These demarcations are indeed firm specific. TMT is a super wide umbrella that probably encompasses as much variety in practice as a term as "Corporate" would at this point.

Some places have a FinTech focused practice which would resemble a Banking & Finance team more. Some places have a GenCorp team with a TMT advisory tagged on that work mostly on transactions, consulting specifically on the tech side. Some are focused on Telecom mandates, which is its own can of worms. IP is generally separated from TMT at this point, but some firms still include it with some teams focusing fully on IP.

In terms of gaining experience, it depends on where you want to end up. If your aim is to master this specific domain, joining a fully advisory practice like Trilegal is probably your best shot. If you want to gain more varied experience and have the option to switch to another parallel vertical later on, joining something like SAM or CAM is a better idea.

I keep seeing this question on LI. Understandable, because IP is one of the most interesting and exciting practice areas. But please understand that Delhi is not Palo Alto or Munich or Tokyo or even Shanghai. The level of innovation in India is very low and the cost of IP assets created in India are very low. The money lies only in protecting foreign IP assets. But even here, only a minuscule number of IP lawyers do cutting-edge work. Also, certain Lala firms have kept salaries low and even firms set up by NLSIU graduates have done the same: partly because these NLSIU grads have turned into Lalas themselves, partly because they need to compete with Lala firms and cannot justify higher fees to clients.

Thus, IP lawyers in India are very underpaid. The situation could change a bit if liberalisation takes place, but a sea change will happen only if India becomes an advanced economy like China has become. We are 50 years behind in that respect. Everyone hoped that Modi would undertake big bang reforms after 10 years of decay under the Congress, but he hasn’t done jack.

Read up on Maharashtra Tenancy Act specifically focusing on Sections 32G, 32M, 43, 63, TOPA, DCPR Regulations, Hindu Succession Act, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, Urban Ceiling Act, Stamp Act, Societies Act, Registration Act. Read up about conveyancing as well. Get a basic understanding of re-development of society, slum re-development, CIDCO Land, MIDC Land.

You should know the different types of revenue records, 7/12 extracts, Property Cards, mutations etc etc.

Since you're a fresher they won't ask you all these things in details but it's better if you know in case they decide to test you.

Well done Sudhir and NLSIU for taking the lead yet again on an excellent initiative! 👏👏👏

Top 10 rankings:

1. Indian Law Review (100/100)

2. Jindal Global Law Review (73/100)

3. JILI (63/1000)

4. NLS Journal (60/100)

5. NLSIU Review (56/100)

6. Delhi Law Review (51/100)

7. NUJS Law Review (49/100)

8. Amity Law Review (46/100)

9. TNNLU Law Review (42/100)

10. NALSAR Law Review (41/100)

https://www.nls.ac.in/blog/a-new-ranking-system-for-indian-legal-journals/

It’s a practice almost entirely focused on advisory work. If you like research, especially caselaw research, you will like this practice area. Scope is almost always there as you can shift into in-house roles easily. Firms wise, very few teams have a standalone practice so your mobility is fairly restricted. Trilegal Bangalore, Kco Bangalore and CAM Bangalore have the best teams, in that order. AZB Mumbai also does some substantial work in this practice since Vikram Shroff moved from NDA.

It’s a good, interesting practice area with quite interesting work everyday but the volume is almost always very high.

The specific facts of the two cases you cite must be considered - some of this was about more than immediate “economics”/ revenue inflows, i would imagine:

(i) With Manan, CAM effectively consolidated the 2 largest and “highly regarded” cap marks teams into 1. I guess that this has significantly increased their ability to control/increase rates in a practice area that isn’t a money printer by any measure. I would also imagine that Yash and Manan (and possibly Lala ji as well) must have had a chat with their business generating Partners and instructed them to not undercut each other otherwise none of this would work.

(ii) With Nisha, it looks like she capitalized on JSA’s want to not be a T2 firm + the fact that equity was opening up with some of their older partners retiring. Mind you, Nisha may have her own clients, but antitrust teams require transaction teams to feed them merger control work especially the USD/EUR/GBP billing transactions. A single LARGE transaction can yield about 2+ crores for the acquirer’s antitrust team. A single LARGE competitor-to-competitor transaction (which will come along very infrequently) may yield more if the competitors are market leaders. But most of those would be referred to the antitrust team by the transaction team. This makes it tough to quantify the pay bump for Nisha and the value add for JSA.

(iii) There is a high degree of PR surrounding these two individuals which is why you pick them up as examples, presumably. Gautam Saha’s shift to TT&A saw a shift of a higher number of Partners and other lawyers, not to mention the amount of money at play being far in excess. A friend at TT&A joked that their Delhi office has basically become “Gautam Saha & Associates”. I wont be surprised if there are other examples of team movements which are skipping my mind at the moment.

In terms of impacts on As/SAs/PAs, there will not be a significant impact on the large majority since these moves are only driven by the personal motivations of the rainmakers. Some of the PAs might become Partners, maybe everyone gets a slight pay bump but that’s about it. All of this is assuming that the juniors have been asked to move - apparently Nisha didn’t invite her fellow TL partners and the juniors mapped to them, although she controlled everyone.

A few more points -

(i) Factually speaking, 30 crores isnt the highest billed by antitrust teams. There are other T1 teams - some bigger than NKU’s and some smaller - which recover more than 30 crores per annum (also, the metric that firms care about is “recovery” and not “billing”). While I am no fan of hers considering the stories I’ve heard, I will concede that there is a good chance that NKU does/did more than 30 crores of recovery per annum. Anyhow, the highest revenues are probably at SAM competition - with around 12 partners (3x of team NKU). They may have a lower profit per partner but would definitely have a higher revenue figure. They simply wouldn’t keep promoting people to Partner and hiring juniors otherwise - and the suggestion that the team is exempt from usual law firm economic rationale is foolhardy. While Shardul’s lalaji vibes aren’t as intense as Cyril, make no mistake that SAM is a money driven law firm like the rest.

(ii) Saying things like “Cravath scale” is just not an accurate way to talk about this - not to mention that the context in which you’ve referred to it also seems inaccurate (i think you meant lockstep?). The Cravath scale - the highest pay for lawyers in the world - refers to a very specific set of numbers, i.e., what Cravath and similarly placed firms pay their lawyers. While there are firms outside the US that pay Cravath (mostly foreign offices of US firms), NO indian firms pay Cravath (unless youre lala ji’s family) because they simply arent at that level as much as some of these firms pretend otherwise. Some of the Indian Managing Partners’ rates (usually 1k USD per hour) are the same as/around those of foreign Associates (junior Associates in foreign Big Law are charged out at USD 700-850 per hour). One just has to look at metrics such as total turnover (some foreign firms rake in USD Billions) and average revenue per lawyer. There are foreign firms with headcounts similar to CAM and TL which make MUCH more. Lastly, there is also the fact that you don’t have lalajis like Cyril and Zia in these Cravath scale firms sucking up a significant chunk of profits - even from highly profitable teams - because they provide the “platform”. The lalas basically capitalise on the lethargy of some rainmakers in terms of setting up admin processes and taking on the risk of some fixed costs. As someone who knows some rainmakers who broke away from T1s to start their own gig, those guys begin to make a LOT more after breaking away.

(iii) While gender inequities do exist, you need to appreciate how they do/dont play out in context of law firms. Many of these “top-performers” do not have a personal life (no spouse, no kids) and they reach a point of emptiness where they are all consumed by work and the thought process is “control these little shits and make money number go up brrrrrrr”. Of the two mentioned in your post, one doesnt have a spouse and children while the other got a spouse many years their junior not too long ago. There is no judgment here, just a statement of fact. There are other rainmakers who are divorced because their spouse didn’t want to put up with the absence and/or have terrible relationships with their children because they were absent. Mind you, some of these children end up having a bad long term trajectory because daddy (it mostly is daddy) compensated for their absence by making their wealth available to the kids without supervision.

Lastly, I am glad lawyers in India are beginning to have conversations like this. Remember, its all about the money - the “prestige” of having your matter mentioned in the newspapers doesnt mean anything. The fact that you spent your nights away in office / on screen doesnt matter. Most Associates won’t make Partner. Most Partners won’t make Equity Partner. Barely any Equity Partner will be a Managing Partner (and none will in a lala set up). Focus on securing the $$$ while youre in the system. To do that, conversations like this are important. To do that, Partners also need to step up and promote these conversations (even if anonymously through this platform) irrespective of the fact that their lala ji MP promotes a different “culture” - remember, you’re not getting the best deal either. Alternatively, they can always dance at lala ke bete ka sangeet and hope to get a few extra pieces of silver thrown at them.

Ah, the irony. You’re trying to argue that “failing CLAT isn’t the end of the world”, but only if one manages to crack something far more elite than CLAT itself.

So let me get this straight: if someone didn’t make it to an NLU at 17, their only salvation is to ace the LSAT, LNAT, IELTS, or get into a T14 law school or Oxbridge otherwise, their legal career is “de facto” over? Really?

You’re essentially saying that failing CLAT is only excusable if someone then cracks exams that are arguably ten times harder or gains access to international opportunities that are financially out of reach for most Indians. That’s like saying, “Didn’t win gold at the Olympics? No worries, just discover a cure for cancer.” Or “Oh, you failed Jee? Koi nahi, go build a rocket and apply to NASA.” Make it make sense.

And of course, you conveniently gloss over the tiny, insignificant matter of accessibility. While organisations like IDIA are fighting to make CLAT more inclusive and equitable, it’s mindsets like yours that keep this profession exclusionary and classist. Because clearly, everyone has the funds to apply to multiple foreign universities and pay crores in tuition, right? Your entire worldview is built on the fantasy of a hyper-privileged few madking as a universal truth.

That’s not logic. That’s delusion dressed up as elitism. And it's definitely coming from someone whose only life achievement is having cracked CLAT.

Now let’s talk about the foreign institutions you so confidently talked about, the T14s in the US, Oxbridge, top Canadian law schools. Their graduates do dominate global legal rankings and help shape international jurisprudence. The comparison is laughable because most NLU grads wouldn’t even make it past the personal statement stage at those institutions.

Here’s a reality check for you junior failing CLAT is not a moral failing, nor is it a career death sentence. It just means someone didn’t perform well on a deeply flawed test often while still a teenager. And yet, people recover. They go to lesser-known universities, work twice as hard, intern widely, outperform many NLU grads, and actually build meaningful legal careers. Not because someone handed them Oxford, but because they had resilience a quality glaringly absent from your post.

In short, if you genuinely think that one needs to pass the LSAT or go to Oxbridge to justify not cracking CLAT, then maybe it’s time to reflect on what exactly you’re defending, an entrance exam, or your own inflated ego.

Warm regards,

Yours, A3 from a State University you’ve never heard of now working at a Tier 1 firm you probably applied to for an internship.

It depends on where you land, really.

