It's a service industry issue. If you're a revenue generating function, things will always be crazy and you'll be expected to deliver from day 1 without the training for it. You should consider moving in-house. Being a cost center is an amazing feeling. While the money is significantly lower, the work-life balance is great and you'll grow sustainably.

In fact, in my view it makes sense to learn the ropes in-house and move laterally to a law firm much later in life if you want the money, when the stress is less physical and more mental. Strangely people start at law firms, give their youth to it, and when it comes time to reap the benefits at partner level, get burned out and move in-house. Never made sense to me.

All the best.

My perspective as a law firm journeyman:

1. Lateral hirings boil down to two things- luck and timing.

2. Most important- information. Keep your eyes and ears open for potential openings. Ask your friends to inform you about potential resignations in the team. Apply directly to partner as soon as you have wind of it.

3. Helps to have friends. Ask your friend to put in a word. Usually helps (a lot).

4. Other than 2-3, the usual route- through recruiters. Tougher owing to the sheer number of applicants for a potential role.

Best of luck.

I am in academia. One of the best advice a now-retired professor gave me was - if your first instinct is to belittle the person asking the question, by perhaps saying something along the lines of - oh, do you not even know this; this is so easy; go read some more before coming to talk to me; among other kinds of dissmive remarks, you are the problem. In such scenarios, it is very likely that you are unclear or cannot explain your position in simple terms, which is your duty and responsibility as a professor. I personally do not know how much this applies to your scenario, but I wanted to share his advice.

Similar situation, but I’m not giving up yet. I’ve done call-backs at good firms and good teams, so even if it’s not going to work out, I’ll keep trying. I’ve reached out to pretty much all SAs/ PAs and Partners I’ve worked under for referrals. Cold emailing Partners on a daily basis. I know that something will work out, just not what yet.

You have two options: first is either keep blaming your college or circumstances (which seems to be what you’re doing.) It’s not good though, as it won’t lead you anywhere. I may not be in a position to say this, but you’ve got to be way tougher than this if you want to survive in this field. Connections and competence aside, law as a field, especially with the rise of AI, needs grit to thrive in and you don’t seem to have that from your post. Maybe you relied too much on your college or maybe you thought things would automatically work out- but they don’t. You have to strive and work to make things happen, sometimes way more than others. It’s unfair, yes, but sometimes inevitable.

Second, you start working to make things happen. Sure, it may not be what you want: maybe you’ll end up in a T-2 or T-3 and grumble, but at least you’ll have something good. Look into options: you have firms, judicial clerkships, in-house opportunities, LLMs. You can do a number of things to survive and make your situation better. The only question is if you’ll do it or not.

Maybe you won’t end up with anything in 2026 either. That’s fine. What’s not fine is not trying.

I am responding on good faith basis even though this is probably ragebait.

The percentage of people who choose litigation and become successful like that is far, far lower than the percentage of people who choose law firms and make partner. Moreover, the lit people either undergo a lot of hardship financially to begin with or else have a privileged background. People joining good law firms can start earning decently from day one and also support their families. These are all good enough reasons to choose one over the other. However, your adulation of one group is also over the board. Very few lawyers do anything consciously to 'shape' the law, most of them are trying to represent their clients to the best of their ability and cater to their needs and wants, that's all. A good professional can do well in both. Neither should ideally go after 'fame' or headlines, that's not the role of a lawyer.

The honest answer is - you do you. Not everyone want the same thing. And money after a point of time doesn't matter. Shaping the law in a court can be exciting for you, boring for someone. Similarly, working on a tax opinion or trail of documents of ownership for a property may be exciting for someone, boring for you. So, it would always differ. Not sure if this would give an answer to your query, but this is my philosophy.

Hi, this usually happens for a few reasons. Top of my head, I can think of the following reasons (along with how to help each situation):

1. You’re not prepped enough: if you don’t know stuff, it’s inevitable you feel nervous. The only way to get over this is to actually prepare. For GenCorp, have a good understanding of the Companies Act, and Contract Act, including any caveats or special conditions. Transfer of Property Act is a bonus. The section numbers are ideal to know, but as long as you know the concept well it should still be fine.

2. You’re well prepared but not used to interviews: I think at this point this situation should have gotten better, but if not and you feel you’re prepared enough, I’d suggest making a one page summary of each of your interviews and questions so far from memory and see if there’s a common topic you messed up and work on it. You should also aim to practice answers in front of a mirror or have a friend or two take a few mock interviews. Another advice is to pretend you’re teaching the topic to someone else, so you become used to verbalising the things you know.

3. You’re over-prepared and take too much pressure: if you’re over-prepared, even the simplest question can throw you off since you think you should know each and everything. Here, instead of an exercise, you just need a mindset shift: understand that you don’t know everything and it’s fine, in fact it is expected of you to not know everything and fumble a few times. There’s nothing else to do about it- as long as you make peace with the fact that it’s okay to be incorrect, you’ll be able to remain calm and not feel the pressure to say and do everything correctly and not make it such a huge deal in your head (I know the past rejections make it difficult, but you just have to shift this mindset.) Also, remember they don’t want you to be perfect- they’re not assessing you on how much you know, but on how calm you are under pressure and how quickly you can adapt. In most of my interviews, there were technical questions which stumped me and someone I didn’t even know the basics. So whenever I didn’t know anything, I asked my interviewer to tell me what it was. Every time (yes, each and every time), they told me the concept and asked me to apply it or answer the question again with this additional knowledge, which I then did. It’s okay to not know things, it’s not okay to not want to know things and it’s the latter you should focus on.

All the best, I’m sure you’ll ace the next one!

Happy holiday season LI folks. I get a lot of kids reach out around this time to ask for survival tips in law firms. Thought I'd make discourse out of it on LI. My go-to tips for surviving Indian law firms.

1. Working past 9pm is failure, not a flex. Look, there will be genuine emergencies. Deals close, courts have deadlines, shit happens. But if you're consistently working past 9pm, either you're terrible at managing your time or someone's taking advantage of you. Neither is something to be proud of. I've seen too many associates wear their all-nighters like medals. It's not impressive, it's concerning. The best lawyers I know are efficient and have boundaries. The ones bragging about working till 3am are either disorganized or have nothing else going on in their lives. Don't become that person.

2. You need to push back sometimes. This is hard when you're junior but it's essential. Some seniors will test you with unreasonable demands - draft needed by morning when they've sat on it for a week, "urgent" calls at 11pm that could've been an email. You have to learn when to push back. Not rudely, but firmly. "I can get this to you by tomorrow afternoon" instead of scrambling at midnight. Most bullies respect people who stand their ground. The ones who don't aren't worth working for anyway. Obviously pick your battles, but don't be a doormat.

3. Don't skip meals. If you're regularly skipping lunch or dinner to meet deadlines, you're doing something wrong. Either your planning is off or your senior is unreasonable. Your body isn't optional. I've seen associates genuinely proud of not eating all day to finish a draft. That's also not impressive and your body will begin showing signs of discontent very soon, some of it irreversible. Any senior who expects you to skip meals for work is a bad senior. Period. Tell them you need 30 minutes to eat. The draft will survive.

4. It's okay to do the bare minimum sometimes. Yes I said it. As long as your work ethic is solid overall, there will be days/weeks where you phone it in. God knows I do. Not every deal deserves your soul. Not every partner deserves 110% effort. Learn to identify which matters actually need your A-game and which ones just need competent work. Save your energy for things that matter to YOU - your health, your relationships, your life outside work.

5. Remember what this job actually is Here's something that took me years to accept - our work isn't that important. If every law firm shut down tomorrow, would the world be worse off? Probably not. We're not doctors, we're not teachers, we're not building anything. We help companies move money around and we draft documents. That's it. The money's good and the work can be interesting, but it's not your identity. I've watched too many talented people get consumed by this job, sacrifice their health and relationships, and for what? To make partner at 35 instead of 38? Law firms are golden handcuffs. Biglaw can be valuable experience and the money helps. Just don't lose yourself in it. Set boundaries early, push back when needed, and remember there's an entire life outside those glass towers. The documents will get done either way.

A more nuanced analysis of that study - https://m.thewire.in/article/caste/misreading-the-data-an-iim-udaipur-study-and-the-myth-of-caste-dominance

NKK pays around 60-80k for starters. This is second hand information. Someone who has first-hand info may confirm.

Now as far as institutional bias is concerned, let's be real it's there everywhere (Firms, Chambers, In house, Think tank or wherever you go). And I do not blame them, because using the institutional reputation as a proxy for judging competence is a low effort and somewhat reliable way for employers. The truth is on an average (I'm not talking about outliers) NLU folks are likely to do better than non-NLU folks.

However, being someone who was getting into an NLU outside of the top 10, but chose to stick to NON-NLU for convenience and financial reasons; in my first year of college I realised that rather than pointing fingers at the system, you should focus on finding a way around it. Even If I think that the NLU vs. NON NLU bias is unfair, it is still going to be there.

However, the most important thing to understand is just because it exists does not mean that you cannot offset it. I know people from non-NLUs (like Private Unis in Maharashtra or ALS Delhi) and were 1st gen, but are still working in chambers of the top Sr Advs in SCs. One of them did a clerkship. The other did his LLM from abroad (does not necessarily mean that you must also do clerkship / LLM. But I'm just saying that people have done this and you need to make a considered decision based on your circumstances).

Other than that, I would say a lot people go deep down the rabbit hole trying to have items on their CV which they 'think' would look impressive or boost their profile (Internships, Moots, Publication, Certifications and what not). Sure, a good CV is a valuable asset to have and in some cases might help you get your foot in the door. But focus on improving your actual skills and competence.

As harsh as it may sound it is easy for me to say “Oh! I am as competent as they are – I just could not get into these places because I’m not from an NLU” However, it requires a certain degree of self-awareness to realise the discomforting truth that all I have been doing in law school is using ChatGPT and PPTs to somehow pass or even ace the exam but I am not gaining any real knowledge. If I am given a niche research question, I would probably not be confident navigating through it without AI. A 6000 page file with voluminous evidence and a big fat case compendium, would probably scare tf out of me.

Do the work, and get progressively better at it. Whatever area you are interested in, have deep subject matter knowledge about it. Have great speaking and writing skills. Even if you somehow manage to get you foot in places like these if you can’t do these three things it would be difficult for you to sustain. Give the world irrefutable proof of your competency and ability so that none can ever use your college as an excuse to question your competence

I think it was Carl Jung who said that “No matter how isolated you are and how lonely you feel, if you do your work truly and conscientiously, unknown allies will come and seek you”. Sorry I my message was harsh or if I went off topic; built I only intended to send a message to all the NON-NLU folks folks. Don't kill your ambition; work towards it. Never feel disappointed that you’re not in an NLU. As NF himself said it “it’s the lows in life that makes us cherish the heights, and if that’s not the case then I’m fine believing a lie” Stay positive, and enjoy the journey ;)

During my initial years of law college, I was interning in a chamber back in my hometown. It was a busy day for my senior with multiple matters in multiple courts and quasi judicial bodies. There was an execution petition matter where we were representing the judgment debtor and as my senior could not be present at the time, he asked me to get a passover through another advocate.

I agreed to do so, but then I felt very awkward about going and asking another lawyer to seek a passover. I made a couple of half hearted attempts which did not translate and ultimately, the matter was called out, and there was no representation made, which led to a warrant being issued against the client.

He was obviously miffed but did not scold me. I have no idea how i got off easy on that.

My senior partner had once tried forcing me to participate in BW legal but I had refused because I didn’t want to be in the same league as their other participants. I told him I would rather try for reputed rankings or forums. I got a lot of grief from my senior partner for going against his decision and thereafter he made sure the firm didn’t recommend me for reputed rankings either:/

I am a partner! Here I am! Not for gossip but it is a good source for getting confirmation on market rumours. More importantly, I use it for understanding the common and uncommon issues faced by the younger generation which sometimes are lost on us. We too were a younger generation once and often wished we could communicate genuine issues anonymously. While I encourage free and frank discussion in the team, I understand that not everyone wishes to open up fully.

Listen to me OP, even though it seems bleaks right now, I assure you IT WILL GET BETTER. There are many in the same boat as you because the market this year is really bad and hiring is down in general.

You still have some time before graduation and not to mention, after graduation wherein you can still do assessment internships/ask for callbacks or pick up trainee/junior associate positions to work towards a full time role.

NEVER LOSE HOPE OR DO ANYTHING EXTREME, you have plenty of chances to upskill and make the best of your education with or without an offer in hand before graduation. Now is the time to work on your CV, your Cover Letter and yourself and not leave any stone unturned!

short answer is a big yes.

tbh there’s basically 3-4 reasons why ppl do clerkships.

first is using it as a springboard for disputes practice. i literally know 3-4 folks who walked into azb, sam, kco etc right after their clerkship. second is getting into chambers of top SAs. know a first gen guy from a lesser known college working w one of the best SAs in SC after 2 years of clerking. massive W.

third is getting that LOR for LLM apps. fourth is treating it as a part time gig while prepping for judiciary. and yes it counts in the 3 years experience rule. LRs were smart enough to protect their interests while drafting that judgment lol. (but if you plan on doing this don't disclose that in your clerkship interview for obvious reasons)
jjj
but ngl there is no written guarantee of a t1 disputes job. entirely depends on ur networking game. if ur smart enough it’s def manageable. i know a former judge who personally made sure all his LRs got placed after he retired. real mvp.

source: done judicial internships and talked to like 10-12 clerks about this so i know the tea. Hope this helps.

It is quite common. There are only a few reasons for which people do clerkships.

1. Join the disputes practice of a t-1 firm (I personally know many who are working at SAM, AZB, KCO Delhi disputes after SC and DHC clerkships for 1-2 years)

2. Join the chambers of Sr. Advs. I know of a guy (1st gen and not from a NLU / or famous private college )who got into the chambers of one of the best Supreme Court Sr.