For a normal Advocate/AoR: Now, over here there are several kinds of people. You'd have to take into account the overall impression of the Advocate/Aor. The pay would firstly depend upon their own earning capacity. This earning capacity would depend upon: no. of filings/appearances/empanelments/good clients, etc. For people who have a healthy balance of the aforesaid, you can score (even for a fresher) a salary of 30k-40k. I seem to remember that v recently, Mr. Kunal Chatterji (AOR & Standing Counsel, WB) was offering somewhere in this range. So, for people who have good metrics, they will pay a somewhat respectable amount. For these boutique firms etc, the same funda as applicable to normal advocates apply.

Although few in number, there are also several Senior advocates who hire freshers as their Chambers colleagues. A good way to approach a senior is to visit courts and try to talk to them in person in order to score an interview. Since you're a fresher, the senior may not consider your application when sent through an email. So, try to approach them in person during lunch/tea breaks. Please try don't live under the impression that they will snub you - the Seniors tend to receive juniors asking for advice, etc., better than most other advocates. If you end up at a Senior's Chambers even as a fresher, you can expect a pay of around 50-60k.

Best of luck!

13-14 years in DJS (minimum) to go from DJS to DHJS.

It also depends on your rank in the final merit list, i.e., higher the rank, faster the promotions. The entire batch selected in one year is not promoted together, promotions are in smaller groups based on ranks.

30-32 is on the late side, so, so unless your rank is very high, most probably you might not make it to PDJ of a district, but you will surely become a ASJ/ADJ.

HC, 95% no chance.

Take time for yourself. Try to understand how your body works. For me, I never work past 1 am, I'll sleep no matter what. I'll sleep at 1 then wake up at 7 and do the work. I have found out that my brain does not work after 1 am, and it is better that I take some rest and then start working with good efficiency.

I remember pulling all-nighters and reading the same lines 5 times before understanding basic shit.

The top 70% of the BALLB (Hons.) programme gets placed in a T1 or a firm with T1 equivalent salaries. About 4-5 people get placed in foreign firms that pay around 50-60LPA at the fresher level. So, I don't know what you mean by the salaries offered to top 10% of NLS freshers. If you are talking about the LLB programme, then that's sort of true.

Now, coming to your questions:

Yes, graduating at 35 does affect your chances of getting a corporate law job. Indian law firms are terrible places, and a team usually prefers a 23-25-year-old at the fresher level instead of a 35-year-old. As a lawyer, you do basic mind-numbing compliance work that requires a very little/basic understanding of tech. In-house roles might take your background more favourably than law firms, though.

Given your background, I would not suggest litigation; you will have to slog for at least 10 years, and I don't think that is possible at 35.

I am a bit curious tho, why did you not try for an MBA? Your experience would be incredibly valuable for an MBA role at a tech company.

My senior has a wonderful hack for this. During a diligence, we had to pull all nighters towards the end of preparing the report and she made sure I didn’t work past 3 am though she worked through the night (and day).

One day it got so bad and I was worried I was going to break down. She got the hint and asked me to leave all work and come out for a sweet break. We sat in the break room and had desserts for an hour, talked about non-work matters, and got back to work after that. It was the best break in my experience and we finished the report without any hiccups.

TLDR: take a break, have desserts, and get back to work.

Not proud to say but have had to do two all nighters back to back on more than one occasion. Always better to get at least 2 hours of sleep in between. Second day, eat carbs in multiple pockets along with espresso shots. Void sugar and keep hydrating. Frequent urinating keeps you busy and less prone to feeling sleepy. Towards the late end of day 2, try to work on a standing desk. Drinking cold water throughout also buys you a couple hours.

But all in all, not worth it. Day three is anxiety ridden and vulnerable. Get proper rest post and eat good warm food (I.e., avoid refrigerated food / cold pizzas). Warm showers. Recovery is equally important. Best to avoid alcohol on day 3, post the two all nighters.

I was in this exact position two years ago choosing between these two law schools. I have since come to Jindal. I think the acadmic exposure is difficult to rival. Of course not all your professors will be stand-outs but theres the fair share of great faculty. If you can afford Jindal, its probably the best place to be; if the finances are a stretch, look into the entrance exam based scholarship (I dont know if the criterias have changed since the shift from the LSAT), but the entrance scholarships are quite generous (upto 75%) and most students here do recieve atleast some financial aid. JGLS also offers a merit/means scholarship once you are here, from the second year onward, but this is capped at a certain amount (1.5L I think). Keep in mind though that scholarships cover only tuition and the housing/dining fee will be the same, and that there will obviously be miscellaneous expenses no matter where you choose to go. Opportunity wise I think Jindal is probably the way to go (atleast in terms of access, exposure, and depending on your merit: placements), but I am sure there is nothing stopping you from doing well at NLUO if you put in the work. If the financial position is extremely precarious, don't take the risk, work hard at the NLU and you will be golden regardless. If you can afford to take the risk, I would say the quality of education and the experience at Jindal is worth it. Someone from NLUO will be a much better bet at telling you how life there is. Hope this helps, all the best!

1. If you receive your legal education in India, then it does define a lot of things. Saying otherwise is total nonsense. Businesspeople in India have become more confident about the quality of their lawyers since the NLU system was implemented. Finally, thanks to the NLU system, a respectable number of Indian lawyers, like Indian economists, Indian scientists, Indian engineers, Indian IT people, have been able to make their mark on the world and to aspire for, and take up, positions in globally ranked places. If you receive your legal education outside India, of course, then it's a different matter.

2. Granted, law school doesn't teach some at least of what it should. However, it teaches basic skills. Reading and being able to write a summary of a case!! If you didn't learn that from your law school, then your choice of law school was wrong. Simples.

3. As far as it goes, that statement is correct: "Failing CLAT is not the end of the world and anyone’s career." Then have you passed AILET, the other major entry test for good legal education in India? Very well, then: have you been able to prove yourself in systems that are arguably better than the Indian one? Have you gotten yourself a good degree in a non-law subject and past the LSAT (U.S.) and been able to get into a T14 law school or good Canadian uni? Have you been able to have a combo of good LNAT score + top-of-the-range school marks + (depending on the circumstances) a good IELTs score to get into a good UK uni (Oxbridge/some of the UoL unis/Warwick etc)? No? If all the answers are no, then I am sorry, de facto it is the end of the career for many people. You are actively causing harm, by propagating a false picture, if you don't admit this to be the unvarnished truth.

Solid experience and solid fundamentals are very important. Either you should be update to date on the law in your primary area of work or have some good technical and/or practical insight into an industry. (Note: The former can be acquired by dedicated study or by pursuing a diploma if your current in-house role does not automatically translate into this.)

Equally important are mental and physical fitness. You need to be ready to give 8-10 chargeable hours + 2-4 hours in learning and business development to really beat expectations. Even the partner who hired you will have some apprehensions about you, so will have to go the extra mile.

Lastly, you need to be committed to devote weekends, festivals, etc. Success is a top tier law firm demands this sacrifice especially in the current competitive environment.

Please factor all this in before making the switch as it is an important decision.

And, yes, as someone said, smaller firms will be more open to you than larger outfits.

All the best!

Pros:

1. Flashy stuff on your CV which recruiters in India or third countries might find tasty. One reason for that being the difficulty of the exam - see below at point 1 under 'Cons' for the other side of this argument.See further at point 3 under 'Cons' below for further details about the bad side of this.

2. Possibility of getting a TC or a lateral position out of it. Refer below to point 2 under 'Cons' to understand the flip side to this argument.

3. Qualifying as a solicitor with a reasonably high level of flexibility, including by working abroad - once again, read point 3 under the below section to understand the other side to this, too.

Cons:

1. Huge uncertainty: SQE failure rates are alarmingly high. System is almost set up for you to fail. Barriers to multiple attempts are huge: forking out something like £4000 per attempt. If you have a TC in place, even, the prospects are extremely scary. Firms (including magic circle ones) have been known to withdraw TC offers from people who fail on their first attempt. Others use the prospect of a delayed start date to the TC as a stick for SQE failure. That is, if your TC was due to start in January 2026, they threaten that if you fail the SQE, they will not withdraw your TC offer, but keep you hanging (i.e., unemployed) until January 2027 to start it. They (the SRA and their PR machine) claim that you can pass even by self-study, but that's a lot of hot air. Unless you are associated with one of the providers (like BPP or ULaw) and their SQE LLM courses, you won't be getting access to the best materials, anyway. And it's not a fantastic idea to enrole in those kinds of courses as a self-financed person, if you've already done an LLM, especially. Get your TC in the bag first, then get funded by your firm to do the SQE or SQE LLM prep course they want you to do.

2. Regarding the pro no. 2 listed above, that comes with a significant caveat - and this has a dual purpose, as also being the reason that self-funding your SQE (or SQE LLM) is a bad idea. The way the system currently works is that the law firms have very fixed arrangements, processes and ideas about which provider they will make you do your SQE prep with and which courses they consider to be value for money. Like in some so-called "SQE LLM" courses, which combine SQE prep with some aspects of an LLM (essentially an LLM-but-not-really-an-LLM), the uni offers you a certain number of electives (let us say five), and out of that, the firm offering a candidate a TC and funding them (funding for the SQE comes with the TC offer) prescribes three of the electives (they essentially say you should take electives a, b and c). Of course, this is based on the soundest commercial principles, i.e., the law firm's need for particular specialised knowledge. The catch with self-funding your SQE is that you may have the moving-room to take those five electives and not be dictated to about three of them, but if you take up the wrong electives, then you've got a serious problem, because you may not have the exact thing your target firm(s) want.

3. Again take the pro listed above - the flexibility. You can gain your admission to the roll of solicitors in England and Wales by undertaking work abroad under the supervision of a qualified solicitor in England and Wales who will be ready to certify that you satisfy the SRA competencies. Essentially, that's a flashy way of saying you can get your QWE abroad even. Now flip the argument to a certain extent. As that is the case, the hallowed and elite spaces of the magic circle or U.S. law firm's London office are even more hallowed and elitist. Essentially, a form of second-class citizenship: you have the title and the fancy paperwork, but not the substantive package that should come along with it - to work in the office of a magic circle or U.S. law firm's London office. Of course, they (the firms, that is) will argue that even British citizens who are qualified solicitors do not have any substantive right or entitlement to work in a top firm merely by virtue of their status of being a qualified solicitor. As far as that goes, that is right. But the British citizens do still get the chance to continue working in England and Wales, at perhaps less flashy firms. You, in comparison (unless you're a Brit yourself, of course), don't get that, most likely. That's because of the skilled work visa salary thresholds and visa sponsorship eligibility, which a high street firm or a bootique may not fulfil or be able to fulfil, which is why I have dubbed it 'second class citizenship'. So you'd be qualified as an English solicitor, with all the respect and stuff that commands abroad, without actually the right or ability to work in a UK law firm, if you just had a self-funded SQE under your belt, without the certainty (based on a TC offer given prior to you doing the SQE) that it will lead to a TC.

Of course, you might say that one must take the rough with the smooth and all that, and if you think that way, then props to you. But regardless of how you think, I hope this was helpful in some way.