3. Getting an LOR for an LLM abroad (LOR of a judge carries a lot of weight for admission committees at top institutions like Oxbridge, Ivy, etc.)

4. Treating it as a part time gig while you prepare for the Judiciary Exam. Yes! clerkship period is calculated

Transactions/banking/macro-fin lawyer here.

I am well ahead of my txn law peers ie I'm “semi-technical” in finance, meaning I can actually follow the maths instead of just name-dropping bullshit linkedinwala jargon.

Thinking back on how I picked up theory + asset pricing + valuation math + LBO + Black Scholes etc over the years:

- - Damodaran’s YouTube lectures (gold obviously): https://www.youtube.com/@AswathDamodaranonValuation
- - Cochrane’s Asset Pricing (literally skip all the math): https://www.johnhcochrane.com/research/books
- - PE/VC modeling MBA course I took in a sister institution (USA)

Now I’m trying to get “semi-technical” in CS/AI because I want to VIBE CODE some management and billing apps for my firm... And because my clients seem to think computers can do what I can do now...

- - I’ve done some vibe-coding with GPT5-Codex on ChatGPT.com/codex and made my team a calendar manager in less than 2 days
- - Thinking if I should start a course track with Harvard Law School "CS50 & AI for Lawyers"? Worth the time? https://cs50.harvard.edu/hls/2025/winter/
- What is the CS course track? What is the Damodaran of AI?
- Any books? podcasts? anyone can recommend?? tia

ps: pls don't the stupid childish explainer videos--I want the serious stuff like the Damodaran series

Not regularly, but we definitely take a peek once in a while.

The forums exist for this explicit purpose--that we can co-exist in anonymity with ass-0-ciates. Our generation invented the forums.

And without the flame-warring of LinkedIn and Twitter: so yes, Legally India is the only place that a partner seriously reads and writes in.

Given that all these comments are within a span of one day, this may be malicious, but I will give it the benefit of doubt. But i will give some advice which will work at KCO and other places / practices.

If any junior is facing issues, please privately bring it up with the partners and ask that you not be outed to the team for bringing concerns. From what I know, the KCO partners are decent enough to give you that benefit. This advice should also work in every other competition practice, expect may be at ▮▮▮. Also not all partners are made equal, use your brains before approaching.

In your discussion, bring specific examples which you think were wrong and should not have happened or what you think can happen better. Targeted feedback will help the partners address issues. If you are not comfortable bringing it up with the partners in general and feel you will be targeted, speak with someone you trust. In KCO you can consider speaking to Anshuman one-on-one. Of what I know of Anshuman, he is a super standup guy. Every firm have a few decent guys who would be willing to help you. Other examples being Harman in SAM, Bharat / Toshit in AZB, Dhruv / Vijay in CAM, etc.

No workplace is good or bad in perpetuity. This KCO team is quite small compared to its peers and they have a tremendous amount of work. In these circumstances, people tend to behave badly, but that is no excuse. Bring issues up, so solutions can be brought forward.

Don't expect people / seniors to notice issues that are affecting you on their own, that never happens in any workplace. Even if you think toxicity is apparent, it may be apparent to you but not to others. Everyone, including partners, is busy with their own set of issues and toxicity.

Once you have brought forward an issue, give a few months before you expect improvements. Nothing changes overnight. Even for seniors, it takes a lot of time to make folks break / change habit. Even where partners need to change, they need time to break habits - even when they are entirely aware that change is needed. Change is hard.

When you bring issues, it is entirely possible that partners wont agree to your assessment of the situation. What you feel as toxicity or wrong, may not be the case. As juniors, you may not have enough experience or context to assess all behavior. Most people think they are victims in a situation, but often that is not the case. People always tend to look at their agony through rose tinted glasses. If you bring an issue with a partner, please keep an open mind. If may very well be possible that the issue lies with you or with you and the third person.

Finally, you may not just be a fit in a team. Don't be afraid to leave and go elsewhere. Not all workplaces are meant for everyone.

Chapter 1: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/237313-chapter-1-the-overthrow

Chapter 2: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/237709#comment-237709

Chapter 3: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/238910-chapter-3-the-resistance

The Supreme Court building stood like a silent sentinel under the pale winter sun of late January 2036. Inside Courtroom No. 1, the air was thick with tension, the kind that precedes thunder. Fifteen judges sat in a long arc, their black robes absorbing the dim light from the high windows. At the centre was Acting Chief Justice Thakur, his face carved from granite, eyes fixed on the sheaf of papers before him. To his left and right sat Manohar, Desai, Panicker, and the others—some with folded arms, others scribbling notes, all aware that the next few hours could decide whether the Constitution still meant anything at all.

The Attorney General, a tall, sharp-featured man named Rakesh Malhotra, rose to address the bench. He cleared his throat, the sound echoing unnaturally loud in the hushed hall.

“Your Lordships, the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 2035, is not an act of destruction but of restoration. The Parliament, in its sovereign wisdom, has merely exercised the plenary power under Article 368. The so-called ‘basic structure’ doctrine was never part of the original text. It was a judicial invention—a noble one in its time, perhaps—but one that has outlived its utility. The 13-judge bench in 2035 correctly held that Parliament is the ultimate custodian of the Constitution. No court can bind future generations with an eternal straitjacket.”

Thakur interrupted, voice low but cutting. “Mr. Attorney General, are you suggesting that Parliament can tomorrow declare the Preamble to be a mere poem, strip away every fundamental right, and proclaim a monarchy? Where is the limit?”

Malhotra smiled thinly. “Your Lordship, the limit is the people themselves. They elect the Parliament. If the people disapprove, they will vote it out. That is the only true democracy.”

Panicker leaned forward, spectacles glinting. “And if the people are fed propaganda, if the media is muzzled, if dissent is branded sedition? Then what? You ask us to trust the very institution that just removed ‘democratic’ from the Preamble?”

A ripple of murmurs from the bar. Malhotra’s smile vanished. “The learned senior counsel is assuming mala fides. The amendment reflects the will of the majority. It restores Bharat to its civilizational roots—cow protection as a fundamental right, Hindi as the national language, Sanskrit as its soul. These are not impositions; they are corrections.”

Desai spoke next, his voice slow and deliberate. “But the removal of ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’—the deletion of the right to free exercise of religion—how do you justify that? Are we now to have a state religion by default?”

Malhotra’s tone sharpened. “The Constitution never mandated secularism as a rigid principle. It was an addition in 1976. We have merely returned to the original vision. And as for religion, the amendment does not prohibit faith; it removes the right to proselytise and convert, which has caused social discord. Surely Your Lordships cannot deny the chaos caused by unchecked missionary activity?”

Manohar, usually quiet, now spoke with quiet force. “The right to propagate religion is part of Article 25. You cannot delete it and claim it is mere ‘restoration’. This is rewriting the text to suit one ideology. If this amendment stands, tomorrow another Parliament can reinstate ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’—or delete ‘sovereign’ and ‘republic’. Then what? The Constitution becomes a revolving door.”

The Attorney General paused, glancing toward the back of the courtroom where a small group of government officials sat, including the Law Minister’s aide. He took a breath. “Your Lordships, the power to amend is unlimited. The people’s representatives have spoken. To strike this down would be to impose judicial supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty—a dangerous precedent.”

Thakur’s eyes narrowed. “Parliamentary sovereignty is not absolute. It is sovereignty under the Constitution. The people did not give Parliament the power to destroy the Constitution itself. Kesavananda Bharati held that the basic structure is beyond amendment. You overruled it in a bench that was constituted… unusually. We are here to examine whether that overruling was itself constitutional.”

Malhotra opened his mouth, but Thakur raised a hand. “We have heard you. We will hear the petitioners now.”

The senior counsel for the petitioners, an elderly woman with silver hair and a voice like steel, rose. Her name was Meera Iyer, once a law minister herself, now a fierce defender of the old order.

“Your Lordships, this is not about religion or language or cows. This is about power. The amendment removes the word ‘democratic’ from the Preamble. It deletes ‘personal liberty’ from Article 21. It allows Emergency on grounds of ‘internal disturbance’ or ‘threat to public order’—words vague enough to cover any protest, any tweet, any whisper of dissent. If this stands, the Constitution becomes a husk. The basic structure doctrine was not an invention; it was the court’s answer to the question: can a majority tomorrow vote to end democracy itself? The answer must be no. Otherwise, the Constitution is dead.”

She paused, letting the words sink in. “The 2035 judgment was procured by the very man who now sits in Rashtrapati Bhavan. A Chief Justice who became Acting President after two suspicious deaths, who then presided over a bench that erased the only safeguard against majoritarian tyranny. If Your Lordships uphold this, you will not just validate the amendment—you will validate the coup that enabled it.”

The courtroom was silent. Even the fans seemed to stop whirring.

Thakur looked at his brother judges. Some nodded imperceptibly. Others stared ahead, faces unreadable.

“We will reserve judgment,” he said finally. “The court will pronounce its verdict in due course. But let me be clear: we will not flinch from our duty. The Constitution is not a toy to be rewritten at whim. It is the soul of this nation. And we will protect it.”

As the judges rose, the bar erupted in murmurs. Outside the courtroom, television cameras waited like vultures. Reporters surged forward.

In the corridor, Ramalingam’s aide whispered into his phone. “Sir, the bench looks divided. But Thakur is leading hard. We may lose.”

At the other end, in Rashtrapati Bhavan, Ramalingam stubbed out his cigarette. His voice was calm, almost serene.

“Then we do what we must. Prepare the papers for impeachment. And tell Sashikala… it’s time to move to the next phase.”

The sun dipped behind the dome of the Supreme Court. Shadows lengthened across the lawns. Somewhere, a clerk was already typing the first draft of the judgment.

The confrontation had begun. The verdict would decide everything.

It's a bit of a tough spot. Generally, assessment interns are always paid stipends and paralegals and even higher amount. I don't know how badly you're applying but go all in, for every firm to exist.

I am not sure if it's the best advice to work as an intern or a paralegal for the long term either, since a lot of times people do not get absorbed. But since firms have been moving towards this trend of hiring only interns for fresher roles, I think it'll give you a better shot. Just try to be vigilant, do your checks thoroughly and don't fall for a firm or team that is known to be exploitative in general.

I feel because you're overwhelmed, you might not be applying enough. Ultimately, you do have the T-1 tag and a (revoked) offer. Might take a while but you still have an edge.

life sucks man. I hope whoever did that too has their career falling apart.

First of all, sit back and recollect yourself. When your mental health's not in the right place, you make poor decisions and lack the ability to act on things. You would also be more likely to miss opportunities that may present itself because of the lack of confidence. This was setback, nothing more or less than that.

As for hirings, law firms love exploitation, especially the ones outside the big 6. I'd personally suggest to try and look for something like assessment internships or paralegal positions, and go ahead only with places that have openings. Talk to the people in the team or at that workspace, and see if they have any leads on this. Else, it will be the same old trick of misusing you as cheap labour for another 6 months. It is difficult, but the better alternative.

At the same time. Keep applying. Not just at law firms, but for in-house roles too. Not just in Mumbai (that city's shit expensive), but in Delhi, Hyd, Blr as well. Being from a T- NLU myself, I understand the hype that comes around big firm hirings and brand value. While that could be a priority, don't chase just that and find yourself resourceless after a few months. It's a crucial phase for you. Nothing to panic, just be smart about your decisions- and half of that would start happening the moment you take a step back and look things for what they are instead of the emotional burden and anxiety of your world falling apart.

Stay strong. May the force be with you.

I find Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland to be quite quotable at times. This is one of those.

"Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
The Cheshire Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to."
==============================================================================================================================================

Depends on what you want to do. If you want to build a litigation doing trials as well (which is important, especially for people without legal background, since a lot of people would approach you first on the original side - think "My brother got arrested last night" or "My cheque has bounced" - those situations would be more common, especially for younger lawyers, than "Here's an RSA for you").

And if you don't know what you want to do, which court, as long as you emerge successful in litigation, then the remainder of the above-quote is also relevant:

"The Cheshire Cat: Then it doesn't much matter which way you go.
Alice: ...So long as I get somewhere.
The Cheshire Cat: Oh, you're sure to do that, if only you walk long enough"
==================================================================================================================================================================================

If you're serious about litigation, don't quit after a short period of time. After putting in long hours & getting peanuts, you might feel that it's not worth it. It's imperative you carry on. It gets better, eventually. Cheers.

Yes, people do. How common layoffs are, however, is difficult to state with certainty because (i) firms prefer to not comment on reasons for the termination of the engagement barring in cases of extreme performance or character lapses, and (ii) attorneys prefer to represent that they resigned voluntarily and lateraled out, to save face (and many firm HRs counsel attorneys being let go to specifically frame it this way on email, etc., for this reason). Anecdotally speaking, even accounting for the lack of candor among people having been laid off, layoffs are neither routine nor very commonplace.

However, they do occur. At the junior level, the usual reason is non-performance, which can include lack of sufficient availability on several occasions (e.g., if Associate X is constantly turning down work, not billing enough, being unavailable beyond usual office hours (which like it or not, comes with territory)), shoddy work (weak or insufficiently rigorous legal analysis on advisory mandates or litigation -- the extreme example of which includes misapplying statutes, using obsolete statutes, overlooking major precedents, etc., as well as the more garden variety lack of attention to detail, sloppy writing (bad English, incorrect grammar, syntax) -- by reference to class-year linked benchmarks. Senior lawyers typically expect juniors to learn on the job, consistent with lawyering being an apprenticeship-based profession, and the inability and/or unwillingness to learn (particularly, learn from one's mistakes) over and over, can cause performance issues. Repeating the same mistakes is the textbook example of a performance issue that warrants eventual firing. The less common reason is lack of personality fit (e.g., lack of polish, demonstrated and repeated inability or unwillingness to play well with colleagues - both senior and junior). Sometimes, it could also simply be a function of there not being enough work to justify keeping someone on, though firms tend to be a lot more loathe to layoff attorneys for temporary economic reasons.

As a senior, the rope becomes much smaller. And business case can become a stronger basis for layoffs. Without knowing which year you are, and the kind of firm you work in (I can only speak to the so-called Tier 1 firms, having worked in two of them, but understand that recruitment and termination modalities materially vary), it is difficult to state any more conclusively.

From the perspective of the 4-prong test from Puttuswamy, there's probably no way to actually implement it legally, since it's the most intrusive and least proportional way of preventing fraud. But realistically, we'll see other technologies like 'SIM Binding' and practices like recording of IMEI numbers before sale, emerge from the Telecommunications Act and it's rules since those involve the regulation of Network Equipment Providers and Telecom Equipment makers. It's actually very likely that the GOI will monitor phones on a tower level instead since they can't force a pre-install. This is just speculation however.

There’s a development unfolding within the practice of advocacy that is not merely concerning — it is profoundly unsettling. We are witnessing the rise of an entire category of lawyers whose principal role is not advocacy, not legal strategy, not even substantive engagement with the case, but simply to act as glorified couriers for filings and briefings headed to Supreme Court Senior Counsel. To imagine this as a harmless administrative evolution would be a grave mistake. It is, in fact, a system that has been carefully constructed — and carefully maintained.

What should trouble any serious observer of the profession is this: these firms function because senior counsel — yes, the seniors themselves — are feeding them the work. For anyone outside this comfortable little ecosystem, let’s be absolutely clear. This is a complete inversion of how the system was designed. The client never belonged to the senior. The senior was meant to be briefed, not to orchestrate the flow of briefs.

Then there is the matter of fees — astronomical in many cases — and the perpetual “unavailability.” These obstacles exist primarily for those who stand outside the charmed circle. But route your matter through one of the favoured firms and suddenly the senior is available, the conversation changes, and the fee structure becomes remarkably flexible. It is, frankly, astonishing how openly and effortlessly this cartel operates.

Which leads to a question we have been far too hesitant to confront: has the time come to reconsider — perhaps even dismantle — the entire edifice of Senior Advocates and AoRs? The oft-cited claim that AoRs provide some form of meaningful filtration is, to put it politely, implausible. Everyone within the profession knows it. What remains today is a structure that is conceptually outdated and practically repurposed to restrict access to Supreme Court work.

And here we must also address the hypocrisy. A number of younger designated seniors — including the NLS and NLU pedigrees who present themselves as the torchbearers of professional ethics — are, in reality, running what are effectively law firms. They draft. They file. They brief other seniors. They do precisely what the rules say they should not — all while maintaining a veneer of sanctimony about the honour of the designation. Even some of the “stars” so frequently lauded on this very platform are immersed in this charade.

Perhaps the time has come to speak about this openly — and honestly.

Let’s discuss this.

Dear Young me,

While there is no right answer to this question, let me tell you a few nuggets of experience that may help you with your decision.

Law completed from any college/university other than from top one or two national law universities is basically run in the mill course. Completing CA with internship, college, etc. can be really tough. But once you have done the hard work and completed your CA (which has few law/tax papers), you can anytime complete a 3 years law course from any morning law college along with your work. I have seen may CAs who have done law later and are now established (first-generation) lawyers/ tax experts and they have all echoed that while their preliminary practice is now legal, it was their CA course which gave them the strong foundation on which they have built their practice.

However, there is always more to life than Law/CA and trust me when I say that you will have to take tougher decisions in life than choosing CA or Law. So, take your time (not too much though!) and do whatever you think will help you excel in life as a person.

Your 41 years old friend

If he has shouted on an intern then I promise you, the associates have had worse. So, don't worry about facing the team. They have all been there. The good thing is that u have been shouted at as an intern. Fuck off from that place right after the internship and never go back.

Hey, please don't let one person put you down like this. I dont know how good or bad your work was but I think there is no harm in looking at your own work in a critical manner to see if you fell short of what was expected in any way. The partner was obviously in the wrong for publicly berating you like that and you should not let that incident get to you. One person's disapproval of one piece of work that you did does not mean that you aren't cut out for the law.

You could have easily googled it or asked AI. Can't do basic research and you want to be a lawyer.

Anyways...

BUMP is an acronym for "Bring Up My Post". A "bump" comment is a post or comment made on a social media or forum post to push it back to the top of a feed or discussion thread. It is a way to increase a post's visibility to more users without adding new content to it. Bumping is common in online groups and forums where posts can quickly get buried by newer ones.

Do your own research next time.

I am trying to know how fee structures work for senior lawyers practicing in the High Court and tribunals of Kerala especially in comparison with bigger metro bars.

I am curious about the following points and would appreciate inputs from advocates practicing or having knowledge of these courts.

1. Whether seniors usually charge per hearing or per case brief. What kind of retainers or conference fees are common there
2. Rough range of fees charged by the top 2 or 3 names in KHC, both per case/per hearing and per year.
3.What the 10-15 lawyers in KHC usually make yearly.
4. Fees charged by top non designated seniors.
5. What a typical advocate in these states earns after around 5,10 years of practice

Looking for insights based on actual practice, not speculations because we usually have figures about metro cities and 2-3 other High Courts. This thread might help young lawyers who are considering litigation careers in these smaller tier 2 states

To everyone suffering from this, been there - it gets better with consistent efforts. While I will not pretend to understand your individual hardships, I will set down what has worked in the past for me: (i) The more you can control your weekend drinking, the less overwhelming the Monxiety is going to be; (ii) Scheduling a game of pickleball, badminton, football or whatever works for you around the 8pm - 9pm mark helps. Releasing endorphins naturally is a great way to let the anxiety be less controlling - basically sweat it out; (iii) The toughest, if you have work for Sunday, try to get done with it by 6pm-ish so that you can have your authority over the 6pm-12am slot; (iv) If you can sleep early and have an activity (Gyming, yoga or reading) for the next morning, that is pretty useful too.

What sucks is the lack of autonomy over our time and not the work itself. I hope these things are helpful, or your find your own which help. Principally, try natural methods to bring down your baseline anxiety on a Sunday - can be achieved by sports, exercising, waking up early, sleeping on time etc (only so that you can claim back more of your time).

1. Create folders in Outlook based on client names.

2. Create sub-folders using client name followed by matter name. This will come in handy to not have 6 sub-folders called "General Advisory".

3. As soon as you get a few mins (travel, waiting on calls, smoke breaks, waiting for elevator etc) - start (1) flagging emails that need your attention; (2) shifting them to the relevant folders id you dont flag them.

If you want to be a really good team member use different color flags to mark what your team (even if partner) needs to respond to - so that you dont pass on the buck and relax. Some may say this is their expectation - but right now I'm focusing on you not them.

4. End of the day - spend 3 mins to check what emails are still on your inbox and flagged because they need to be addressed.

The above assumes you've read all emails to know what need your attention and aren't expecting "@xyz" only to tell you what needs your attention.

If you can spend 2-3 mins on sorting mails every 3-4 hours, you should be good.

I create folder and subfolders for every new matter and sub-matters. You can add rules in outlook to directly move all mails from a sender or with a specific subject line to automatically move to a folder/sub-folder. That's very important. Keep a separate folder for all templates/precedents. for any mails that you need to revie, read, catch up on or respond to, make it a habit to immediately click on the To-Do icon on the mail thumbnail.

The only way to get into that is through joining the forces. Military, Paramilitary or Police. There's also an IB recruitment, but that's open for all. If you're interested in intelligence as an advocate you may apply for CBI prosecution, IB prosecution or APO (state wise). Other than that if you really want to get into the high level stuff like RAW or MI, then definitely need a Special Forces background or you need to be a specialist. Recently there was a massive recruitment for cyber specialist, but that's only for btech/mtech grad. Either clear UPSC exams like CAPF, CSE (IPS) or SSB for military, or state pcs police. Then from there join their respective intelligence units. It's not an easy or straightforward journey. All the best.

Hello, lovely people of LI. I had given CLAT in 2021, and despite a good rank, I joined a private college in my city out of some stupid reason. I am suffering the consequences now as the placements have been abysmal and subpar. I am graduating in 2026, and have a decently streamlined CV (M&A, and a little disputes, with some indirect tax).

I am ready to be unemployed for a few months post my graduation. But everything looks too bleak. My peers at least have some foot in the door. I never wanted to choose law as a career, but I enjoy M&A, and have some skills. What should my path ahead be to not remain unemployed by the end of next year?

I really am lost, and get panic attacks almost everyday at the prospect of being unemployed. Please, any help, words of encouragement would help. I am actively trying my best to get roles, but everything seems uncertain. Thank you.

I once wrote a comment which went something like this:

Many years ago I left a Tier-1 disputes practice in Delhi and moved to a High Court practice in a Tier-2 city. I wasn’t sure it was the right decision. The idea was simply to try it and see. I don't regret the decision.

A few lessons from this side:

(a) In the beginning, remuneration will be around 10–15% of what you make in a Tier-1 firm. Maybe even less. It will be a bigger issue than you think.

(b) But the pay will rise steadily, and your cost of living will go down dramatically as you will be living in your hometown.

(c) The work initially may appear routine, but it will probably be better than what you did in the firm. I read more judgments in the first two months here than what I probably did in firm practice. And no case notes, argument notes, list of dates, or “notes” of any kind.

(d) You get to appear and argue much more. If you argue well, judges start addressing you by name. One gets to learn the art of adjourning cases which takes some skill (something even partners in Tier-1 firms sometimes brief Seniors for). Then one gets to argue!

(e) Work–life balance improves. You have more control over your time. Family is closer.

(f) No more Delhi–Gurgaon–Noida traffic.

(g) Disputes practice in a tier 1 firm is very different from actual litigation. A 100 million arbitration claim filed after many billable months cannot match the thrill of arguing admittedly not-so-complex cases every day.

But I suggest staying at the firm for at least two years. The firm teaches you many things. It will broaden your horizons and teach you how to think and act like a professional (and I am not talking about ChatGPT etc.). And you will have some savings.

You must be clear about why you want to move. If the motivation to shift is the belief that it is “easier” to become a designated Senior/ succeed simple because you are from a Tier 1 NLU with Tier 1 firm experience in a Tier 2 city, you would be wrong.

Long things short.

Don't shift. The grass always seems greener on the other side. Working in M&A for quite a few years now and trust me a lot of people leave here for a better work life. There's a lot of work, short deadlines, working weekends and the same working timings as yours mostly on weekends also. So, if you wanna shift then shift to an in house role or preferably some other practice but not Corporate and M&A. We have much more pathetic WLB and timings than you guys.

All the best for your future.

https://www.barandbench.com/news/law-students-cant-be-barred-from-exams-for-low-attendance-delhi-high-court-issues-guidelines

What will be the likely impact of this judgment?

I'm a tax lawyer, I have been practicing since the last 5 years and have practiced in Delhi as well as Mumbai, so I'll just answer from just a tax perspective.

1. The CA angle- CAs are skilled professionals, especially in tax but a tax lawyer is not just a tax professional. There are many ancillary documents and agreements you need to know how to draft in order to do effective tax planning and this skill is lacking in CAs. Moreover when it comes to litigation, CAs tend to focus on each and every small detail that might help them so that they somehow get the relief from courts from their clients but in the process they focus less on drafting with precision and poise and rather focus on points in favour. Furthermore, the CAs are also lacking the evidence angle in search cases which makes them unsuitable in certain situations. But nevertheless as they dominate the profession and practice , they are in a position where the sheer quantity of CAs and their practice methods becomes the norm and hence heavy drafting without precision and unconnected points being on record is the norm. There is so much clutter in the tax litigation which makes it look daunting while in reality it isn't. (A lawyer can become a CA as well but a CA cannot become a lawyer unless he completely submits himself to the jealous mistress.) So to partly answer your question, YES, tax is not a lucrative career option for those who are not practicing it the way it is meant to be practiced.

2. Location- Mumbai is the best place to practice tax because of the number of cases and opportunities in advisory work but again 80% of this work is with CA firms. Second best options are Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai and Hyderabad. For learning the craft you need to join a good senior (not necessarily a designated sr adv), whether he/she is a lawyer or CA , it doesn't matter. Tax survives on logic all alone and in order to present the logic there must be clarity of thought and precision. But clutter is sometimes necessary to shroud the logic for pass through purposes. You will find good seniors in Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Bangalore but be advised you cannot judge them from afar. You'll have to work with everyone for atleast 2 months each to adjudge whether they can teach you anything or just force you to mug up the sections from ITA or CGST. So interning is the key, but the actual learning will only start when you join a senior for full time atleast for 2 to 3 years. But in your case as you have mentioned you are keen to reside in Delhi so you can look for seniors specifically in Delhi

3. Knowledge building- Tax is an specialised field. Start reading from the day you decide to enter taxation and never stop ever. Apart from this re brush yourself with the fundamentals of economics, accounts, and commerce. Focus on accounting for 2 to 3 weeks before reading a book on tax. This will help you to understand the terms and not get bored while reading the provisions. Start with CA books so that you understand the application of provisions and then move to commentaries to deepen your knowledge on the intricacies of the provision.

4. Direct or Indirect- completely your choice, there is no bar that you cannot do both but it would be a difficult task to manage both in future. Another point is do not stick to a particular forum, that is to say don't just decide to practice only at HC or only SC. Tax practice starts from the day a transaction has to take place to the day it is approved by the gavel. Find a senior that practices from advisory level and also litigates (but if he litigates only till the tribunal level that is also ok, as most disputes are settled at the tribunal level).