Both are good as you get to apply legal principle and economic theory while dealing with most taxation matters. Best part about tax practice is that you get to understand business nuances like no other practice. Purely in terms of ambit and scope, IDT has a larger base as it covers all taxes and duties other than income tax. An IDT practitioner would be dealing with GST, VAT, Central Excise, State Excise, Advertisement Tax, Customs, subsidies, fiscal incentives, and related regulatory laws. A DT practitioner would require good understanding of accounting. Tax litigation pays well, much more than any civil litigation. A good tax lawyer should endeavour to practice both IDT and DT. That’s when you become a tax lawyer.

You're making valid points but are mixing two things. As far as OP's issue of work is concerned, till last day, you can't say no to work. Yes, proper succession should be planned but unless you're a student or a fresher, you would know that it would definitely be incorporated, since no one can predict if a matter is going to be stretched. Only the extra ordinary lean teams can't manage this, which would be bad on their part. The notice period should be shorter and past bonuses must be paid, no doubt about it and these things need to change. Now a days, stretched bonuses have become retention tools.

This is what SEBI claims JS did, on one of the days when it is alleged that JS manipulated indices:

1. JS builds a long position (via buying in cash/futures market). Now because JS buys so much in big size and within a matter of 20-30 minutes, this pumps up indices (banknifty/nifty).

2. While they're building their long positions, the prices of 'index options' to build a short position becomes dirt cheap since it's an options expiry day (if you don't understand what an expiry is and what options are then go read up on that first else you won't understand anything in the order). SEBI claims that while JS had a long position worth ₹X, JS also built a short position which would be worth 7X. In simple words I am placing 'one' bet that a stock would go from ₹100 to ₹101, but at the same time I am also placing 'seven' bets that it would go from ₹100 to ₹99.

3. JS buys the dirt cheap options and ends up building a short position worth 7X it's long position. Now because JS is building its short positions via options that are expiring on that day itself, the cost for building such a short position is very less compared to any non expiry day.

4. JS unwinds (i.e., dumps) its large AF long positions, again within 20-30 mins, and causes the indices to fall. This fall leads to their dirt cheap options short position becoming extremely profitable because they're 7 times as much short as they were long originally.

I think illustratively, based on what I have understood from the order, this is how the trade went down:

(I) I see on my screen that there are more than 1lac+ orders being placed / have been placed / have been executed etc within the last 20-30 mins for buying stock A. I end up concluding this buying frenzy will continue and so I also join in and end up buying stock A.

(II) On a completely different screen where not a lot of people pay attention, there suddenly are more than 7lac+ orders to sell stock A. On the other hand the original 1lac+ orders through which stock A was bought initially are now also being reversed (i.e., the original buyer is also selling exiting/selling).

(III) I see the price of stock A is now down AF compared to the price from where I entered and I (along with a lot of others) panic and rush to get out by selling it asap.

(IV) The person with 7lac+ sell orders ends up winning big in this selling frenzy.

The above was a very dumbed down explanation and you will not understand it completely unless you first understand how derivatives work in Indian markets.

So this is now confirmed. They've officially announced the split today. Bar and Bench has reported on the same.

[Edit: see this thread: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/441889-icul-separated ]

https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders/jul-2025/interim-order-in-the-matter-of-index-manipulation-by-jane-street-group_95040.html#

This is huge! SEBI finally had the balls to take some action. Hope these ▮▮▮ JS quant traders end up rotting up in jail for their evidently market manipulative practices. Order seems super technical looks like a good weekend read

First off, congratulations on landing this internship.

What I value most in an intern is someone who’s curious and proactive. Nobody expects you to know everything on day one, but it really stands out when someone takes ownership of their work, asks thoughtful questions, and tries to understand the reasons behind what they’re doing. If you approach things that way, you’ll learn faster and show the team that you’re reliable.

Your attitude matters more than you might think. The interns who do well are the ones who stay calm under pressure, meet deadlines without being chased, and take feedback in the right spirit. A lot of the job is about working well with others. People who are respectful, easy to work with, and don’t let ego get in the way are always remembered.

What doesn’t go down well is overconfidence without substance, cutting corners, or being careless with details. Even small mistakes, like a sloppy email or a basic error in a draft, can create a poor impression. Attention to detail really does matter and people do notice.

The interns who have earned PPOs are the ones who made life easier for the team. They stayed organised, took initiative, and made sure their work was solid before sharing it. They didn’t just wait around for instructions but found ways to add value.

It’s great that you’re thinking about this seriously. If you stay humble, put in the effort, and keep learning, you’ll already be ahead. Wishing you the very best. I’m sure you’ll do well.

Hi, I put in my papers a few weeks ago, but everything seems to be going as it was - toxic, hectic, and all day business.

I expected the notice period - to idk? - be chiller, and give me time figuring out the next steps, but now I am thinking of ways of resigning from resignation itself.

Please do suggest, ye' smarties of LI!

AoR here. It will not increase your income 'exponentially', but that depends on your current income.

And yes, if you are regular in Court, it will help your chances in being designated, subject, of course, to you not being a rubber stamp for filing matters.

As far as income is concerned, there are a number of ways you will earn:

1. Lawyers will refer matters to you. Mostly these are drafted by them and you have to file. These are usually fixed fee matters and the fee can range anywhere from 10K to 33K or even more. In some cases you can get a per appearance fee or bill for individual drafts or some sort of a staggered fee arrangement. Tap all your outstation contacts to get briefs (there are lawyers who make monthly trips to HCs to get matters). Bear in mind that the lawyer referring the matter to you may have charged the client 2X your fee by telling the client that it's your fee.

2. Clients engage you to draft and file matters. These are higher paying depending on the stakes involved, and you can quote whatever you want factoring in your experience, the client's ability to pay, etc. Unless you have a client base beforehand, this is unlikely as other lawyers will generally not refer clients to you.

3. Panels or retainerships. If you can, please apply for panels, including Legal Aid. If eligible, undergo the mediation training. These are small things but add up over time.

4. Street smart clerks will get you matters through their own networks. These are usually low paying matters and the clerk will include his portion in the fee which is quoted to the client.

5. Find a chamber or law firm or senior who/which does not have an AoR or is looking to change their AoR. A lot of your work may come from lawyers unhappy with their previous AoRs, or lawyers looking for AoRs with lesser fee. As a new AoR, you need to capitalise on any opportunity in an already saturated market. If you can deliver, people will engage you on a regular basis, and even if you have 2-3 lawyers who swear by you, it should keep briefs coming in regularly, in addition to frequent court appearances.

Be alive to the fact that a large number of AoRs clear the examinations every year. While someone may approach you to get a quote, presume they are also checking the market to find AoRs with lesser fee. There will always be someone who will be willing to quote a lesser fee than you, so it's all on your network and you to convert the client or get lawyers to send you briefs.

Needless to state, all of this hinges on you clearing the examinations, and good luck to you for that. Brush up on writing speed and watch the lectures relevant for your examination year.

Yes. You still have it in you. First and foremost, create a strong foundation on Companies Act, Contract Act, Transfer of Property Act, Specific Relief Act, Sales and Goods Act, FEMA (if possible). Various kinds of agreements dealt in business transactions (You do not have to go through the nitty gritty of those, just basic understanding as to what they do and how they do is sufficient enough).

This is going to take you some time.

Try applying for internships at boutique firms. Do not apply at top tier law firms - it would be a waste move, you won't stand a chance to get that micro second attention of the HRs.

Boutique firms would be happy to test your knowledge. Be ready with your basics. You would get through with ease. Gain as much hands-on experience as possible and if possible get a call-back internship from them. If they like your work, ask them at the end if a job prospect exists. Do this with multiple firms. Somewhere or another you might get through.

Do not think that the pay would be as good as you are expecting to be. Those pay are only limited to top tier firms. For now baby steps. Pay won't be that good and long working hours can be expected. Gain experience for a year or so and then you can easily make a move to the top law firms.

The process I just said won't be easy at all. So all the best.

Anyone saying NO here are kids themselves in their initial years of college life. Don't take them seriously. Life will give you opportunities. It's not unforgiving all the time.

Cheers!

My thought process when I started:

a) If I have enough savings in liquid assets to manage personal expenses for 12-18 months (yes, it takes time to secure work, execute it, and then get paid) and if my immediate family is okay with a short-term cash crunch during this period.

b) If I have/can get an anchor client - work that can cover the office expenses and the associate's salary.

c) Do you intend to offer specialised services or compete in general practice?

What I learnt after I started:

a) The importance of Budgeting

b) The importance of Cash Flow (and the difference between P&L and Cash Flow, and yes, it has a material impact).

c) The importance of saying NO to non-profitable work.

What you should be prepared for

a) For the same work, since you no longer work for a "brand", the fee would be discounted.

b) Perceptions about the client are often faulty. Clients who you think will give you work - may not; clients who you did not imagine would assign you work - often do.

c) The importance of friends/partners who trust each other on financial matters. We can disagree on many other things.

I think mindset wise you need to be prepared to be ready to do everything i.e. billing, admin, collection, bd, training the team, creating brand awareness and not to forget, actual work.

You should check with the clients with whom you can have candid discussion whether they will be comfortable to give you work in your new avatar.

Since there are quite a few new age firms which have been started by people with similar practice area, see whether there is any distinction between their offering and yours. Connect with them to understand how's been their journey. You will be amazed how much knowledge people will be ready to pass on to you.

"Issuing sensational or deceptive press releases in the name of protecting law firms, when in reality aimed at safeguarding private commercial interests, constitutes using the profession for personal or sectional gain, which is strictly prohibited. In light of this, the BCI is seriously considering issuing notice to the individuals responsible for these press releases to explain their conduct. If found guilty, appropriate disciplinary action may be taken, including reprimand, suspension, or even removal from the roll of Advocates," the letter states.

https://www.barandbench.com/news/bci-considering-action-against-silf-for-misleading-comments-on-entry-of-foreign-law-firms

I am terrible at speaking when nervous. I take stutter, repeat, get tongue tied, have trouble finding the right words, etc. On the brighter side I generally don't lack ideas to speak on. Has anyone faced this issue previously? How did they get past it? What can I do to improve?

I really respect what LI is for the legal community, but sometimes it's too much hassle and wait game.. wherever you go, there are comments which you can't read as they are awaiting moderation...

LI moderator, while moderating this conversation, should understand that this is the age of AI, they can pass the moderation off to AI pretty easily, otherwise they can ensure that a few more people are on the job for moderation.

I have a few conversations (professionally important for me, as any one good response will help me) pending moderation for over last 20 hours, and every few hours i have to return to check if there's something..

maybe, if this all passes moderation (which i don't know if moderation will be modest enough to do), then the comments on this convo can make slight different in the working of LI.. who knows, worth a shot, a better, faster LI might be of help for someone someday...

well, you can always take more loans like a private loans. Try asking in your extended family if they'd be willing to sponsor or lend some money which you can pay back in the near future. I dont think they'd charge you interest.