4. Forum- I think this point needs more consideration. The writ practice is taking precedence in tax. As soon as the assessing officer or department messes up the assessees approach the HCs in writ and do not fight the case on merits to save themselves from a potential addition. If you join a senior solely practicing at HC or SC then 90% of the time you will be bound in drafting only and there is no scope for actual learning and most of the cases are referred by CAs or other advocates. Whereas, a complete professional can shape you from advisory to litigation so the forum carefully.

5. Tax as a career option- Sufficiently lucrative if you possess or develop the skills required out of a tax professional and tax lawyer. Tax is always going to be there. Yes the number of CAs in the field makes it extremely competitive but remember clarity prevails over the clutter.

Take an informed decision. Do not go with what everyone is saying. Take your own decisions and take responsibility for your decisions. There is sufficient work in every field but you just have to be good enough so that the work comes to you otherwise nobody will pay as a professional to do average quality work.

Every firm has different KPIs for its KM team, but some basic functions are consistent across the industry.

1. Knowledge Gathering and Processing: The KM team is responsible for sourcing the latest legal and regulatory updates and processing them in a way that can be shared with all firm members. The purpose here is to ensure that practicing lawyers remain updated on developments. This also builds the firm’s KM repository over time and makes research and drafting efficient in the longer run.

2. Designing courses for firm members: Almost all law firms of a certain size (and disposable resources) have internal courses for their lawyers, which sometimes also form a part of the lawyers’ KPIs. The KM team develops these courses and handles the actual training/ course delivery aspects also. This can also include sessions with external speakers.

3. Maintaining repository of firm drafts and docs: It is also common for the KM team to keep a record of all the drafts and documents prepared in the firm across all matters. This is done to ensure that the drafts and documents are available to other lawyers as reference, if and when needed in the future for other matters.

4. Cross functionality with BD and HR teams: KM and BD teams often work together on digital marketing initiatives (think knowledge focused posts, 3rd party publications, media quotes etc.) and other related aspects. KM also works with HR on preparing firm wide policies at times (though less often) and also has a role to play in appraisals (if your firm mandates KM contributions in your KPIs).

KM teams typically do not work on any transactions. Even if there are lawyers in the team, they do not practice and instead work on the things I mentioned above.

The role is a mix of research and administrative work - typically a 80:20 split between the two.

The pay is decent. KM associates usually get paid 20-30% less of what practicing associates make at the firm at the same PQE. Not a bad deal, specially considering the working hours are typically lesser (meaning overtime is usually not required on a daily basis).

As I said, the exact role differs from firm to firm. But if you’re someone who enjoys research/ want a role that is a mix of corporate and academia, this can be good opportunity for you.

Hope this helps!

British shows that hit your criteria:

1. Black Doves.

2. Treason.

3. Adolescence.

4. Operation Mincemeat.

Other shows (both American) that also hit your criteria:

1. Designated Survivor (health warning: very long) (but going into a really fascinating U.S. constitutional law hypothetical).

2. Zero Day.

Slightly tangential, but I wish I had gone to my lectures / classes more.

Getting an education, even an average quality one, is a privilege, and I squandered it by being lazy, having a conceited view of myself (oh, the folly of youth!) and by exaggerating (in my mind) the tedium caused by the mediocrity of Indian colleges. I wish I had attended all my lectures in all my subjects diligently. I really like the law and I think I have missed the only opportunity to learn the basics of this great field in a structured manner and in a broadly conducive environment.

Another thing is that being a bad student becomes a bad habit which is particularly difficult to shake off. A good lawyer is always learning and if you take an early view that you can only be taught by a certain type of persons (e.g. only by the very smart and very polished) or in a particular manner (e.g. only in interactive, stimulating sessions as opposed to boring, one-way lectures), you take away your ability to be humble and grab every learning from whoever, wherever (e.g. learn something interesting from a dull client who nonetheless came to know something very useful from another of her cases / transactions handled by someone else).

SO, DEAR READER, DO NOT SKIP LECTURES EVEN IF YOU THINK IT IS NOT WORTH IT OR IF YOU THINK YOU ARE "TOO COOL FOR (THE ACTUAL LAW) SCHOOL". NLU or non-NLU. You take 100% of what life has given you for your three or five years of law college.

Other related threads:

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/185058-recommended-books-for-disputes

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/164466-book-recommendations-for-lawyers

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/390352-good-reference-books-for-college

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/233228-reading-list-for-fy-law-students

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/171612-the-best-books-on-constitutional-law

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/319733-recommended-books-for-general-corporate

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/246895-reading-list-for-freshers-to-law-school

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/409507-book-recommendations-on-evidentiary-law-principles

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/198510-projects-lawyers-need-advice

bonus 10% variable for freshers, but mostly people get at least 70% of it, could be more depending on performance. 20% bonus from A2. insurance upto 10 lakhs. 10% TDS deduction, you will get the full refund at the end of ITR assuming you hvae no other income and don't cross the thresholds.

Hi, can someone please provide an explanation on the timeline / developments towards the entry of foreign firms in India? We really need foreign firms' presence in India to drive an otherwise stagnant salary scale prevalent in corporate law in India. Further, I was contemplating if perhaps a representation may be made by a collective to the BCI / Ministry of Law / Ministry of Corporate Affairs that may push them towards opening up the market in India?

I do not mind the work, I really do not. But comparatively, people in parallel professions such as banking etc have much higher scales at the elite levels than us, and also have a great work culture. 1.2 Lacs odd is rather average, and there is no reason why the slab has been stagnant for so many years when incomes and profits are rising.

I just do not feel like I am getting the money commensurate to the work being put, and wish there was a way to communicate that comprehensively. Law firm partners often complain about associates not being as driven to work as they were 5/6 years back, but then again, incomes from that time to now have barely increased, whereas inflation is a reality. I just feel extremely annoyed with the industry. This was intended to be a rant, but I feel that it may have turned out as such. My apologies for the same.

I've had the good fortune of being taught by fantastic profs at NLS- Prof TS, Prof. Nigam, Prof Mrinal, Prof Sudhir, Prof RS, Prof Mihir, Prof Ambasta, Prof Sahana, Prof Sudhanshu, Prof Raag, Prof Ashritha, Prof. Atreyee, Prof. Saurabh- all in no particular order. Each of them have in some way fundamentally changed the way I view the world and law and I couldn't be more grateful for this privilege

The EC finally cut the extension elastic of NKC. Nandimath is going to be the new VC. NKC wanted to brazen it out and put a laundry list of things to discuss but all those things deferred since the new VC takes over shortly. Interestingly, four faculty members appointed by NKC also resigned. Apparently, this was in response to a complaint by a former EC faculty member who rightly argued that NKC was being capricious. Expect a new game and changed dynamics in the EC.

Apparently the following were in the race, AKP, Sullu, Rathin B (NBU Law), ID (NLU Meg), Vij (MNLU Nag) among others.

But what about the financial chicanery, shady faculty recruitments etc? PIB inquiries got waylaid by NKC earlier and now this too gets hushed up in exchange for shoving out NKC? And what about his acolytes including the Four Horsemen who will now buzz around Nandi?

The gentleman whom you respond to seems quite young, uninformed and yes, naiive.

Anyone who believes a top transaction partner merely does paperwork, is an ill informed bumpkin. Taking my own rather humble example, the promoters of my clients rely on my rather blindly and ask me - "......bhai, karu ya nahi karu". That's it. All my knowledge and expertise is used to tell them succinctly, whether to do the deal or not. And if yes, how. They rely on me to negotiate not mere legalese, but commercials. I am quite certain it is the same for any top transaction partner. I do not blame this gentleman for his opinion since unless you are exposed to such settings, the average person would perhaps be equally blinkered and blissfully ignorant as he is. On innumerable occasions, my promoters will get the powers that be to call or meet me - since somethings may require a new policy or approach to be taken and the powers that be also know who I am and that what i say, will be the correct path to take.

For litigations, it appears our dear gentleman has been exposed to instructing attorneys who act as postmen and merely deliver a brief to the Counsel. A good litigating lawyer in a firm, is the one who actually strategises the matter and evolves the entire approach to be taken. The Counsels are frequently like horses i.e. they do need to be directed and shown the path. No one can do that except the instructing attorney since he is the one who knows the client and is the repository of all facts that are not only germane to the matter at hand, but, to the client. The most eminent Senior Counsels have sometimes complimented me and told me in as many words, that the victory was possible only due to my effort and thinking.

I thought it was rather essential that I write this to offer a counterview to our dear gentleman. I wholeheartedly agree that litigation is truly wonderful and very special - the thrill one gets in a court room during a hotly contested matter bears scarce replication. But, to distil transaction partners (not associates et al) to mere paperpushers, only displays a lack of knowledge, awareness and exposure.

I will not comment on money since it is honestly something I am least interested in, as I believe I earn far more than what my wants or needs require.

Find a good chamber and intern for 2-3 months. In one month, it's tough to gauge the culture, boss, colleagues. Might sound corny but in litigation, the place where you work for 13-14 hours a day needs to be conducive and peaceful. No point going to a toxic place. So, find out people and intern right away because vacancies are always an issue in litigation. Hone your research. Drafting you'll learn on the job. But the most important non-law skill is be proactive, be quick on the uptake, make yourself indispensable.

I think you should do a thorough reading and find out research gap.

1. There could be some kind of research into a particular topic but not in India.

2. There could be some kind of research I to that topic in India but nobody would've looked at it from that particular lens- like Law & Economics, Quantitative research etc.

3. There could be some research in India but decades old. You may need to reassess if things are the same.

While I was picking my topic, I did not know this. Wish I did.

Just a clarification regarding mis-gendering. Y’all are correct in using she/her pronouns for Raghavi because on her X profile she lists those pronouns and publicly identifies as a trans woman. She has embraced being a woman after transitioning both physically and emotionally. But Rohin uses they/them pronouns and filed a PIL explicitly seeking recognition for these pronouns. In Rohin’s response to the allegations, they specifically mentions that they is a non-binary person and not a male. So for Rohin it would be appropriate to use they.

Someone has pointed this out, but the moderator partly censored it because this person used the F word. I am explaining it properly.

Honestly, at the risk of feeding the cycle further, I just wanted to offer one counterpoint not to convince you (since you seem quite sure of your views), but to put another perspective out there for anyone else reading this. You clearly have strong feelings about law firms and associates, but constantly reducing the work to “paper-pushing” or “clerical tasks” doesn’t reflect the reality of what many of us actually do. Especially in disputes teams, associates are often involved in complex drafting, legal strategy, client calls, regulatory interpretation, and procedural problem-solving. And yes, not everyone argues cases in year one, that’s true whether you’re in a firm or a chamber.

Which brings me to a broader point: for the first few years, the real difference between a chamber junior and a law firm associate often comes down to appearances and even that may be limited to procedural appearances. On everything else — research, drafting, strategizing — the work can be equally demanding, if not more structured and rigorous in a firm setup. The idea that law firm associates “learn nothing” is, frankly, a bit naive.

Also worth noting is that many people actually enjoy the law firm life. It may not be everyone’s dream, but for some, it’s fulfilling, intellectually and professionally. You get to work with sharp colleagues, solve real-world problems, help clients navigate disputes, and sometimes even structure large, sensitive matters with national impact. If you stick around, you can go into BD, become counsel, make partner, or even set up your own boutique, which is pretty entrepreneurial in itself. Your shining senior advocates aren’t the only white knights in armour in this profession. A lot of good lawyering happens outside the courtroom too, quietly, effectively, and with integrity.

If litigation is your chosen path, that’s great, its a vital part of the profession. But constantly invalidating others’ choices doesn’t elevate yours. It just reinforces the impression that your argument depends on tearing other people down. There’s room in the profession for multiple paths. And most of us are just trying to do good work wherever we are.

That said, your response was completely unrelated to the original post, which asked a very real and relatable question about when things get better. To OP - know that many associates go through tough phases balancing demands and stress. It does get better with experience, time management, and sometimes finding the right fit within the profession. Hang in there, you are not alone.

Yes, it is possible.

Every year all MU colleges (including GLC) release a transfer vacancy list notice indicating the number of vacant seats available for transfer admissions for various years of all the law courses. Aspirants can follow the instructions given in the said notice and apply as per the same. I think admissions for transfers are usually based on marks obtained in law college (in the first year in your case), so as long as you have good marks in the first year you have a fair shot.

All the very best to you!

The Full Interview is at https://youtu.be/cJmq1D-li6Y?si=YAA17Wn6Rp7kjoaZ

Lots of interesting nuance - worth watching about his views on spineless judges, the first generation lawyers escapist labelling and the importance of character

LKS is like the best place to start for tax. If your interest lies in Tax then go for LKS.

Now enough of the sugar words.

For tax LKS Delhi is the best. They handout frequent internship extensions and callbacks.

So LKS has many sub-departments within the tax team as a whole - it can be DT or IDT (Advisory) or DT or IDT (Litigation).

And LKS aggressively looks out for Tax Associates at all levels.

Getting a PPO would be easy, if you can show to the team that you worth the risk. I have seen teams within Tax going an extra step to make sure their interns get the right opportunity - be it extentions or call backs. But for that to happen give your best shot first.

Note: this is not for BLR but Delhi (NCR)

Good luck.

All the best.

hi, ik it feels like hell rn, and it's like looking at a mirror. i'm almost in the same situation as you with acads even worse (i failed one subject my first year and seems like second year is going worse). i tried to participate in comps - none worked out and costed me the few friendships i had. i still want to work hard and achieve the said dream and i still feel like it might happen. i hope you feel better, this is just the beginning (im assuming you're in the second year too). there are ways you could turn it around, at least academically. i'm fully convinced i'll not recover socially though. i hope it gets better man

I am very sorry for what you are going through. This excuse of "performance related issues" is more often than not bullshit, especially when it comes from these Tier 1's. Many actual "non-performers" are tolerated in Tier 1's merely becuase they suck up to the partner, tolerate being treated like a doormat, and some of them have compromising material / are aware of the dirty secrets of the higher-ups in the firm hierarchy. I know of someone who was similarly kind of let go - in their case, the firm made it clear that they did not want this person to continue for other reasons, and they cited performance as a reason to let them go. The person was rejected in several interviews and was jobless for a year, and they later got to know it is because of negative feedback that was given by the firm which let them go (during background verification). Then finally, they got into a Tier 3 and worked their way up, and now, they are a Senior Associate in a Tier 3.

All I can tell you is never give up. You may not get into a Tier 1 immediately, but you can definitely try Tier 2 and 3 firms, brush up on your knowledge thoroughly (not saying you have not done it yet), come across as confident (I know this is difficult, but can be done), and please do not give up hope.

Pull out all stops, including, but not limited to, reaching out to all possible contacts (anyone in the Tier 1 which let you go with whom you are on good terms / whom you can trust), legal recruiters, any big contacts you may have in the judiciary, try everything possible. There are many kind partners out there (at least in Tier 3 firms) who like to give people a second chance. Good things happen to those who do not give up.

The biggest hurdle that you might face is clearing a reference check. If your firm states to inquiring HR at firms you apply to, that you were let go for performance reasons -- and we don't know if they will expressly say this -- you are almost surely going to be summarily rejected. Given the ongoing supply and demand dynamics and the resultant availability of "untainted" talent (i.e., junior level attorneys without a record of deficient performance), firms simply do not have the incentive to take on someone who they think is likely to fail. You may want to see if you can get anyone you worked with to serve as a positive reference, and/or connect with you people in their network at other firms who can help you land your next position. Unfortunately, if you cannot find even a single person to serve as a positive reference, your battle is likely to be even more uphill.

First, introspect about what caused your performance lapses. Identify the extent to which (i) factors within your control (e.g., lack of initiative, lack of thoroughness and attention to detail, failure to be present and take ownership of your deliverables) and (ii) factors outside your control (e.g., unsupportive supervising attorneys, difficult family or health situations that prevented you from performing at an optimal level) played a role in causing your performance lapses and craft a compelling narrative to demonstrate self-awareness and introspection, as well as a viable path to improve. People (including potential employers) are more forgiving of a less-than-perfect candidate who has learned from his/her mistakes than someone who prefers to bury his/her head in the sand. On that note, generally, don't ever disparage your former employer no matter what, since that tends to skew the scale against you.

Second, try to apply to positions through someone who is an insider. It does make a difference and in some cases, can be outcome determinative. Some people call this "nepotism" but a more accurate description is "validation" which is a proxy that can cleanse a bad record to some extent. But it then falls upon you to demonstrate that you would be a good fit.

Third, diversify your potential pool of employers. Are you applying only to other Tier 1 firms, or exploring roles with smaller but still solid firms (e.g., IndusLaw, Samvad, ELP, etc.). Some of them may be more forgiving of a less than stellar record at Tier 1 firms as long as you can show that you have reasonably demonstrate that your past may not be sufficiently representative of your trajectory at the firm, if hired. And if you are determined to resume at a Tier 1, you can always do this at a later stage.

If you are a litigator, consider clerking at your state High Court or the Supreme Court. Different courts have different procedures for clerkships, and clerkships don't pay a lot (especially in comparison to Tier 1 firms) but they can again serve as a great way to reset the board and cleanse the taint of your firm record. You can also consider applying to policy think-tanks like Vidhi or PRS to see if they are willing to consider you. I happen to know folks who could not succeed at law firms but did extremely well in policy, not because they necessarily lacked the intellectual horsepower to succeed at firms (you do need some, but it also comes down to things like attention to detail, stamina to work long hours, learning on-the-job, etc., that are not necessarily a direct function of raw intelligence, though impacted by it), but because the work environment at policy thinktanks was more conducive to their working habits.

Keep your chin up. And don't be bitter (I am not saying that you are - but preemptively warning you from letting your bitterness (if any) show). Best of luck.

I have been doing this for over a decade and a half. Please don’t listen to all of these kids who are not trying to help, they just want to rant.

Transactional lawyering requires a few skills which most people are not ordinarily born with. Unfortunately, law school in India does not equip us with these skills.

It therefore takes a few months / a year of trying to develop these skills to “get it”. If you have a good mentor, it helps.

It is not strange that you are struggling with this - struggle harder. One day, it will become easier. It is just method and process nothing else.

At some stage in your career, if you stick with it, others will help with the method and process. You will then be required to help on complicated matters or on client management. That requires a few more skills.

All of this can be learnt and if you approach it as a puzzle to be solved, it becomes more interesting.

Alternatively, you can quit and join the idiots who occupy space on LI to bitch, rant, cry, whine and shit on other people.

Mid to end of Fourth Year will be the ideal time if you're aiming for a PPO recommendation.

Most PPOs are usually given out before Day 0, so you should ideally aim to finish the entire PPO process and secure it before July/August of your Final Year.

All the best!!!

Well it is hard because being an attorney and being a marketer of oneself are two different things.

1. No one taught you how to market yourself to get clients in law school.

2. Corruption is rampant - I know of at least 15 to 20 instances where the client-side asks for kickbacks to refer legal work and only allocates work to the highest bidder.

3. You have to be lucky or in the right circles (acquired by birth or marriage) to have a pre-existing relationship with, or get a warm introduction to someone that can actually be a high paying client.

4. The poor SPs that pitch to clients also get burned because those that they've pitched to expect infinite free consultations but never really want to pay. Those that do pay do so poorly and expect you to drop everything in your personal and professional life if the need arises. They will also shop a quote and switch attorneys for Rs. 5,000, sometimes less.

And millions of other reasons that I can't quite remember right now.

BOTTOM LINE: Why bother with all the aggravation? Just bill and get paid a fat sum to execute until the market is saturated with more of your kind. Hopefully when that time comes, you've built up a nice fat retirement fund and can finally spend time doing things that you love.

Regarding IIULER Goa - Once I was there (for PhD) but I resigned from there when I came to know the truth. You can even surf the internet (I prefer to check authentic websites/governmental documents) to understand what IIULER really is rather than all cooked up stories! Anyway, I can make some points very clear to you,

1) IIULER is not an NLU (National Law University)

2) It is not a Government University/Government-Funded University

3) IIULER joins CLAT Consortium illegally by violating the Bye-Laws of Consortium of NLUs (Refer it from the official CLAT Website)

4) IIULER is a Private University but they try to brand it as a Public University

5) IIULER is not owned by Bar Council of India. IIULER is owned and managed by BCI Trust - PEARL FIRST (BCIT-PF) which is a separate and independent body that is not a part of BCI (Refer document countersigned by BCI Secretary in the official BCI Website)

Why I discontinued from IIULER (PhD)

1) They did not follow UGC PhD Regulations, 2022 (If it is not followed, your degree will be challenged later)

2) Even after 10 Months of commencement of PhD, they did not conduct Course Work Examination (which should really be conducted at the end of the first six months)

3) No Stipend/Fellowship were given to Scholars (even for JRF Holders of the batch)

4) They did not admit anyone as Full Time Scholars (I repeatedly requested to admit me as a Full Time Scholar since I have resigned my Job as an Assistant Professor (Law) to join IIULER). In their admission notification, they stated that they will admit as Full Time Scholars

5) Since I was not admitted as a Full Time Scholar even after 10 Months, I lost Scholarships/Fellowships for doing my PhD and the worst part is that, I resigned my Job as well for this!

6) IIULER doesn't care about UGC Regulations as even the then Hon'ble Vice Chancellor violates that by acting as Research Supervisors for PhD Scholars (No one can be a guide, co-guide or supervisor once that person crosses 70 years as per UGC Regulations)

7) Faculties are changing rapidly. When I joined there were 10 Law Faculties, but 5 of them resigned from there in 2023-2024 and 1 more in 2025

8) Due to word from Vice Chancellor, APRO and PG Coordinater, I even took an apartment there to do my PhD as a Full Time Scholar (They will not provide Hostel for PhD Scholars and they told me to took one in Jayaram Nagar itself so they will arrange the mess facilities for me from the Hostel), and I paid the Apartment Fees for 10 Months! But not even a single day, I was able to stay there since they don't adopt me (or anyone) as a Full-Time Research Scholar

9) When I tried to resign from there after 11 Months, I got admission in another Famous University in India for doing PhD, IIULER does not provide me Transfer Certificate or Migration Certificate, so I was not able to join for PhD in the other University since these are mandatory (Now, I got it from IIULER after several legal fights and explanation from Higher Education Department but anyway I was not able to join for PhD then since IIULER did not provide certificates on time)

10) Even the Vice Chancellor, Faculties and Administrative Staff deceive everyone as IIULER is a Public University (phone recordings are also available). It's so disgusting to deceive people and students (they even deceived me in the initial Doctoral Interview also as a Public University and whenever other people call and enquire with them!)

11) More than 6 times, I visited many authorities at IIULER to discuss the issue regarding the PhD, fellowship, Coursework problems and violation of UGC Guidelines

12) We didn't even get an ID Card from IIULER!

13) We didn't get any single Database/Remote Access after paying India's highest fees for PhD!

14) I paid Rs 1,35,000/- (as fees only!) for one year and they offered nothing in return (even not conducted classes properly)!

15) As per UGC Regulations, PhD Coursework is a 12 Credit Course (which means 12 hours lecture per week that too in offline mode). While IIULER conducts only 23 Sessions (1.5 hour each) through Google Meet (online) in the whole 10 Months still I was there and additionally a five day Research Colloquium (offline). They didn't even care about the existing UGC Regulations or standard of Doctoral Degrees!

16) There is no Administrative Officer in IIULER like Registrar, Pro Registrar, Pro Vice Chancellor, Controller of Examination, Assistant Control of Examination, PhD Coordinator or even those personalities as instructed by UGC in Higher Education Institutions for the betterment of Students!

Finally, "it is your personal decision to join IIULER or not!"

Opinions and Preferences will always differ. Anyway, these are the statements from my side. For any further details, please check authentic resources and governmental documents like Gazette Notifications, file some RTIs etc. Be focused in life and choose the best for your career!

https://www-financialexpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.financialexpress.com/business/industry/young-partners-in-law-firms-face-growth-crisis/3997563/lite/

What are your opinions on this. have seen large teams led by senior equity partners with many junior partners who are completely dependent on the senior for getting work. Especially in firms like SAM where the salaried partners run the show and handle all the execution so they barely get the time to do BD. They also seem like too complacent and can't get themselves out of the senior partner's umbrella.

a) publish high quality research articles only in scopus journals

b) present at conferences and network with profs who mighe be your post doc host/supervisor

c) look for post-doc opportunities in your second year, if targeting EU/UK focus on funding like Marie curie, BA etc.

d) write to professors in the US, as their system is a bit different, they have uni based funding

e) shadow people who have taken the path that you want to take, find out what they did and try to better them

I'm sorry, I cannot answer about DRT. But if it helps, I can answer on the fees charged by NCLT lawyers and NCLAT lawyers.

I am from a T1 city, and here, majority of those who go to DRT and NCLT primarily practice at the HC, and then go NCLT, again, for the two reasons I mentioned in the comment above. The fees for such tribunal's appearances are usually 1.5x of what they charge per appearance for a HC. As for the fee structure, a raw junior with less than a years' experience charges about 1000-1500 (please note that the Solicitors directly pay the junior, there is no so called 'salary' system) and that of an advocate who is independent with 5-10 years' experience is about 8000-20000 per appearance. The 20+ year experience ones and designated seniors obviously start from 50k and it goes to lakhs per appearance. This was for NCLT. I believe DRT would be the same.

For NCLAT, I can only speak of the designated seniors. Its easily 3-4 Lakh plus per appearance.

In many ways. I shall address the nepotism part a little later.
1. Nature of work and Scope of Career Growth: Litigation, depending on any practice area, allows you to explore the nuances of the law in detail, argue the case for someone, or defend someone in say a losing case, and help contribute to the law and its growth. It is the reason why law is called a noble profession. Law firms, instead focus on work which are restricted to a set domain where you don't have any such serious application of mind and creativity, and mostly is monotonous in nature. On career, anyone successful in litigation has various doors which gets opened to him/her - empanelment, Judgeship, and the constitutional posts of AG/Adv General/etc. Of course, you also have senior designation coming their way. In law firms, you do nothing other than becoming a Partner.
2. Money - Yes, law firms usually pay much more, but that's true only for the first few years. Take any two similarly successful lawyers in a law firm and litigation - you will see the former outearning the latter by a huge margin in the initial years. However, 10-15 years down the line, that reverses. The counsels start outearning the partners. By a huge margin.
3. Nepotism - Law itself is a profession known for nepotism. Is nepotism now not there in other fields? Yes they are. Do they complain? Maybe, may be not. Irrelevant. However, you see the law firms are equally into nepotism since they are family run firms mainly and secondly, they would have someone coming from their family or have to please a client and hence bring in someone there. Litigation is a leveler - yes, nepotism gives a headstart - but they only help inthe initial years - you may get a chamber, may have money, may get clients/briefs - but, after a few years, if you, despite having all of these - still cannot work hard, you'll not succeed. So, despite the notion that nepo babies are lucky - which they are - they make their own careers. And it is not that every nepo baby has succeeded. There are multiple failures too. Obviously, names cannot be taken here, but you go to any court and ask around - you'll get answers.

It depends on whether you want to practice from SEBI's side or the Appellants side. It also depends on whether you want to go for firm practice or counsel practice.

From SEBI's side:

Firms:Go for TLP or K Ashar. They have the most matters in SAT. However K Ashar is mostly only SAT/HC litigation while TLP has advisory, litigation and SEBI criminal prosecution. There are 3-4 more SEBI empanelled firms, which also have a decent amount of work.

Counsel: Senior Advocate Shiraz Rustomjee is a regular from SEBI's side. Incredibly intelligent lawyer who is extremely polite. For juniors, go for Sumit Rai (not sure if he takes interns, but he is omnipresent at SAT), Shreya Parikh (Shiraz's junior and equally smart).