Other than this, mail to as many companies' CSR divisions as you can, maybe even ministries, etc. and plead for help. If you keep mailing, maybe you'll get some help. Also, I dont know your college but NLUs have fee waivers for the needy so can try contacting them as well. Good luck

Depends on the NLU, but the standard practice in all universities is that whatever name you had provided at the time of admission, unless you're changing the name legally while as a student and making a formal application to that effect, after the degree certificate gets issued, it is unlikely to be changed in the records further. A friend of mine tried for a long time before giving up.

Misery in later life, a gradual (but crippling) sense of mental and intellectual impoverishment and lack of fulfilment, wasted potential (as courtroom advocates, judges, academics, legal philosophers etc), gradually increasing difficulty in engaging in anything remotely resembling serious or organised intellectual thought, declining interest in all cultural pursutes (except to the extent that showing off these are required for social clout purposes), a life devoid of meaningful human relationships, cerebral atrophy and a brain in which one can forever hear the sentence Sir P.G. Wodehouse rightly declares to be the saddest of all, ringing out as if in perpetual mockery of our foolishness: "It might have been".

imbecile? thats a little harsh. Do you really go around real life talking like that? I have taught law at the best universities in the country and studied it at the best universities in the world. Literally read the second sentence of what I wrote. Study well impress professors. You dont need connections in the sense that you dont need a relative the way you might in say litigation. You obviously still need to be pro social and be friendly with people you work with and meet expectations with your boss and find a way to work collaboratively. Maybe you should learn some of that pro-sociality while youre here.

But ten years of being in academia not one person has asked me who my parents were or what my caste is or anything like that. This aspect of the profession is more open to first generation folks than any other.

As someone actively navigating Hinge and Bumble in Delhi, let me say it plainly: a significant number of prospects in the demographic OP describes are, quite honestly, undateable. And no — it’s not because they’re “too accomplished” or “intimidating.” The reasons are far more grounded.

Reason 1: Lifestyle Neglect.

The Instagram optics are carefully curated — Euro trips, brunches, designer hauls. But behind the filters lies visible burnout. Erratic routines, stress-lined faces, and the unmistakable toll of an overextended, undernourished life. A Pilates reel doesn’t cancel out cortisol.

Reason 2: Emotional Intelligence? Missing in Action.

Some of the lowest EQ I’ve encountered has come wrapped in the gloss of professional achievement. Reading cues, taking “no” with grace, knowing when to exit a dead conversation — basic stuff. You think Delhi boys struggle with rejection? Try saying “no thanks” to a 30-something litigator. Suddenly, you’re the clueless peasant who dared to turn down royalty. Believe me — I have the receipts.

Reason 3: No Off-Switch.

Especially in corporate law — where work and identity have fused into a single, exhausting persona. Dates often feel like diligence calls. Legalese over linguine. At some point, I started wondering if I’d accidentally walked into a strategy meeting.

Reason 4: Hypergamy — and the Fallout.

Yes, it exists. Let’s stop pretending it doesn’t. It’s a wrecking ball that no one has the courage to ackno- until it’s too late.

Reason 5: Misandry Dressed as Empowerment.

Independence is great. Strength is magnetic. But there’s a growing trend of casual man-bashing being passed off as feminist sass. It’s not edgy. It’s not evolved. It’s just… tired.

And here’s the part no one wants to say out loud: many of these women don’t actually want a partner — or certainly not a male one. What they’re seeking isn’t intimacy, but affirmation. That they’re smarter, sharper, more enlightened than whoever sits across the table. And if he won’t flatter, submit, or play along — he’s swiftly labelled “insecure,” “misogynist,” or “just not enough.”

The truth? Some of them would be far happier if everyone — including their well-meaning friends and family — stopped trying to match them up. Let them own their solo arc. It’s perfectly fine to be a cat mom, dog mom, or cause crusader — provided you actually have the time, energy, and emotional bandwidth to care. It’s not a failure. It’s just a choice.

Honestly, this post says a lot, just not in the way you think.

There’s something quietly alarming about how you’ve framed this: a whole group of accomplished women in law are being reduced to a kind of curiosity because they haven’t “settled down” by their late 30s or 40s. Why is that even the lens? Do we pause to dissect the life paths of single men in litigation? Do we ask whether they’ll adopt or become “dog dads”? No, we just assume they’re focused, driven, or haven’t met the right person yet. The same grace doesn’t seem to apply here.

And the list of “reasons” you rattle off like demanding hours, intimidating men, high expectations, physical appearance, really just blames women for their own singleness in a hundred passive-aggressive ways. It completely ignores the structural and cultural double standards that exist in law (and society). Maybe some of these women didn’t want to get married? Maybe they had partners but didn’t see marriage as essential? Maybe they did want it and life just worked out differently? Or maybe they’re tired of being told their life is incomplete unless it follows a specific, socially approved script.

Also, the idea that these women now need to pick between IVF, adoption, being a “cat mother,” or throwing themselves into social service... it’s honestly quite patronising. Their lives aren’t some backup plan in motion. They’re already full and complex. Fulfilment doesn’t hinge on marriage or children for everyone, and it certainly shouldn’t be the only frame through which we assess women’s choices. If you're genuinely curious about gender patterns in the legal profession, there’s a meaningful way to have that conversation. But this post? It’s steeped in subtle (and not-so-subtle) sexism. Might be worth sitting with that discomfort a bit.

The 2025 report highlights issues such as Indian police being heavily in favour of custodial torture and bypassing procedural and legal safeguards and admitting to it.

https://www.commoncause.in/wotadmin/upload/SPIR_2025.pdf

How accurate is this study ? And can such studies be used as arguments in writs against issues such as this

Keep on practising using multiple fingers on monkeytype and 10 fast fingers. I had 30 wpm and used to type with 2 index fingers back in class 10, started practicing got to 100 wpm within a few weeks (sophomore at a t1 nlu now btw). I don't use 10 fingers, but 7-8 ish. I have built muscle memory by practicing, I don't need to think, I just know where the keys are.

Currently my peak is 138 wpm on monkeytype :)

Taking typing class is not required, but you should learn by yourself to type faster. Typing fast has its perks

Here's what I found - there's nothing you can really do other than make your own personal situation better in the team, so disarm with charm and kill with kindness. Seniors can only be horrid that many times in the face of absolute non-retaliation before they consciously self-correct. - M.K. Gandhi was onto something for sure.

Simple answer. The MINIMUM expense of a SINGLE person, if you want a good quality of life in a metro city, is between 1.5 to 2.5 lakhs a month. Which end of the band you fall in depends on:

- which city it is (eg tier 1 metro like Mumbai, Delhi and Bengaluru vs tier 2 metro like Chennai or Pune or Ahmedabad or Kolkata or Hyderabad)

- the rent you pay

- the car you drive

- your fuel costs

- Uber usage

- your vacation expenses

- your dining expenses

- your wardrobe expenses

- whether you have a maid and driver

- gym membership

- golf/tennis/padel/pickleball club memberships

- Internet and OTT subscriptions

Can you live below 1.5 lakhs a month as expenses? Sure, even in Mumbai. But your quality of life will be basic middle class.

My expenses in a tier 2 metro are around 1.8 lakhs a month. I pay no rent and drive the cheapest car for a short distance to office. My quality of life is pretty good, because this leaves me with more to spend on other heads.

First, I tried speaking to this person. Making sure I am not assuming things. Took him to a conference room and genuinely told him how he is making me feel. Things got better for a week and then back to same old.

Second, I escalated to the partner. Gave supporting evidence. Including twitter thread from someone who had quit and basically mentions everything this person has done. Partner "tried" mediating. I mention "tried" in quotes because it felt more like a you have misunderstood him, the practice is demanding etc etc. My take-away was he would rather lose an SA who has joined the team and has been working for 3 months, than a PA who has been in the team for 1 year and caused 3 attritions within that year (all people directly reporting onto him).

Once second was clear, I knew I would quit. So I did and moved out. I did mention and flag this guy in my exit interview. I am told he never got a promotion later because of that and had to quit and get partnership in another firm. Long story shirt, he is an equity partner today in a T2 firm and people continue to quit under him.

The morale of the story is, control what you can control. If the atmosphere is not sustainable, quit.

A counsel-level lawyer is someone who has worked in the industry for long enough and has become eligible to become part of the partnership but is yet to become one. The work they do depends on the partner, some partners allow full independence to review and send things out, they’re basically learning the commercial aspect of the law firm business i.e. client retention, networking etc.

Internship ends. (Towards the end of the internship, you must seek verbal feedback from everyone you worked with and request for a callback)

↓

HR shares feedback form with everyone you worked with.

↓

Good feedback/explicit recommendation for callback by the team.

↓

Callback offered.

CAM: Here, you have to submit a research paper (2500-5000 words) and give a presentation (45-60 mins) as a part of the internship program. It is mandatory only for a 4-week internship. Depending upon your feedback from the team (which is based on your work + presentation), callbacks are decided. Generally, the callback internship at CAM is with a different team/practice area, i.e., not with the team you previously interned with. However, exceptions are there.

AZB: No research paper or presentation is required for the first-time interns. However, callback interns are generally required to give a presentation. Callback depends entirely upon the feedback of the people you worked with.

SAM: No idea. Never got the chance to intern there. T_T

Hope this helps. All the best!!

It sounds like you mean well but this feeds into amplifying all the negative things about being single. Here are the positives. Once you are financially independent, no one can tell you what to do, not even your family. The number of single women opting to give birth using artificial insemination is on the rise. I personally know three. Yes, maybe you have to be firm with your family about your right to live your own life but if they love you, they accept it. You also have to be very smart about financial planning to keep your independence, hire help and generally make sure you are not under too much pressure.

Single women with or without children are way happier than people who got married for the sake of it and were then pressured into parenting their husbands who they don't even love that much. It is much easier to have a few difficult conversations and protect your independence than to add a new person who will take over your life. Unless you want the new person of course.

Sperm donor and IVF are definitely on the table OP if you cannot find a man who is mature enough to be a partner to a woman who is in charge of her own life. And trust me, it is so much more fun being friends with the kind of people who don't judge single mothers. This includes some married people also. It will be uncomfortable initially but after that comes joy and freedom.

Ok this might be a silly question but if a firm (TT&A) sends a rejection letter for an internship the very next day but says "we would be keen for you to apply to us later", is that just a formality thing or should I actually just try applying again for a later date (I applied for an internship for the very next month in the original mail)

Maybe it's due to garden leave?

Just a general thought on this: when senior/equity partners exit how often do their 'parent' firms enforce non-compete and non-solicit provisions and payment to the Partner. When I was working as an A0 at a T1 firm, the Partner (who moved from AZB) told the team during a general discussion that AZB did not give her/him what was due.

For example: I may be wrong with dates, pls correct

The news of Indus Laws Employment Team leaving the firm was in late May/ mid June 2024, while a formal announcement was made by KCO in August 2024.

Is this the general market practice? The only precedent I was able to find was a civil suit filed by CAM against a former CAM Chennai office head - Dorothy (now in SAM). This is well documented on legally india.

Can Partners who have moved provide some insight?

Was part of the process two years ago, when the scheme was newly brought in with new changes by DYC. Had filled in the preference list, didn't receive a call from any judge. Eventually got an email from the registry for the interview. That mostly happens in lots. It's a 3-5 min interview, depending on how much interest you are able to inspire from the panel.