Appellant's side

Firms: JSA, Khaitan and Trilegal always have some work but it's mostly advisory. Joby Matthews (family firm) is the most proportionate ratio of advisory/ litigation you will find, plus he handles matters at the SEBI level as well.

Counsel: Senior Advocate Pesi Modi is the only senior advocate I have seen who exclusively does SAT litigation. Ofc every other senior does drop in but Mr Modi specializes in SAT. Saved the best for the last, junior counsel, Mr Kunal Katariya is your best bet to learn SAT litigation, incredibly smart and respected.

Why did you flag it as a rumour, LI?

The incident's been reported by the Hindu:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/telangana/nalsar-student-dies-of-health-issues-during-get-together/article70081549.ece

Litigator here guys I am in my pqe 7 good standing still not able to match a good associate earnings, clients negotiate on the bill heavenly per appearance ill charge but they cut it down a lot not able to charge much knowingly they might jump to another advocate

Once you step in court you may feel that you will win and argue good matter but in initial years you will just come to the point that a small panel may be given, you will take small clients so that you keep food on the table

To the person(s) who has/ have written in great detail about the workings of corporate law:

Thank you.

With all of my heart.

All that you've said, about earnings, work conditions, survival, growth, and all that lies in between, in litigation or corp, NEEDED to be said out loud.

I am a litigator. Per my peers and seniors, not a bad one, in fact, I have earned a few verbal accolades from judges and seniors on a few ocassions. I, however, am a litigator. Not by choice or anything like that; I am bereft of the liberty/ privilege to join corp, being a regular university law college graduate.

I am, like so many of my peers, too junior to matter on most days. Even to the judges/ seniors who might have said a few good words about those like me, just a few serial numbers ago. (Yes, that is a bit weird of a unit for time, but eh, not all of us measure time in billable hours.) Yes, undoubtedly this phase also exists in a corporate lawyer's initial years, I guess, but the amount credited to your bank account is worth it. I sincerely so hope.

Like a good chunk of the population, I am not a person high on lofty ideals. I work to earn a living for myself.

However, as you rightly pointed out, it is more often than not, only nepo babies who whimper on and on about the supposed 'clerical' corporate work. No, not all of them, before anyone says so. A good deal of them are mindful of their privilege, and do put in the hardwork. These aren't mutually exclusive components.

For those belonging to my category (working for livelihood, no real attachment), we begrudgingly stagger along in these dismal conditions. Again, we are unhappy because the fuel which keeps the truly dedicated, or talented folks running, whether it be the fact that they have that optimistic approach, or if it is the sense of the deep responsibility in realising that we litigators are the only ones between the client and an unfavourable outcome- a sense of justice or whatever, is lacking in us. May be, it was all burnt down, depleted, or what nots.

This pitting of professionals in a gladiator-esque fashion has to stop. Let people live with their choices (or the absence thereof) in peace.

Coming back to the original question on this thread, all I can say is, my friend, you can choose to step back, retire once having made enough money. If you as a person, love life and believe it has something to offer to you, please consider squeezing out time to take care of your health and well-being.

Godspeed✌️

Some advice.

Firstly, on a lighter note change the default to something cheerful sounds. On every device. Sounds silly but the difference is that its intentional. You also stop jumping when other folks phones buzz. Making the buzz different. Its also some form of control you exert back in a life where you have little control. You need to laugh a bit when the buzzer does buzz. Your work is not that serious.

Second, you need to destress. Try to get as much of a physical workout in as possible. Also I cannot stress on how you must cultivate a friends circle outside. Those in office are not your friends. They will sell you out for a bag of crisps. They wait till there is no use for you. So make friends beyond the law or law firms. So, basically, go outside a bit and live outside a bit.

Third, see a doctor and a shrink. This is the beginning of anxiety issues and BP issues. This will translate quickly into physical issues. Do this early - even if you feel alright about it. Many people put this away. If you have family nearby - make time to bond with them on weekends, if you like kids - the better.

Fourth, don't shop or browse the internet.

Start a hobby using your hands instead. It will focus your brain. A good way is to intentionally start eating food cooked by you. Cooking also gets you to take care of your health and usually if you dont go overboard - budget friendly. Lots of good advice around cooking and eating healthy if you know where to look. Main upside, you are doing something for yourself. A treat for yourself. A reward. Its a bit of self love that will go a long way. It tells you why attending those buzzes is helping you live better.

Good luck.

I am a student and have heard from my seniors about the policy teams in law firms. The work sounds interesting to me, but I am curious about the pay across different firms.

I want to know about the compensation for people working in the policy teams at firms like SAM, CAM, Saraf (including other law firms), policy-focused firms like Vidhi and Ikigai and in-house roles.
How does the pay compare to that of the general corporate team of a T1?

I’ve tried searching online, but found very limited information about policy team salaries.

I would really appreciate any insights, as this would not only help me but also other students considering this career path.

Well, my take on their curriculum is extremely positive. I do not say this out of the perspective of a student but as a seasoned professional in the legal fraternity who is looking forward to having a batch of Law Graduates out of an IIM. I have been contacted by the Placement Coordinators for a Guest Lecture and we are in process of finalizing one soon. I've spoken to their visiting faculty from NLSIU Bangalore and it is a continual high praise for the students!

Wishing them the best.

One thing I hate about these partners or seniors is - Fake Corporate Emergency.
To all the partners and other senior designated people out there - don't rush your teammates for a task that has no nearby deadline. It just creates unnecessary panic and a drop in the quality of work.
If the deadline is not anytime soon, then at least provide a reasonable buffer for handling the task.

Not the OP. But as someone who grew up in Bengaluru, please allow me to say that this attitude of yours is deeply exclusionary and dangerous. In this highly interconnected world of ours, it is more and more important every day that we can communicate in multiple languages. Being isolated in a bubble of our own making is unhelpful. Therefore, it would be good if someone not local to the city could learn Kannada. However, in a cosmopolitan city like Bengaluru, it is equally important for others to learn other languages.

You might be a "local" of the city, but even though I left the city almost four years ago, and was last back on a visit last September, I can confidently say that you do not represent the city of Bengaluru very well, as the nativist and ethnonationalist attitude you have displayed here is not a picture I recognise when I think of people from Bengaluru.

I think that these links have been posted on LI several times. These are recorded videos from Sidharth Chauhan (who was earlier teaching at NALSAR, now back at NLSIU) which provide a good introduction to academic legal writing that is tailored for Indian law students.

Session 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIUmcAGc72s

Session 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0gOdWNdyMQ

Session 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpLOkcIACA

Fun fact - While most people may say that working with XYZ partner is a great learning opportunity, it can also be the worst thing to happen to an A0. Why?

Because your partner has gone through so many tough situations professionally, they/ them is most likely desensitised by now and will do anything/ everything to get a deal done. They are used to working with senior colleagues, so they will expect same level of work and commitment from you. Whereas you will not be able to deliver as need to slowly get used to the work environment and grasp context of various new matters. Your partner is in Season 10, you’re in Season 1. If you try to cram it like an exam, you’ll HATE the TV series. Also, burnout.

Solution: try to find a buffer. On any matter, work with SA so they can protect you from partners expectations. Or if there is no one and it’s just you and the partner on the matter, record all your calls/ write down questions, and then ask some other colleague on different matter, your basic legal doubts. Dont ask the partner questions no matter how much they say they are approachable. If you have to ask questions, ask them strategic questions, which show that you understand the matter, and you are predicting next steps in the matter.

You’re young, you have hobbies. You want a life outside work - you absolutely deserve it. Then why are these senior lawyers so against it/ or why do they seem to work 14 hours even on Sat/ Sun? Commitment to work? Sure, but also….

Both of you are at different stages. You’ve just moved to a new city. You’re finally earning money and not having to ask your parents permission to go out or get pocket money. You are excited about new beginnings and you want to try out the cafés serving tiramisu or visit the upscale sushi place. You want to live your life and you should.

For your law firm partner, they/ them have already done that, and by the time you hit your mid 30s, even though you have all the money in the world, you have lost the excitement to go out and do stuff. As an ambitious, hard working person, what do they do then? They stay in and focus on the work. Because that keeps them busy, gives them a sense of progress in life and gets them appreciation from colleagues.

Point is - Don’t give up on your hobbies. They make life worth living. If you work 24 x 7, Work will suck up your time. So try to join local gym or community and meet new people who aren’t lawyers and who don’t live in such distorted realities.

Haha. I didn't even attend an NLU for my undergrad. It's you guys who are getting your nickers in a twist over this stuff.

What the post is saying is very simple: there are certain objective, proven, ingredients that make up a good legal education (whether in India, or outside). These are aspects that help to build the foundations of a good lawyer - and reading Dworkin or using Lexis/Westlaw is among them, Dworkin being one of the common law world's foremost legal philosophers and Westlaw/Lexis being some of the foremost legal databases of the world. I am really sorry, but I don't know how we are even having an argument over this. Even other old men consider the learning of tech properly at an early stage to be essential. I attended - that is to say, physically attended - a lecture that Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, gave at an event conducted a few years ago by the Legal Services Board, which is the oversight regulator holding the SRA and BSB (the regulators for solicitors and barristers) to account. You would imagine that such a one as he would advocate for getting dusty in libraries or old archives to find law reports, etc. No. Instead, he warned that not being up to scratch with developing technologies would mean that lawyers weren't useful. In Sir Geoffrey's worldview, anyone whose acquaintance with legal tech is confined to good usage of Lexis and Westlaw would be what the British tend to call a luddite (i.e., one opposed to change). (And BTW, Vos is older than B.R. Gavai.) Is agreeing with luddites really the school of thought you want to be associated with? Is going in the opposite direction to the (sensible and perfectly valid) advice of one who has responsibility for one of the world's most highly regarded systems of commercial dispute resolution what you are arguing for?

Of course the post is expressed in a childish way. It assumes that Gavai is incapable in this regard. For all you know, he can use Lexis and Westlaw better than the post author. He may even be better at using Chatgpt or Perplexity than most of us are. We cannot tell without further enquiry. But considering Gavai's really disappointing remarks, the post raises valid concerns.

It's true. Can confirm. The only solution they have given is suspending the classes, but suspending doesn't remove the deep rooted problem! See below:

Dear Students:

Trust this mail finds you well.

We want to begin by acknowledging the concerns many of you have shared about the air-conditioning issues in some of our residential hostels, while noting that the systems are working fine in a few others residential hostels of the University. This is an unusual and unprecedented situation for us as a University. Your comfort and well-being are our top priority, and we sincerely appreciate the patience and understanding you have shown as we work to resolve these challenges at the earliest.

Therefore, after careful consideration, the University has decided to suspend all classes for one week. Classes will resume on Monday, 25 August 2025. This period will give our engineers and technicians the necessary time to carry out urgent and comprehensive work on the AC chiller systems so that, when the classes resume, the campus environment is comfortable and conducive to both living and learning.

This decision was taken after comprehensive consultations with key stakeholders of the University. The Vice Chancellor, Registrar, and senior leadership team held detailed discussions with the Presidents of the Student Councils of all Schools of JGU, who unanimously agreed that this was the most appropriate step under the present circumstances. The Vice Chancellor also consulted the Deans of all Schools/ Institute, and they too extended their full support to this decision.

Students who have travelled home for the long weekend may choose to remain at home and return for classes next week, or they may return to campus earlier if they wish. Similarly, any student who is on campus and would like to go home during this week is free to do so as the choice rests entirely with the students. Please note that during this period the University will remain fully open. All facilities, including the Academic Block, will continue to be accessible to students.

1. While formal classes will remain suspended, all 150 classrooms in the Academic Block will remain open from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM for self-study, group discussions, or quiet work.
2. The Constitution Museum and History cafe will be opem, functional and accessible to all students.

3. The Vidya Devi Jindal Dining Block and all the food courts will be fully open, functional and accessible to all students.

4. All food courts in Crossover Commons will be fully open, functional and accessible to all students.

5. All office hours, tutorials, scheduled assessments, quizzes, and mid term examinations during this week will be rescheduled to a later date. Revised timelines will be communicated well in advance to give you sufficient preparation time. No student will be disadvantaged in terms of academic evaluation.

6. The global library, student lounges, and other student resources, including RASA will be open, accessible and fully functional.

7. The Performing Arts Academy will be open, functional and accessible to all students.

8. All facilities in the Naveen Jindal Sports Academy will remain fully available to you.

9. All the outdoor sports facilities including the lawn tennis courts, padel tennis courts and horse riding facilities will be open, functional and accessible to all students.

10. University Health Services Centre and Sukoon will be open and fully functional.

Please be assured that all faculty members are aware of this adjustment and will adapt their course plans accordingly.

We remain fully committed to keeping you informed with timely updates on the progress of the AC chiller repair and maintenance work.

While this situation is temporary, it also offers an opportunity to slow down, take care of yourself, and connect with one another in ways that the regular pace of classes often does not allow. Whether through reading, meaningful conversations, or recreational activities, we hope you are able to find value in this short pause.

We sincerely thank you once again for your patience, resilience, and cooperation. Together, we will ensure that our campus continues to be a place of comfort, learning, and growth.

Thanks and best wishes,

Sridhar

This is a mischievous post. The person in question has not been accused of any crime. It cannot be an impediment to a person applying for a VC position. You people don’t even know your basics of law, the difference between a legal conviction and an adverse administrative finding. Further, we don’t even know if the process of natural justice was followed and if the person was given an opportunity to be heard.

Finally, let’s look at the bottom line. The alleged perpetrator of the rape has been arrested and there is clear evidence which will probably lead to a conviction.

Hi: LI is troll paradise and difficult to have a conversation on. I'm also a floater here and don't tend to see these unless shared (I do have a practice to run). Please email to get in touch.