Interesting article by Asian Legal Business:

Like many of its counterparts, Trilegal has implemented several measures to curb attrition. One key initiative Gorthi highlights is a programme that allows qualified associates who go abroad for their masters degrees, to return without a break in seniority. “Many of the young lawyers returned to the firm,” he notes.

In addition to increased remuneration and transparent compensation rules, Trilegal introduced business tracking mechanisms “to identify and ease the burden of overworked associates”, says Gorthi. The law firm also offers wellness initiatives, such as mental health counselling, to support their team.

Having adopted these measures, Trilegal’s attrition rate has fallen to under 20%, which is comparable to the global average of 18% but low compared to most Indian law firms. “A significant portion of early-career attrition is due to individuals realising law isn’t for them, or wanting to pursue in-house or litigation roles,” Gorthi adds.

How much PQE is required, any insiders from Trilegal please bump

My suggestion as both, a first gen and a woman, have strong boundaries, be passionate about the actual lawyering pasts of the job, disinterested about everything else at work. there's no dearth of people from good universities etc etc but there's a real dearth of passionate, hard working people. Most just let it be a part of their CV, linkedin etc lol.

1) Take accountability for your work.

2) Ask questions and then ask more questions.
3) Ask people to teach you, see them edit your drafts and learn.

4) Follow up with seniors

5) Read everything end to end.

6) Don't make grammatical errors.

7) Always keep the client in mind and understand the macro of every transaction because you'll only be assigned smaller pieces but don't lose sight of the bigger picture.

8) Don't gossip, be nice to everyone and be sincere.

Don't do it. Or if you do- consider that teaching might not be what you want it to be. There was a point- say 8 years ago- when teaching still meant there were young hungry minds who were excited to learn and liked you for teaching them. They wanted professors who taught them rigorous course materials. They liked the law and wanted to be good at it. Even then they werent always consistent or the best students- whatever- 70% of the time you were teaching you knew there was a point to it. Someone was listening and someone was learning. At worst- you had students who were disinterested. But you never really had students who were gleeful about humiliating and insulting you and getting you fired.

Thats not what it is today. Today teaching is- a test for you- go and prove to students who couldnt be bothered to do the reading everyday that you know what youre talking about after years of study. Because they might plagiarise their tests but they still get to sit in judgment over you because theyre paying customers. They might have a panic attack at being told to read a twenty page paper but they know they are smart and virtuous from social media and no adults in their entire life has had the courage or honesty to tell them they might have scope for self improvement. Go and prove you can speak for extended stretches of time without any indication that anyone is listening or even cares. Go and prove you can remain chipper and enthusiastic even when students are lost in their phone. That you lack the self respect to even be annoyed when only one student in a hundred is even engaged- after all, that one student is engaged- what else do you want? Go and prove that you dont take yourself seriously enough to even say anything when you ask students questions in class and they come back to you with chatgpt answers. Go and prove that you can dance around the political minefields, because while they might not listen to you teaching labour law or criminal procedure, they will be sure to record you the second you say anything they disagree with whether its politics or whether its simply "you guys need to work harder". Go and prove that you are malleable enough to play the game, fudge attendance, fudge grades, create assignments that a monkey could pass- anything at all to get good evaluation scores so you get a bare minimum cost of living raise and so you dont stand out when all your colleagues also play the game marking yourself out to be some sort of easy target. Prove your worth to university by organising events and doing administrative work because you arent hired for your knowledge of the law- youre just a worker in big corporate firm and students want to say they belong to a university where there are all of these frills. Go and prove your worth to university by "getting jobs and internships" for students by leveraging your contacts instead of the students just earning what they get on their own. They are customers and its your job to give them what they want. Because if you don't their parents will call your boss/ the registrar or VC and you will lose your job because you are some how the one who has failed. Honestly why would someone want this job when its turned into this?

I gave up other opportunities to spend a decade trying to make it work in academia. It has only gotten worse and worse over time. Do yourself a favour and know that youre not getting what you think you are. If you must do academia, then do yourself a favour and stick to public universities. I have yet to encounter a private university that was not 100% depressing.

Plus, what nobody is willing to say, is how politically inconvenient it has become for them to hire immigrants for anything (not including government constraints, such as charges levied on those who sponsor work visas being raised). There was an article in the London Times just the other day, where the President of the Council of Europe said that the European Convention on Human Rights needed to be reformed to deal with a situation in which immigration (in all forms) was being questioned. If you knew anything about European human rights law and the debate surrounding it, you would know that saying such a thing ten years ago would have crossed all possible red lines.

Even in the UK, the situation is so ferile now that if someone prominent (even in the current Labour admin) found it politically to their advantage to start being nasty about how many lawyers with non-UK qualifications the international law firms hire, the current government might just try to make it harder for foreign firms to do that in some way or the other (slipping in a few nasty remarks coded with assumptions about 'non-standard qualifications', without necessarily mentioning Indian law degrees by name). And this would be done to convince the hard right people who think that they (the current government) are pro-left, open borders types that they are not, so that those people vote for Labour rather than for Reform UK (an extremist anti-immigration party). It doesn't matter that they would alienate their traditional support base by doing this, because they are convinced beyond a point when reasoned argument can help, that that support base is comprised of a small portion of irrelevant London-based elites with one or more university degrees, and that the only way to gain back the so-called 'red wall' (working class constituencies that traditionally supported Labour, comprising of miners, farmworkers etc, who've not been to university) is to just stop short of outshining Reform (their main political challenger) on being rightist on immigration. You want evidence of this? Just read the speech by Starmer, the PM, on the launch of the recent immigration white paper, where he explained the reasons for toughening English language requirements across all visa categories. He said that if this were not done, Britain would become 'an Island of strangers'. You know who was the one who is famous (or infamous) for using words like that? The Tory politician Enoch Powell, who, in a 1967 speech decrying even lower levels of immigration than today as horrible, and calling for race relations laws that removed the flexibility of landlords and pubs to refuse service based on skin colour, said that immigration to the UK meant that there would be 'rivers of blood' on UK streets and people from the white majority would find themselves 'strangers' in their own homeland.

You want more evidence? Did any of you wonder why the UK government didn't fight harder on legal services access to the Indian market, why the Law Society blasted them on this? Didn't you think they were a little less enthusiastic on this than conventional wisdom stated that they should have been? Especially when the UK government is led by big shot lawyers - Shabana Mahmood (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice), Lord Hermer (the prominent human rights lawyer turned Attorney General) and Sir Keir Starmer himself (also a prominent human rights lawyer and director of the Crown Prosecution Service)? Only one reason: they were scared of the impact it could have on immigration numbers. Concrete illustration: in a speech to a think-tank, Hurmer called the Conservatives and others advocating for leaving the ECHR 'Nazis'. If you see his profile and the type of work he has done, you will understand exactly why/how that might be in line with his political instincts, and you may even mentally encourage him to bring it on, in order to speak out against democratic backsliding. What you may find difficult to reconcile as being in character is his almost immediate apologies in 14 different positions, his bootlicking of these very people he called Nazis, his emphasis on the 'reasonableness' of such people. So consider the British side's fear of their own people and immigration numbers while doing your estimations of the power of SILF, the Lalajis and so on, and of whether SILF commands disproportionate political influence.

Understand this: Quality of you guys as lawyers doesn't matter anymore (not for the politicians or the drafters of immigration rules). The quality of your law schools is not relevant to this debate. The current political landscape doesn't care that many of you who want a training contract (and have what it takes to gain one) have attended a law school led by a Rhodes Scholar + Oxford DPhil graduate, a law school that is better (in some ways) than a few of their own (including some of the 'Russell Group' ones). They don't care that some of you may only want to stay as long as it takes for you to complete your TC. You are coming for 12 months, the worst is assumed: that you will do anything legal or illegal to stay as long as needed to gain a British passport. You are foreign, your qualifications are foreign. Foreign, in the political landscape of today, = bad. In other words, for a law firm, foreign qualification = unnecessarily risky. Therefore, we may have even to thank our stars that they are taking in as many NLU grads as they are.

Does this mean you should quietly turn over and give up on your dreams? If (working as a solicitor in the London office of a prominent international law firm) is what you really want, and you are willing to put in disproportionate sacrifice, then not. Fighting this is as important as anything else. But fight it pragmatically, choose your battles wisely. Calling for increased hiring right now is deeply unhelpful, unwise and irresponsible, considering the political landscape. If you are really willing to take on this fight, just do whatever you can to ensure that you are part of the steady trickle of foreign lawyers that are still allowed to get in.

Sorry for the long write-up, but I feel many of you are speaking with a very poor understanding of the situation in many countries, particularly UK. I hope this helps to refine your perspective.

Regards,

Someone with experience of the UK job landscape

1. When you receive any files check whether all pages are there, they are legible etc

2. Learn to bookmark pdf files. This helps a lot when you are dealing with large files. It will save you a lot of time and impress your seniors while briefing them

3. Drafting will come over time. Don't stress it but at the same time try going over as many drafts as possible available in your office and try to understand the style of what is expected. You can use chatgpt but it shouldn’t show and also PLEASE verify the citations.

4. Learn to use SCC/manupatra/HC websites/ecourts. Especially helps when you want to understand whether a precedent has been overruled/followed/dissented etc. learn how to check whether HC order/judgement has been challeneged.

5. For those HCs which dont have live streaming - carry a diary/piece of paper on which you write in a few lines what happened in the matter, next date etc. for T1 clients this helps making client updates which your partner will hound you about

6. DO NO ATTEND CONFERENCES WITHOUT READING THE MATTER. No matter how junior you are, now you are expected to read the matter. Even if there are seniors on your team, prepare the matter so that you can step up if required. And trust me, it is noticed.

7. Download bare acts from SCC/manupatra. What i have found is most of the time they are up to date but some acts like the Income Tax Act which is amended yearly was not up to date but that is an exception. Point is that use up to date bare acts so you dont end up looking like an idiot. Also for state bare acts, run a google search to see if you’re missing any amendments because these are not updated periodically

8. If you’re assisting your partner/SA/Counsel in court have all relevant pages handy + print outs available if required to show the Court. Same applies to judgements etc.

9. Try becoming friendly with the court masters/registry if you go to particular courts. Initially all will seem distant but overtime they will help you out in exchange for (obv ₹₹₹). But what people dont understand is you cant just walk up to them with 500 and say do this. There has to be a relationship.