For now, because honesty about comp is important, some responses:

- Fixed Pay: We have done a benchmarking for Tier 1 scales based on information from a third-party executive search firm. This firm was chosen by the consensus of our fee earners (excluding me). It has shared ballparks for every year of PQE. We calculate our fixed as the average of this ballpark as reduced by 20%.
- Variable Pay: The variable is intended to bring the team up to Tier 1 scales. Therefore, variable benchmarks are equal to Tier 1 benchmarks + the 20% discount to fixed, subject to individual and team performance. This is a WIP and we are still young, but last year, the best performers made more than their Tier 1 colleagues.
- A0s: We do not benchmark for A0s, for two reasons: a) We are a specialist boutique and looking for people who are a good fit for the work we do. A0s usually need some time before they are able to add value; b) There is a signaling value to A0 compensation which we don't want to participate in. If compensation is the primary driving factor (to an extent that we are discussing Which Tier 1 to peg pay to, amongst a group of highly paying Tier 1s), then it's a culture mismatch i.e. we are not the right firm for you. For the same reasons, we will not put up numbers on a public platform, but we are happy to publicly share the method of calculation. This is our commitment to transparency, but is also intended to give you a sense of whether you're likely to be financially comfortable with us, because money is important. If you need more details, please reach out to us and we'd love to have a longer chat once we are able to assess each other.

Thanks for all the interest!

from an email shared with us. Do read

ON FILLING OUT THE ONLINE FORM:

1. Be patient with the form- the first few pages of the form are pretty tiresome, but must be filled carefully. You need to fill out all your grades, so have a transcript or list handy. Additionally, you need to give a mark equivalent. In my year, we used the lower mark in the mark range for the corresponding grade. So if you have an A, your mark is a 60, 65 for and A+ and 70 for an O. It doesn't really matter what method you use, but be consistent throughout the batch. You have the option to explain the grading system of college in a box at the end of the page.

2. Please don't lie- they don't ask you to attach your transcript or anything, and expect you to fill out the form honestly. They won't check your grades, but if you get selected for the interview, there is a chance that you may be asked to present your transcript. So please, please be completely honest about your grades. They don’t matter too much anyway.

THE ESSAY:

1. At least in our year, there was just one subjective essay component in the application. This means that you have only this space to uniquely express yourself. Please read the essay question carefully, and make sure you address all components of the same.

2. You can adopt any style of writing for the essay, but it needs to be clear and concise. You should try to give them as much relevant information about yourself in this section. This is the only space in the application where you can show how you stand out in comparison to others, so choose your merits carefully, and always tie them back to a quality that the firm will appreciate. They are looking for people who are academically sound, will work well in a team, can research well, and know how to handle high-pressure situations. Anything that forwards these qualities is a good accomplishment, and should be mentioned in the essay.

3. Get feedback: A lot of people just write the essay in half an hour, don’t proofread or get it checked, and still get shortlisted. If you are confident of your writing, then you should be okay. But I personally prefer getting my essay checked multiple times before submitting it. I got my essay draft checked by my parents, friends, and a lot of seniors who had been through the process. It’ll help you cut down on words and remove superfluous information. If you are not confident of your writing, or even if you simply want a second opinion, please get your essay checked by someone.

WORK EXPERIENCE:

I don’t know if you have this component in your application. We did. There is only one thing you need to keep in mind while filling this section out- always tie back your work ex to something that will be of use in a firm. You can put in all your litigation and policy and NGO internships- the more the better. But highlight them in such a way that the reader knows that the skillset you developed will be useful in a firm too.

MISCELLENEOUS TIPS:

1. Know a little bit about the firm when you are applying- it’ll help you formulate a better essay, and channel your achievements into something they are looking for. Know what they do, what their strengths are, and what they are looking for. You’ll have to spend about 20 minutes on their website for all this.

2. Try not to recycle the same writing for all firm applications. They all have their own questions to ask, so answer them individually. Additionally, the HR people who are checking your application are very good at their job, and have to go through a lot of applications. If you’re not keen and interested, they will know, and they won’t favour your application.

3. Don’t worry about grades too much- they really don’t care about your CGPA or class rank as much as Indian firms do. It is just one of the many things they look at.

4. Be humble in your writing- this is just a general tip, because I think it made a difference in my application. You can adopt any style of writing you are comfortable with. But the aim shouldn’t be to show how you are the best and super awesome and intimidatingly good. You should highlight your achievements, but also add a line about what they taught you, and how they contributed to your growth as a person. For example, I think there a big difference between saying, “I represented my university at XYZ competition, and won the competition”; and saying, “I was given the opportunity to represent my university at XYZ competition, and we placed first as a team. Through this experience, I learnt bla bla bla”. Again, it’s your choice at the end of the day.

5. On time management: I understand you don’t have too much time left to complete the HSF application. Worry not. Only the essay writing bit, and getting it checked takes time. The rest of it you can finish in half a day. Its just painful, is all.

Totally wrong.

1. There is a genuine problem with certain scholars' views being suppressed while others are cited too much. In British, U.S. and (as has been pointed out by another comment author) even Indian academia, that bias is totally in favour of the left. An equivalent article could (and should) be written if academia in any country goes in the opposite direction (as it did in Germany, 1933-45) and people like Butler are suppressed/almost never cited.

2. Lawyers partly help shape, and are partly shaped by, the social context, as McCrudden has pointed out. Therefore, as Cotterrell says, viewing the law (and the world) through a "sociological imagination" is very important. This means requiring to think from an interdisciplinary perspective. Therefore, the precise opposite of what you said (that this is unlikely to be helpful) is true. People such as Jonathan Sumption, the former UK Supreme Court judge, who read history at Oxford (and even taught it there for a while before moving to law) already accuse lawyers (or at least those who took a law degree as their first degree at university after leaving school) of lacking awareness of the world in general and lacking culture, cultural knowledge and cultural sensitivities, leading to Graham Virgo (the former Cambridge VC and a trusts law scholar of formidable repute) responding with a funny (but ultimately ludicrous) defence of lawyers and their cultural engagement by talking about their engagement with the world of film. Therefore, the situation in terms of how our intellectual strength is viewed (even among our colleagues in other humanities and social science disciplines) is not fantastic. Why would you, of all people, want to make that situation worse?

You would have been aware of these perspectives and still could become aware of them if you read some of the books in the Cambridge University Press Law in Context series. The best advertisement for the series is what is written on the book covers/jackets for each book in the series:

The Law in Context Series Editors: William Twining (University College London), Maksymilian Del Mar (Queen Mary, University of London) and Bronwen Morgan (University of New South Wales). Since 1970 the Law in Context series has been at the forefront of the movement to broaden the study of law. It has been a vehicle for the publication of innovative scholarly books that treat law and legal phenomena critically in their social, political and economic contexts from a variety of perspectives. The series particularly aims to publish scholarly legal writing that brings fresh perspectives to bear on new and existing areas of law taught in universities. A contextual approach involves treating legal subjects broadly, using materials from other social sciences and from any other discipline that helps to explain the operation in practice of the subject under discussion. It is hoped that this orientation is at once more stimulating and more realistic than the bare exposition of legal rules. The series includes original books that have a different emphasis from traditional legal textbooks, while maintaining the same high standards of scholarship. They are written primarily for undergraduate and graduate students of law and of other disciplines, but will also appeal to a wider readership. In the past, most books in the series have focused on English law, but recent publications include books on European law, globalisation, transnational legal processes and comparative law.

Your thinking, as evidenced by your response here, is the precise opposite of the "contextual approach" advocated for in that extract.

3.

(a) To the extent that the OP has used their own words, I agree the tone does seem rather on the rough-edged side. But considering how polarised this debate has become and your levels of complicity in making it even more so (see your response here, e.g.), isn't that something we can cut some slack for?

(b) The tone might sound jaded, but to accuse them of propagandising or trolling is a very, very big statement. I cannot see any evidence for that in the post. Therefore, unless you are maintaining observations on IP addresses of those using LI and see this as (in and of itself harmless) post as part of a pattern of (cumulatively) more harmful content with an agenda, you should so state.

4. Finally, your statement, "... and this wokeness thing only such a disproportionately big deal because MAGA and the anti-woke activists have made it their main thing", is very interesting, not because it is incorrect or untrue, but because it is an incomplete account of what's happening.

(a) MAGA/Reform UK and others are partly getting away with what they are doing because we, as liberals, have allowed them to do so. We have created the conditions for that to happen. We have pushed our philosophies to all sorts of new limits at breakneck speed which has been too much for the overwhelmingly centrist populations of most countries, who have, because of feeling left behind by that, have gravitated to the right. It's not just cost of living or other economic issues that's doing that, it's other stuff as well.

(b) It is also, in part, factually incorrect. Major liberals have sounded alarm bells about this for a while now. These have included Brian Leiter, the great legal realist at the University of Chicago. A very good (if very angry) example of him doing this is an article he wrote called "Mindless jurisprudence-bashing on Twitter". It was in response to a lot of criticism of a scholar called Stephen Sax, who, in a Harvard Law School jurisprudence class's syllabus, had included many very cannonical legal philosophers, such as Hart and Dworkin. The response by Leiter to all that criticism is available at:

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2023/09/mindless-jurisprudence-bashing-on-twitter.html

And if you think people like him are soft liberals and at-heart conservatives, just read his blog properly. Always found the subcategory of posts called "Merciless rhetorical spankings of fanatics, villains and ignoramuses" to be quite entertaining reading and very revealing. Here's a sample:

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/03/smear-merchants-at-campus-watch-object-to-being-correctly-described.html

You might also want to read his book, Naturalising Jurisprudence, where he is very critical of Hart.

And he is not one of a kind. He's one among many liberals who believe the world has gone too far. One other is Sir Kerr Starmer, the current British PM, who is pursuing a strategy based on that philosophy being correct (himself a Leads man as an undergraduate, and spent time at Oxford doing the BCL, while also being the author of a leading human rights law textbook). And yet, he is pursuing Palestinian recognition, which is not a traditionally conservative position, therefore showing that he hasn't, in his efforts to meet conservative folk where they are, "become rightist" himself.

For more about this philosophy of relaxing a bit on the woke front, taking it more slowly and meeting people of our societies who don't agree with our stances half way, look up the writings of Maurice Glasman (the founder of the so-called "Blue Labour" movement and of J.D. Vance - especially the profile interview of Glasman that the same newspaper the OP cited and quoted, The Times, did.

Hi there. I would 100% do some diligence on this :-)

Please speak to our ex-interns as well as folks who work with us currently. Most of them are on Linkedin. If you're not able to get through directly, feel free to write to me (shreya at sra dot law) and I'll have someone check and send you the contact details of folks who are willing to chat. We are pretty confident about what you'll hear, and believe that honest conversations are fundamental to a healthy work environment, which means: no unwelcome questions. It's also always good to do some homework on who you will be working with.

Some clarifications on the comments above:

- Work Environment: Our work environment is absolutely tough. We're an embarrassingly nerdy bunch and take standards very seriously. The projects are frequently complex and everyone including A0s regularly deal with multiple areas of law within tax & PCP. Not for folks who like routine; we think we'd be a good fit for people who enjoy the law and who are generalists at heart while still loving tax. What we can promise, is that ours is not a hostile environment. Everyone, at every level of seniority is held up to the same standards of mutual concern and respect, and supportive culture is an org level commitment and expectation.

- Attrition: We've only had two people leave till date. One left to do a masters in tax at Georgetown after spending a year with us (which is again something that we encourage - no subterfuge required if you're planning to do LLM applications). The other left during his probation since he wanted to spend more time on litigation in Delhi. We are still 1.5 years young, so we may yet see exits on bad terms, but to say "People leave in three four months" is misinformation steeped in ignorance or bad faith.

- Job Openings: We are still considering applications for 2026 intake. But, we are a small org, and selective, and only hire freshers through internships (no campus recruitment). If you would like more details about the internship process pls visit our Linkedin page or write to us (internships at sra dot law with a cc to shreya at sra dot law). Hope this helps!

Proviso: Everything said below is based strictly on my knowledge of law firms in the UK environment, as your question seems like you're asking mostly about UK. Some of this may vary a bit if you're looking at Singapore or Hong Kong.

1. First, get your terminology right: "training contracts", not "trainee contracts" or any other variation of the same you might see used on any website (including this one). Short form: TC (singular) or TCs (plural).

2. Importance of grades: Quite high. You need to be among the best students in your cohort if you are from an Indian university. I've seen students who are not as good or sincere students of law academically getting taken on from UK unis, but nobody who's not above average. So basically, the only difference is that you have to be excellent in your studies, whereas a UK uni applicant can afford to be above average.

3. Importance of moots: High. You can talk about transferrable skills from moots you will find useful in the law firm environment on your written applications or perhaps even at interview. Also participate in negotiation competitions. Your uni administration, I have heard, regards this latter as a bit of a waste of your time. Totally not true. That's one of the few things that your VC, otherwise a smart guy who is up there with the best, being a Rhodes Scholar and an Oxford DPhil, gets wrong because of his status as a total theory person and his lack of experience of law firm environments.

4. Commercial awareness: This is an atypical one. For a host of complex reasons, they don't at this point (treating you as an applicant) care so much about evaluating your technical knowledge as evaluating your knowledge of the market and your ability to think about the law firm's position within the market as a business, and how various events might impact it. That's commercial awareness in a nutshell. You might also see the term "commercial acumen" used, this means the same thing, though most people in the UK who talk about these things use "commercial awareness". How do you gain this? Well, reading the Financial Times or Wall Street Journal or the Economist for a start. Personally, I'd spend a lot of time with the FT, if I could. If your uni doesn't have access to a subscription to it, ask them (fight with them, very fiercely, if needed) to ensure you have access to one. I'd especially concentrate on newsletters (and articles within the FT paper itself linked within them) such as FT Due Dilligence (a great newsletter, which gives you regular updates every weekday Tuesday to Friday about goes on in the PE and VC worlds, even with some great stuff about law firms), First FT Europe/Africa, FT Briefing UK Morning Headlines (providing a list of articles in at least two of the categories of "Politics", "Public Policy", "Companies", "Economy" and "Business") (you'll need to ensure that a premium subscription is taken out for this one, unfortunately, but the product is excellent so don't let that stop you) and "Inside Politics" (usually written by Stephen Bush, but sometimes by equally good colleagues of his), which gives analysis of large issues in UK politics. Why do you need all this? Because "commercial awareness" means understanding not just legal or economic implications of stuff, but evaluating the political or tech ramifications of stuff. Some people tend to analyse events to put their best foot forward in terms of demonstrating commercial awareness by using something called the 'PESTLE method' - each letter of that name is an ingredient of what your analysis should encompass. I won't bother explaining PESTLE to you, you can yourself read about it on a website called lawcareers.net, which is great if you want a UK law firm career. Other than that, listen to the podcasts that some law firms do which can help to raise commercial awareness. Shoesmiths, for example, has an excellent one, I believe. Other than that, read a book called 'Everything You Need to Know about the City', by Chris Stokes, which explains how London works as a financial hub.

5. Understand the difference and gain knowledge: Indian and British law firm environments are very different in various ways that you will get to know over time. For now, one way which is very important for you to know is something you may find a bit counterintuitive. In England and Wales, they don't expect you to specialise in a practice area in the training contract stage. So going in hot saying I want to do regulated payments or b&f is not necessarily the smartest thing to be doing when you're trying to persuade them to recruit you. You need to be open to learning through your vac scheme and/or TC from work the firm does in multiple practice areas. This is because of regulator expectations imposed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), which requires trainee solicitors to be exposed to multiple practice areas in their Qualifying Work Experience (QWE) (which a TC is) period of two years. The way most firms handle this requirement is to expose you to (usually) four practice areas with rotations over a six month period. These rotations are usually called "seats". Each "seat" is six months in duration. Once you are done with your TC, you "qualify into" one of the four seats you did when you were a trainee, as a Newly Qualified (NQ) solicitor. Therefore, at the stage of you being an applicant, it may not be too good an idea to be too firm on what practice area you want to get into. You can (and should, obviously) mention which are your interests, but your cover letters/written application answers should focus more on how exposure to different types of work at a particular firm will help your career development as a lawyer. Therefore, you'll have to basically swallow the websites of the law firms you choose to apply to, because ideally, no sentence you write about a law firm in a cover letter for that law firm should be the type you can copy-paste into a cover letter for another firm, i.e., you know firm x's deals so well that you can write a cover letter aimed so specifically at that firm that people will gain the impression that your life's ambition, ever since you were able to do more as a baby than sucking your mother's thumb, has been to, let us say, work at HSFK. Make a note of this very carefully, because our cultural assumptions about the British is that they don't do things like this. We assume American unis make people do more generalised learning before becoming specialised, while Indians and the British expect you to go in with your specialism set right away. MC and U.S. law firm environments in London... don't work exactly like that.

Obviously, there are exceptions to this (which still fulfil the SRA requirement of exposure to multiple practice areas), such as the leveraged finance (LevFin) TC that Milbank's London office does: https://www.legalcheek.com/2025/01/milbank-creates-training-contract-for-aspiring-leveraged-finance-lawyers/

In these cases, like you see in the article, they expose you to let us say LevFin as a practice area, while also getting you to do other stuff. For such TCs, you can be more enthusiastic in your applications about work the firm does in that particular practice area.

6. Another significant difference in the working method - the vac scheme and the TC: In the Indian law firm environment, they usually make you do an internship, then call you back for another, then decide whether to offer you a job. Not so in the MC and U.S. law firms' UK operations. Essentially, think of the vac scheme as an assessment internship for the TC, because, if you get onto a vac scheme, many law firms will assess your potential for a TC through your vac scheme performance without necessarily needing you to apply again. In fact, some firms do things such that they won't accept direct TC applications, but only assess TC potential from their vac scheme cohort. Therefore, your vac scheme is your one big chance to convince them that you're worth it for a TC, because they're giving you that one opportunity to prove yourself worthy of a TC. Then, the TC is basically a drawn-out, two-year-long, assessment internship for them to decide whether you're worth it as an associate (i.e., whether it's worth them keeping you on as an NQ post TC).

7. SQE: Once they've offered you a TC, they'll make you study for the SQE (the Solicitors Qualifying Exam, imposed by the regulator), which you'll have to pass as a condition of your TC offer - if you don't pass, they will withdraw your TC offer. Basically, how this works for many firms is that they make you get on a university course (that they pay for) called an SQE LLM, that helps prep you for the SQE. Why these courses (offered by providers such as BPP and ULaw) are called 'SQE LLM' is that in addition to SQE training, they offer elective modules in various areas, e.g., IP. NB/warning: It's not a good idea for you to try and disrupt the order of this process, by self-financing your 'SQE LLM' studies and then applying to law firms. Many law firms will have specific electives that they will ask you, as part of your TC offer, to take up. If you do the SQE LLM on your own, you may not do the electives a particular law firm will want you to do. That's why take things in their order: apply for a vac scheme (or direct TC), then go for the SQE LLM on their money, because that's how they want you to do things. They pay your course fees and give you a stipend.

8. Practicing assessments: Foreign law firms tend to have a more involved and complex interview and testing process than their Indian counterparts. One of the things many of them (especially the MC guys) do a lot is the so-called 'Situational Judgment Test (SJT)'. This might be a type of multiple choice question test where they give you situations that crop up in everyday law firm life and give you four options out of which you have to choose one to deal with that situation. There is no "objectively" correct answer to many of those situations, reasonable people might disagree how to handle each of those, according to their own personalities. But you will have to answer based on your knowledge of the firm's ethos and culture. Therefore, you'll have to go past the corporate buzzwords on the websites, and actually get to know current trainees or NQs working at whichever firms you are applying to and ask about the culture. Based both on what you've read and understood from your networking research, you can answer those SJT type questions. Many also use more standardised kind of tests such as Watson Glazer. Get as many of these practice tests done as you possibly can, only way to handle this aspect. Also, in both interviews (individual chats between you and a law firm person or sometimes a pannel) and Assessment Centres (ACs) (a type of assessment in which they see how you work in a group of your fellow applicants), they might give you a case study and ask you to work on it. Get hold of some of the kinds of things they've tended to give out in the past (maybe from your seniors, maybe from trainees of other kinds at those law firms) and practice this element, too. This is where your question on the RCC comes in. Most law firms do not really recruit from the RCC in that way. Some might have some involvement with the RCC in some way, but that really depends from firm to firm. But what you can try to get your RCC to do (because this is the type of thing student law societies at UK unis do) is to get the firms to send along let us say a trainee + graduate recruitment pannel who'll present the law firm to you and maybe talk you through a sample of such an exercise. But mostly, it's applying on your own.

9. Final point - non-legal work experience: Another substantial difference between Indian and foreign law firm environments. If you've worked at a Pizza Express or something, for example, in an Indian law firm setting, you'd be made to defend yourself and justify why you did such work. Not so in the case of foreign law firms. In fact, they tend to take quite an encouraging tone towards getting at least some non-legal work experience. They believe it to be useful as a source of developing transferrable skills that will be useful in a commercial environment. Therefore, you need to understand what are the core skills and attributes each firm you'll be applying to is looking for in a trainee, then in your written application, CV or cover letter, find a way of arguing how your non-legal experience would have contributed towards building those attributes. If you really want to go into a foreign law firm environment, doing some of this type of thing might be a better use of your time than doing repeated and random Indian law firm internships, though some of those are likely to be useful to you, too.

Hey mate, don’t worry too much about it. I’d suggest you start prepping for CLAT’26 rn. You still have more than 3 months left, and trust me, that’s plenty of time if you don’t have anything else going on. Clat can be cleared in 3 months w a great rank if you already have some experience.

Just get back to your desk and start solving mocks. Praying for you bud.

OP, please at least provide a viable website or article to substantiate on why you think the same?

I'm sure people here are aware that almost everything is politically influenceable, for anything which is public-office related.
(Yes even courts)

But it's very strange of you to mention two senior politicians from ▮▮▮ and their inner rivalry and then connecting it with judicial controversy of a HC judge. All while naming the title as "gossip among some lawyers"; pray tell who are these lawyers?

Regards,
Adv. Context Appreciator.

Thoroughly go through the paper book before each hearing. Know all the important dates, events, and parties by heart. Have a solid understanding of the law involved. Obviously know what stage the case is at and which, if any, applications are pending. Should be more than enough.

Keep your filed ready - ensure that you know your way around the pleadings, including the page numbers/annexures and the date of their filing. This is the most basic one, and it's the one people usually miss out on the most. Once your senior asks you about the page/para number, you shouldn't be seen fumbling and turning pages, but should have the answer ready then and there.

Keep your compilations handy and updated. If you know a matter is coming up for a hearing, see the proposition involved and check if there are some recent rulings by courts on the issue and bring this to the attention of your senior and update the compilation too. If there is an adverse ruling, it is even more important that you bring this to the attention to your senior - helps in being prepared when the court/other side brings it up.

Know the law - this is the last thing expected from the junior most but having a command over law and case laws, it will always give you an edge over your peers and sometimes your seniors too. Though I wouldnt recommend bragging it before your seniors.

A day before the hearing, check the item number and court number, the bench composition and what will be your effective item number.

On the day before the hearing, reach the court before anyone else and inquire from the court clerk if any adjounrments are being moved in your matter. Ask if adjournments are being taken in other matters - lets you keep a track on when your matter might be taken up and inform your senior about the same.

Always, and I repeat always, check before you go the Court that you are carrying the physical files and you know where they are in your bag/suitcase. Ensure that you are carrying copies of the compilation/provision for handing it over to the bench/other side. Never forget to carry the bare acts.

During the hearing, pay attention to what the Bench/other side says - will help in prearing written submissions/synopsis or case updates for your client.

Yesterday night, exhausted from drafting contracts, with tired eyes and a dizzy mind, I was traveling back home in the Mumbai locals after a long day. It felt like a wounded warrior retreating after a day full of battles. Amidst this, my attention caught a young boy in distress sitting next to me, with teary eyes, wiped away with the sleeve of his shirt.

Out of concern, I gently asked him why was he crying and co-incidentally, he was a law student who had just completed his 3 year llb course from a private college, and in a scared tone, he explained that he had failed to convert his law internship (1 month) into a pre-placement offer or even an assessment internship at mid-sized tier II law firm. He shared how he was the only son of a family, and belongs to a lower-middle class background, with limited contact in the legal industry. The pressure from his peers and family overwhelmed him, and he broke down further in tears.

As a lawyer who had faced similar struggle early in life, his pain felt personal. I shared my own story the trauma, the confusion, and the setbacks I endured and offered him some valuable advice on overcoming challenges and focusing on his goals.

But this isn't a story about how I helped someone. The real message here is about kindness. Everyone we meet is fighting their own battles, in most of the cases invisible to us. Taking just a moment out of our busy lives to offer support, encouragement, or even a kind word can make an immense difference to someone struggling.

So, next time you see someone in despair, pause. Be the hope they seek. Because in the end, if not us, then who?

I have spent few years working so sharing couple of points basis that:

1. Work on building patience. These days due to various reasons, attention span has reduced a quite a bit. It takes a little practice to keep yourself focused and not to distracted so that you don't lose your chain of thought.

2. Try and read more i.e. the law itself and case laws. Don't rely on articles and secondary research available online. Secondary research is someone else's view (which may or may not be accurate) and lot of times, people have different reasons for writing such stuff. So please don't take it all on face value.

3. Work on your English so that you don't have to necessarily rely on online tools to spot/fix errors.

4. Pick up a hobby. It could be anything - painting, reading, dancing, running, gym etc. basically anything. This will help you blow off you steam when you start working.

These are all very basic hygiene checks which should be kept in mind. Feel free to discard/disregard.

You lot keep read half of things or watch reels. What did she actually say? Don't go by the soundbyte - please learn to get the full context.

Below is the CBS transcript from the Raging Moderates podcast where she spoke. Don't just read half and give out hot takes.

×××××

"Honestly, if he could bring about the end to this terrible war, where Putin is the aggressor, invading a neighbor country, trying to change the borders — if he could end it without putting Ukraine in a position where it had to concede its territory to the aggressor, had to, in a way, validate Putin's vision of greater Russia, but instead could really stand up to Putin, something we haven't seen, but maybe this is the opportunity," Clinton said.

"To make it clear that there must be a ceasefire. There will be no exchange of territory. And that, over a period of time, Putin should be actually withdrawing from the territory he's seized in order to demonstrate his good-faith efforts, let us say, not to threaten European security," she continued. "If we could pull that off, if President Trump were the architect of that, I'd nominate him for a Nobel Peace Prize, because my goal here is to not allow capitulation to Putin, aided and abetted by the United States. I think that's a terrible, terrible precedent."

Clinton added: "I'm dreaming that for whatever combination of reasons, including the elusive Nobel Peace Prize, President Trump may actually stand up to Putin on behalf of not just Ukraine and its democracy and its very brave people, but frankly, on behalf of our own security and interests."

Clinton on Friday said she hopes Mr. Trump remembers that he's at the very military base "that has to send up fighter planes to watch and fend off Russian bombers that routinely harass our military assets, do overflights, engage in provocative behavior in the skies above Alaska."

"I hope he's reminded of that," she continued. "He is not meeting with a friend. He is meeting with an adversary, and an adversary who hopes to play him. And the best thing that could come out of this, frankly, is probably nothing, nothing agreed to, except a real strengthening of President Trump's understanding that Putin is not someone you can make a deal with an expect it to last."