10. Keep a worksheet of the matters you work on from day 1. Whether it is research, drafting, preparing a matter etc as this will help you update your CV when you plan to leave. After 3-4 years no one remembers all matters they did unless they spent a good amount of time.

https://www-moneycontrol-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/jsa-national-corporate-lead-equity-partner-iqbal-khan-steps-down-in-talks-with-cyril-amarchand-mangaldas-13110499.html/amp

Confirmed by MoneyControl

He has uploaded most of his course plans from NALSAR on his academia.edu profile. Here are links for some of them:

Constitutional Law I (Fundamental Rights): https://www.academia.edu/96331395/CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW_I_Syllabus_June_October_2022_NALSAR_Hyderabad

Constitutional Law II (Structures of Governance):

https://www.academia.edu/96331746/CONSTITUTIONAL_LAW_II_Syllabus_January_April_2023_NALSAR_Hyderabad

Political Obligations (Elective):

https://www.academia.edu/96332831/POLITICAL_OBLIGATIONS_January_April_2018_NALSAR_Hyderabad

Judicial Process and Statutory Interpretation (Elective):

https://www.academia.edu/96332992/JUDICIAL_PROCESS_AND_STATUTORY_INTERPRETATION_July_October_2018_NALSAR_Hyderabad

Interdisciplinary Studies On The Indian Legal System (Seminar):

https://www.academia.edu/96337810/INTERDISCIPLINARY_STUDIES_ON_THE_INDIAN_LEGAL_SYSTEM_January_April_2018_NALSAR_Hyderabad

I could not find such uploads from other faculty members at NLSIU, NALSAR and NLU Delhi. I wish that more faculty members from these better known institutions had made their course plans publicly available.

Part 1 is here - https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/394522-whats-wrong-with-law-firms-and-is-in-house-better-part-1#comment-394522

Part 1 dealt with the issue of what is wrong with law firms. TLDR; what makes law firms problematic is that they do little to address some very fundamental things that make a workplace sustainable – certainty and visibility of workflows, better client expectation management and real and effective rest and recovery programs. These are real systemic problems.

So is in-house better? In-house roles too have real systemic problems. The first and possibility the most important one is the compensation disparity. In house roles generally don't pay as much as your plain old law firm job. Certainly not at junior to mid levels; & while senior roles at good companies you get you hefty sums, it may never match up to compensation level of some law firm partners.

Lawyers are also used to a very straight forward compensation structure. Month on month, your in-hand salary = Fixed- 10% TDS. But in-house even in a small startup doesn't work like that (if you are an employee & not a contractor). You will see something called the CTC in your offer letter (which could be a huge on-paper number). But a good rule of thumb is to deduct ~25-32% to calculate your monthly in-hand salary. Some might experience shock at the amount of tax they are paying upfront along with all the other deductions.

Some companies also offer ESOPs. ESOPs are tricky. There is a tax incidence when they vest & when you sell them. For the former, your company will most likely deduct some ESOPs from your monthly vesting - which means each month, you might receive a lower than expected share of ESOPs. Share value can fluctuate & you can't just keep holding on to ESOPs in perpetuity. Beyond a certain value, you will have to liquidate out of commercial prudence (particularly if they are foreign stocks). The other problem is that in new and upcoming start-ups ESOPs could basically be worthless or too cumbersome to liquidate. Their issuance process could be defective & any grants effectively unenforceable. All this is difficult to verify when you join.

So compensation is a real pain-point in in-house roles. There are perks for sure. Generous health insurance, fitness and wellness programs, cabs in IT companies, and subsidized food is not uncommon. But different people perceive value differently - so for some this overall value proposition may be less attractive.

Then there is the question of stakeholder relationships. In law firms, lawyers are often coached to be subservient to the client. Subservience with a little bit of tact and risk management will get you far in a law firm. In in-house roles - you simply can't operate that way. There are times when you have no choice but to stand firm and disagree to save your job. Sometimes you have to communicate subtly to make stakeholders understand the risks in terms they understand. Relationship management is way more complex and constant in in-house roles. When and how to 'escalate' becomes as important a skill as any of your legal skills. Not everyone might be good at this and this can become as a source of much stress. But this relationship building can really ground you, help you understand the pulse of the business (the actual one, not the one that law firm lawyers proclaim to know) & make you feel involved in a project or business in way that as an external counsel, you can rarely feel. It can lead to high level of satisfaction.

The way lawyers are perceived also varies from company to company. The common view of lawyers being a 'cost center' is often held but usually only by those stakeholders who don't have much experience of a legal issue gone bad. Mature companies (including many startups) these days seem to understand the value that lawyers bring to the table. Sure you may not be as important to the business as a techie or a sales person - but many in-house lawyers are able to become trusted business advisors in the true sense. Pro-tip: It is helpful to start out in an established in-house legal department to learn the ropes - since your legal skills become somewhat secondary in your day-to-day job.

And yes. Work does get monotonous and concentrated in a few buckets. But while you might not achieve much in subject breadth - you will certainly go deep in the sector your company operates (including non-legal stuff) , assuming you are interested in the business, your company is doing well and growing and has a good business team. The flip side is that as a law firm lawyer -you run the risk of doing shallow work most of the time - particularly, if you do advisory work, where you actually rarely get to see the business implementation of your advise. As a law firm lawyer, you might have better luck of doing deeper and impactful work in high-stakes litigation or investment transactions - but these come with the associated high personal cost - which made you hate law firms in the first place. It's pretty much a Hobson's choice.

And yes, in-house work can be as hectic as that in a law firm. Be sure to vet your company's culture before you join. In some cases, there could be lesser flexibility in in-house roles. Job security is also less certain than in law firms - where large scale layoffs not linked to performance issues, for all means and purposes don't happen. Yet.

So which is better? The anti-climatic answer is that it depends on you and your personal experience. My two cents, understand the pitfalls and benefits of working in either, but don't seek simple answers for complicated questions like this. It is your life we are talking about after all. If your starting point in your career is at a law firm & you feel disillusioned or doubtful, try out the other side of the grass. Maybe switch several times (if you are not satisfied). Only then will you subjectively see which side looks greener to you. And never forget: "What are your choices when someone holds a gun to your head? You do what they say or they shoot you, right? Wrong! You take the gun or pull out a bigger gun or you call a bluff or you do any of the other 146 other things”"

1. Classic situation: Never seen anything like it in any country, other than India. We are the only country in the world, literally, where people hate the thought of parents trying to make life better for their kids. What bothers or hurts you so much about most of these responses? What is it? You live in a gated community with other NLS alumni, and are experiencing secret heart-burn because maybe one of your classmates' kids is going to ANU for law (Australian National University) instead of an NLU? Alright, some may lack nuance. Not all universities abroad are good, for example, but let's be clear that most of the world's best universities for law are outside India. If someone has what it takes to get a good education there, what's the problem? Why do you feel so hurt? Why are you wasting other peoples' time? Please reflect on whether this is coming from a place of envy.

2. Again, classic sign of people who suffer from the afliction of envy: Of course some of the responses are classist - take the IB school one or the lower socioeconomic background ones, for example. If they (and/or their kids) believe that, they are in for a big surprise. Western kids from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are often as hungry for success (in a good way) as their Indian counterparts. Even the accommodation at foreign unis is not necessarily great. As for grades/placement? Don't get me started! Your typical London universities' law schools kids (KCL/UCL/LSE/QM/SOAS types) are so obssessed with magic circle/biglaw jobs that a few months there and you would want to throw yourself off a building just to get a chance to avoid hearing the names Links and Kirkland. Plus, those unis can be stingy as fuck when it comes to grading students' academic performance. So total misunderstanding and idiocy in the case of such people. Why do you allow such people to live rent free in your head? Are you really equating all NLS alumni who think this way to such people? And why so restrictive? If NLSIU or other NLU alumni want their kids doing something other than law, what's your problem? And frankly, why is it any of your damn business?

3. Regarding that Ashoka + law abroad after that. Alright, a law degree from many universities abroad is a great thing to be doing. And yes, there are genuinely good arguments to be made about why a non-law degree might be a good thing to do first, before going in for law. Arguments which have been made quite forcefully by Lord Sumption, the former judge on the UK Supreme Court (as an example). However, I don't think Ashoka is the best thing to be doing in such cases. Do a St. Stephens or something like that. People who give this response or the socioeconomic background one have, it is true, been led astray by the trappings of elitism and lost to some extent an ability to detect bullshit.

4. Have you ever thought that they might have pride in their NLU tag for the thing that it gave them - what they needed to fulfil the ambition of making better lives for their kids than what their parents gave them? Pride in an institution or tag doesn't necessarily mean slavish loyalty to it. It is a social construct, like anything else. Alright: does pride in an Eton or Harrow tag mean that an Eton or Harrow alumni is almost bound to send his son there? (Don't jump on me for the gendered language, they are exclusively boys schools in England.) Yes, it probably does. Does that mean the NLU tag has to be like that? That's a question on which you can have your opinions. But my question would be: why necessarily does this uniquely Indian tag have to be like an Eton/Harrow or Oxbridge tag? Why can't it be a tag celebrating higher social mobility - people taking a degree at university which helps them move up the income bracket? Why can't we celebrate that tag in its own right? If we are to be different and unique from the rest of the world, why can't we embrace our tag for what it is, instead of letting our envy guide us into the trap of thinking that what we have should be constructed/designed in the way other countries have their stuff?

Essentially, most of my questions can be summarised in three: why are you putting people down? Why do you care so much? And why are you letting the idiots among such people live rent-free in your head?

There are only three real outcomes that are worth considering when you talk about ranking colleges. It honestly doesnt matter what infra is like or if students enjoy hostel food. That stuff might be an inconvenience in the short term, but you forget about it once you graduate. Here are the three things that matter:

1) Graduate outcomes: What percentage of graduates from the last three batches have gotten jobs they are relatively pleased with within 6 months of graduating? This should be the first thing you consider. Honestly, you could live in AC rooms on a campus that has Olympic-size pools, equestrian sports, and a helipad-—what difference does it make to you? Is the university enriching itself or is it actually providing value to you?

2) Faculty quality and rigor—even if you don't have good graduate outcomes now, if you have decent faculty and a high standard for academic work, within the next five years your university can improve enough that you will be employable. And find your way in the law world eventually. Count the student-teacher ratio in faculty quality. How likely are you to be taught by faculty who can make a call and get you a job?

3) Peer quality-—Even if graduate outcomes are bad and faculty are bad and there's no rigor, will you be surrounded by enough driven people that will keep you on your toes and challenge you and will work with you so you leave school knowing the law and having some idea of how to navigate the real world?

This is literally all that matters. The city, size of the college, how wealthy the students are, sex ratio, moot court wins, hostel rooms, food—all of that doesn't count for anything really unless you have at least one of these other three. There are plenty of people in Delhi who go to colleges where they get none of these things—but they might get access to the big city, they might be wealthy, and they might even get good infrastructure—it doesn't matter at all—they don't get jobs, they don't advance in their careers, and eventually they can't hack it in the legal world. I've seen NLUs where they don't have these three criteria and they sell themselves on infrastructure or on one team recently winning one moot—infrastructure doesn't follow you once you leave the university, and one team winning a moot somewhere doesn't actually mean some good work is being done at the university that you can benefit from. It might simply be that the team is well-connected or fortunate. Besides, moots don't lead to jobs unless you win a big international one. Many private universities spend a lot on infrastructure up front because they know they will make the money back by charging exorbitant fees to parents who assume "big building/campus = serious education project." If you go to a university to visit and theyre selling you on infra- big red flag. Consider that youre paying for all of that and consider if the ROI is there.

It seems to me that people know so little about how higher education works, and parents and prospective students are so ill-prepared that they don't have the first idea what they're looking at and are clueless when they're being sold a bill of goods.

Big caveat: this answer assumes you want to be a lawyer and are middle class/unconnected. If you don't really care about being a lawyer, or your dad is already someone big who can assure you employment, go waste your money wherever you want; who even cares?

I have tried to stand apart with my publications and wins, which is why that is not my concern at this moment. However, despite the same, the issue was bagging better internships. I have given judicial clerkships a thought too, considering one of my internships under a judge was pretty satisfying intellectually. However, I am not sure if that is a good idea if I were to land a tier-1/2 firm per se.

As for the long-term internship, that does make sense. However, I do not wish to work as an associate at the places I have previously interned, primarily because they would not help me survive financially, considering the extremely low pay scale of the associates in most of them. I do hope to extend my T-1 internship and hopefully have that converted into an assessment internship/PPO.

I do hope that you are currently where you wished to be then (even if that is not the case and you have changed your path, I wish for the best for you, too).

Thank you so much!

Read this, might help: https://jurysoutblog.wordpress.com/2025/05/05/decoding-day-zero-a-step-by-step-unofficial-guide-to-somewhat-surviving-the-worst-day-of-law-school/

There is also an excellent interview with Prof. Tarunabh Khaitan (D.Phil. from Oxford, now a Chair Professor at LSE) where he talks about the writing process with two NALSAR students from the 2016-2021 batch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZohEwXdU74I&t=1735s

Yes. I was in the same batch. He has made the course plan publicly available on academia.edu. I am copying the link below for the benefit of students at other law schools:

https://www.academia.edu/126119436/Comparative_Public_Law_And_Governance_November_2024_January_2025_NLSIU_Bengaluru

Hey OP.

I empathize with you. The things you have mentioned are so freaking true. Like you and many others out there, I am a victim of false propaganda which was perpetrated in the name of premier law schools. I am a practicing lawyer with almost 2 years of experience now. My experience with work has been as bad as yours. Neither have I justified the huge investments that my parents made during law school, nor I can explain to people that my work has larger meaning or purpose, because in reality it isn't even close to it. Quite contrary to that, I frequently encountered instances where I had to compromise on my ethical and moral compass. I saw my seniors enjoying the luxuries of attending conferences and planning trips & visiting foreign countries, while I was stuck in the office doing their clerical work and receiving the 'to-do' list on regular basis. You encounter how the practitioners, the established ones, are finesse in handling the court clerks or staff in registry departments of courts/tribunal. They are bribed. To pass necessary information, to get some essential work done, to refer cases and so on. You witness how advocates play a double game with litigants, trying to enrich themselves from both ends of the parties involved. And then the corruption happens in silent mode.

While you may decide at one point of your career to go independent and bring in ethical and merit oriented work ethic yourselves, but in essence you may not be able to do so, even after leaving the law firm/chamber that you were working in. Because the scent of immorality and depravity is all-over. It is ubiquitous. And then it is guaranteed: You cannot survive the ordeal, let alone sail through the professional hurdles, without adopting to their mechanisms and 'code of success.'

Be it corporate workspace or litigation, if you are one with futuristic outlook with reasonable moral standards and believe in hard work & integrity, then you will certainly not survive this profession. You may survive for some days/months/years, but eventually you will be compelled by your inner being to dump all of this, and start over in a different space.

Completely right - echoing 100% what this comment says, which is why I am replying to add to this instead, rather than to your original write-up, OP.

University really transforms you. A couple of years there and you won't know yourself, especially if you end up at an (even relatively good) uni.

Plus, as people are becoming more open about such stuff, let's be clear on this: people who find people skills hard are getting into, and being successful in, the law - including people with autism spectrum conditions and other neurodivergent/specific learning difficulty issues. Some of these types work in some of the world's globally finest and most prestigious commercial law firms, raking in not hundreds of thousands of Indian Rupees in as salaries, but hundreds of thousands of British Pounds and U.S. Dollars. Therefore, contrary to what some nepo types may indicate to you, the most fancy careers within the legal field are 1000% open to you. Is it likely to be more difficult? Yes, obviously. Will there be loads of bumps on the road? No-brainer, there will. Will you maybe get disappointed due to being refused access to some professional opportunities your more socially mobile/neurotypical friends seem to be getting with ease? Again, sure to happen sometimes. Is there a chance law may not work out for you? Again, of course. You may be forced to go to a tenth-rate uni (many of those around). Or you may have toxic partners managing you, perhaps toxic professors marking your work/having power over you, who don't recognise your talents, nepo kids who seem to have all the answers, all the privileges, all the get-out-of-prison free cards for being arrogant pieces of muck while still being rewarded for such behaviour. Trouble is, all these (and many more issues) are equally applicable to other fields, too. But if you can pull through, you may just find that being a lawyer is an amazing thing to have done with your life.

Regards,

A blind lawyer living with total sight loss (a condition resulting from premature birth called Retinopathy of Prematurity) who had zero friends at school and built so-called 'people skills' entirely at university.

Don't be scared! You will do just fine.

If you want to get a start on readings, I suggest Avtar Singh on Contract and V.N. Shukla for Constitutional Law (M.P. Jain is better, but this book is a little easier). Anna's archive will be your best friend for finding more niche books and commentaries, but your college will probably give you access to Lexisnexis, EBC reader, where you will find most textbooks for Indian Law.

There is a lot of scaremongering here, so let me add my two bits.

I am a native Bangalorean, but almost every one of my friends has moved here from another city. All of them love Bangalore, and are proud to call it their home.

Firstly, there are no mobs going around, and looking for Hindi speakers/ "North Indians" to attack. Any "anti-Hindi sentiment" you hear about is almost always limited to a situation where someone rudely demands that locals speak Hindi, and are told "It's not our national language". This is almost always triggered by some larger fight, and language is just an incidental strawman that is brought up.

As long as you pick up some 6-8 words of basic Kannada, start with them, and politely ask if people can speak English or Hindi (or Tamil, which also works well in Bangalore), you'll be fine. Almost everyone in Bangalore can speak both Hindi and English at a conversational level (including vendors and cab drivers), but let them lead with the language of choice, and you'll be OK.

Coming to "identity politics"- the government is basically promoting more Kannada. This means that they are pushing for more jobs for Kannada speakers, more visible use of Kannada, and quotas at a lower level (think security guard, sweeper, etc) for Kannada speakers in private firms. There are also local quotas in education (including in CLAT) for people with "Kannada domicile"- but if you look at the names at the top, there are a lot of Agarwals and Mukherjees and Kurians and other non-Kannadiga names. As long as they've been in Karnataka for the qualifying period, they are counted as "locals" and can avail the quotas.

There is also a backlash against the government's push of Hindi over Kannada- and this is a real problem for many people, especially in rural areas. For many years, bank forms were only available in English and Hindi. There was an incident last week where a public sector bank manager refused to help customers who only spoke Kannada, insisting that they speak Hindi. There were instances of some signboards being only available in Hindi and English. A lot of the "language and identity politics" that you speak of comes from trying to correct these Central Government missteps. It's sad that a State government has to step in and do all this, but think about it from the perspective of those who are not getting basic services in their own state and in their own language.

Bangalore is still a vibrant and thriving city, with all the things that makes a city amazing- food, culture, art, sports, and a strong economy. Don't let Twitter and Reddit hot takes scare you away.

First of all, don’t be too hard on yourself just because you didn’t get into a Tier 1 firm. It’s completely normal to feel disappointed when things don’t go the way you planned, especially when you see your friends getting what you wanted. It can feel like all your efforts over the past few years have gone to waste. But that is not true.

You’ve joined a boutique firm, and that is not a step down. It is just a different start. Sometimes, places like these give you better learning, more direct work, and a closer look at how things actually run. The money may not match what your friends are earning right now, but that is okay. You have time to build experience, improve your skills, and move when the time is right. What you are building now will help you stand out in the long run.

About work, it is okay to feel unsure in the beginning. Interning and working full-time are very different. As an intern, you worked on specific tasks. As an associate, you are expected to take more responsibility. You are not supposed to know everything already. Everyone needs some guidance when they start, and it’s a good sign that your team is taking the time to teach you. Don’t let this shake your confidence. You’re not here by chance. Your partner chose to hire you for a reason. Instead of worrying about whether you’re doing enough, focus on learning every day and doing your best. Speak up when you need help, stay curious, and keep showing your interest in the work.

This is precisely what is toxic about Legally India. A university has announced a positive development. Regardless of its degree of effectiveness, it is still an overall positive for the students, who will doubtless get to interact more with professionals because of this. It is an initiative that most other universities are yet to consider or undertake. If you are skeptical about it, then that's fine, you don't have to praise it. But just see the comments section, full of trolls passing snide and toxic remarks in a derogatory tone! I am not even from HNLU, but my university has at least taught me the value of appreciating good efforts by others. Clearly most of the people commenting on this platform have not received proper education from their families or their universities.

This is why I say, avoid social media to the extent possible, unless you want your brain to be fried or spoiled. Look at the choices of social media from my point of view as a blind aspiring lawyer: Twitter, whose accessibility is broken and where the level of toxicity is shocking (to say the least); Bluesky (which you can't even join without encountering an impossible-to-get-past accessibility barrier), which is boring and an echochamber for left-wing people who are obssessives about American politics; LinkedIn, which is a lot more accessible than Twitter for sure (but which has some issues here and there), where people try to be smart but end up being cringe or try to show a fake image of a 100% smooth career; and Legally India, which achieves top marks on the accessibility front (even if it isn't perfect), but where dick measuring like this is the norm. What hope is left in this world for the internet?

if you're willing to invest the time, there's this really great video by Siddharth Chauhan on Nalsar's youtube channel where he explains everything about how to go about writing academic papers in law. It's a bit long, and I have personally not been able to completely watch both the videos yet, but I am sure it would help.

OP here. Let me answer the 'what did he do for debating?' query. I attended one of the other colleges in Bangalore and was a regular participant in the NLS Debate during my student days. I remember Sid.C being the Tournament Director in 2005 and being part of the adjudication core in 2006 and 2007. He personally convinced people from many Indian colleges to start their foray into parliamentary-style debating around that time. Alumni from NUJS, NALSAR, Christ Law, IIT Bombay and several DU colleges have told me that he helped in developing the activity at their institutions, either by judging internal selections or helping them in organising the early editions of their tournaments. I last met him in 2012 when he had just started teaching at NLSIU and was very much helping the students interested in this activity. I lost touch with him after he moved to NALSAR and just recently found out that he is back at NLSIU. Good to know that some current students have positive things to say about him.

Neck down and work. Dont involve yourself too much in politics at early stages. Be charming and nice, enjoy your work and remember this was your dream at some point so live it.

You'll learn mostly while at work and it's natural to be scolded by seniors sometimes, not shouted or abused though. Improve from it and build relationships which last, people benefit each other for life and not just at firms.

Finally enjoy with your money which tbh isn't a lot left in terms of time or what you save initially, so eat well and take care of wellbeing. Date or do not date whatever works for you, a lot many times single people will be happier if they find themselves, sometimes committed ones are better too. Figure what's your thing.

It's a long race and plan it like that, all the li toxicity aside it's a job which a fraction of 1% are able to get so count yourself lucky and absorb.

First, take care of your health. You can't get or keep any good job if you are not healthy. So your decision to take rest in this sem is correct. Secondly, the other things (moot/ADR) can be done during this year to improve your CV. If nothing else try writing a paper and getting it published. Even if you have to be in bed all day it can still be done.

See original thread here: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/402093

Press release:

> CMS has announced that INDUSLAW, one of India’s top full-service law firms, has become a CMS member firm. CMS INDUSLAW expects to complete on-boarding by the end of 2025.

> This represents a natural evolution for CMS and INDUSLAW, combining complementary strengths and working styles. It will enable CMS to deliver seamlessly coordinated, complex cross-border legal services. It marks a significant milestone in CMS’s global growth strategy, enhancing its capabilities in one of the world’s most dynamic and rapidly expanding legal markets.

> INDUSLAW lawyers will support multinational CMS clients looking to enter and operate in the Indian market, while the more than 6,800 CMS lawyers in over 45 countries around the world will support clients wanting to expand internationally from India.

> INDUSLAW has a presence across India’s principal commercial hubs, including Bengaluru, Delhi & NCR, Hyderabad, Mumbai and Chennai. With 60 partners and more than 400 lawyers, INDUSLAW advises many of India’s leading corporates including over 50% of the country’s unicorns established in the last decade.

> CMS is an international organisation of independent law firms, with each of the firms respecting the legal and regulatory requirements of its jurisdiction, combining deep local market understanding with a global mindset. In line with the CMS model, INDUSLAW remains an independent law firm under the CMS brand.

> India has become the world’s fourth-largest economy and is projected to become the third-largest by 2027. Its increasingly globalised economy creates a growing need for international legal advisers with deep local insight. CMS’s global reach combined with INDUSLAW’s domestic expertise will enable clients to benefit from integrated support across corporate transactions, regulatory matters, disputes, capital markets, technology, intellectual property and more.

> This announcement also comes at a pivotal moment, as recent regulatory developments are expected to significantly open up the Indian legal market to foreign firms. This puts CMS in an advantageous position to establish a robust, locally rooted yet internationally connected offering.

> Duncan Weston, Executive Partner at CMS, said: “This is a significant step in CMS’s expansion across Asia and globally. With India’s economy being increasingly integrated into the global economic system, the need for agile, forward-thinking legal advisers capable of bridging local and international jurisdictions has never been more critical. With INDUSLAW now a CMS member firm, we can offer clients a coordinated, full-service legal platform in India, one of the fastest growing and most strategically important markets in the world.”

> In a joint statement, Avimukt Dar, Gaurav Dani, Kartik Ganapathy and Suneeth Katarki, the Founding Partners of INDUSLAW added: “This is another milestone in the history of our firm. Joining CMS not only aligns with our strategic goals but enhances the value that we offer to our clients as well as our fee earners. This reflects our shared vision to offer effective and world class legal solutions with global perspectives. While we will continue on our journey as a leading full-service Indian law firm delivering exceptional client service and thought leadership, we now also enjoy the support of CMS to bring to the table the ability to offer a coordinated global offering for our clients. We look forward to driving growth, innovation and collaboration across borders.”

hey not sure about NALSAR but you do not need to do that for NLSIU. You may contact the following mail IDs for any further queries: shruthi.s@nls.ac.in , nlsiuscholarship@nls.ac.in , financedept@nls.ac.in

Another comment has made some excellent points, but focusses on your field of interest specifically. That comment is right that academia is one of your best options, considering your field of interest. But the story doesn't end there, you will need to understand some home truths about how academic recruitment works outside India.

The concept of people getting into university teaching prior to a PhD and doing a PhD as a sort of top-up degree for promotion purposes is not the way it works outside India. They don't have no UGCNET etc. The PhD is the basic degree you need to even get started on the academic ladder. In other words, a PhD is an essential requirement for full time academic positions with the scope for promotion, even very juniour ones. Therefore, unless you are ready to put in the years of study required to get both an LLM and a PhD, your ambitions would be very hard to fulfil. True, in markets like the UK, you would still find some professors with extremely good research track records without PhDs. But if you take the extra second to notice things about them other than the fact that they haven't gotten a PhD, you will notice something else: that they are usually old enough that they would have entered the academic market in the 1970's or 80's, when academic recruitment in the UK without a doctorate was possible. It is so vanishingly rare now - speaking from personal experience, as one working to get into the UK academic market - that you should pretty much treat it as impossible.

My advice would be to treat Singapore and the U.S. in the same way. Let's just say that Singapore is likely, because of the ranking of its unis, to operate in a way similar to the British. As for the U.S.? We can begin by chuckling gently at the mere thought of any sort of relaxation of standards there. They are extraordinarily insular as it is. The UK/Singapore concept of being able to get into their academic market with a foreign qualifying law degree and U.S. postgraduate law degrees is, in any case, not there. You tend to need an American JD anyway for that (there might be a few people who got in without a JD, but those are exceptions that prove the rule). Usually, American law professors have a PhD in a non-law subject (e.g., philosophy), followed by a JD.

The premise of the question is partially false. It assumes that there is some logical, foolproof way - like exam technique in certain academic contexts - to make friends. It fails to account for the inherent (1) unpredictability of environments (when you start at university or at a workplace, are you lucky enough to land up among friendly coursemates/colleagues? is the environment you are at conducive to friendships, social and intellectual growth - for example, does your university have good mooting and competition participation culture, or are your workplace leadership people good? if the environment has a reputation for being friendly, why might or might it not change? even if the environment is largely friendly, what if you land up being taught or managed by somebody who is toxic or with toxic colleagues?); (2) the subjectivity and changing nature of the human condition and individual human beings; (3) limitations imposed by your own circumstances (for example, have you chosen to leave your home city when it comes time to start university); and (4) the possibilities of stuff that is beyond your control happening (think of the COVID pandemic). Sure, some techniques - putting yourself out there a bit more, using the techniques of a good conversationalist to draw people out (going from smalltalk about the weather to more intense topics), forming friendships based on hobbies (joining running groups, for example), deciding whether you are the type who would prefer to know ten friends well or 150 friends superficially - work better than others, but none are perfect, and none are likely to work in all circumstances. To add to the complexity, if you have a minority protected characteristic (particularly disability), some of the standard techniques may not apply to you, or you may need to either (i) work harder at some techniques than your nondisabled counterparts; and/or (ii) navigate some unique social challenges to even get onto the playing field (e.g., if you are starting university, getting your parents to take the foot off the accelerator when you move into university accommodation and doing things more independently). However, again, you might have this protected characteristic and get everything right, yet you don't end up making friends. So reflect on that assumption and rethink the wording, you might be able to come up with a better question.

You'll be fine. Keep learning and stand your ground and self respect even when you are pushed around by the people you are apprehensive about. Don't fall into the lifestyle inflation trap, look after your health, have solid savings and a good bond with family and friends. Good people do make it, and we need more middle class kids like us up there. All the best!

Hey, in case of Boys' Halls of Residence:
1. Mostly first years, except for 8 odd people, get either a Cubicle (single-sharing room in a 4-cubicle room) or bunk beds in the Warden's House. PwD candidates get a single room. Also, every one of us has to go through a bunk bed once in five years, and it would be either in the first or second year.
2. You get a bed, a table, and a cupboard. Then the AC and its remote.
3. Not in the first year.

I agree with the comment above as far as written English goes.

OP, please look up MTI (mother tongue influence) on the internet and see if that is what you are worried about? If yes, there may be material to read and videos to watch on how to address that.

As unfortunate as it may be, there is an unconscious negative bias against lawyers whose spoken English sounds different from the majority of the speakers. While at times, this is not expressed openly, this is evident from the low number of people with a strong MTI at senior levels in large firms.

Hope this helps. All the best with everything.

Well maybe I am wrong in my assessment - I opened & closed my comment with that sentence anyway. I only go to the Supreme Court once a week (and sometimes not even that). I practice mostly in the Delhi High Court, so I'm at a little distance from the activities of the SC. I had authored my comment based on my limited understanding.

That being said, I'm neither a conspiracy theorist nor a troll. And your comment fails to offer a little more than ad hominem attacks which the admin has censored before I could see what it was.

There is no apparent reason to blindly believe TOI, however. Believe it why? Because it's TOI? That's the logical fallacy of appeal to authority - no need to elaborate any further here.

However, I would like to highlight at this juncture that the point you raised has been addressed in my comment already. Read the third-from-the-last paragraph, starting with "then the entire episode concerning absence of an AOR..." in my comment. It's there, my learned friend. Then read the paragraph succeeding that. A lot of lawyers were pissed not because of what the order contained, but the manner in which the proceedings took place.

Again, to you & to other readers of LI - feel free to correct me or add any information that I have missed out. But relying upon TOI reports for what happened in courts, for matters which are anyway well known? We can do better.

Please see this article in the Congress party’s National Herald newspaper and the tweet by Sanjoy Ghose (quoted in the article). ▮▮▮

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/amp/story/national/controversial-end-to-tenure-justice-bela-trivedi-retires-as-supreme-court-judge

I don't think it's a shadow war of any kind. At least, if there is, I'm not privy to it. Here's my assessment:

Justice Bela Trivedi had consistently given decisions which, in the opinion of most lawyers & students of law, could have had better legal reasoning. This includes things such as:

- Anticipatory bail should not ordinarily be granted in economic offences (Why? It goes against previous judgments) - https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/anticipatory-bail-should-be-granted-sparingly-in-economic-offences-supreme-court

- Not declaring a marriage as irretrievably broken down because the wife claimed she did not want to die with the label of divorcee - https://www.barandbench.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-89-year-old-man-plea-for-divorce

- Cancelling bails/refusing to grant bails in multiple matters where, primarily, it appeared that under trial custody is being equated as the punishment, with the assumption that the accused is in fact the convict.

But all that was still minor, compared to the manner in which lawyers were being treated. Not talking about the CBI inquiry, hardly any lawyer felt that order as being wrong. The other episodes: such as saying only one lawyer's appearance should be marked in the order. I remember one of the reason she had stated during the hearing was "this is how it is in district courts also" - why is the SC practice being decided as per what is followed in the district courts, god knows! (See https://lawchakra.in/supreme-court/no-bar-no-limit-aors-appearances/ )

Then it got worse. Getting angry one day because the arguing counsel was not an AOR. She said, wrongly, that is not permitted by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and was corrected when a senior advocate intervened and pointed out the correct provision to her. (See https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/how-can-advocate-on-record-authorise-a-non-aor-to-argue-on-his-behalf-supreme-court-asks-283178 ).

Then the entire episode concerning absence of an AOR because he was visiting his village. The senior advocate (and a former HC judge) stated that the AOR was indeed travelling to his village, yet, instead of believing the statement, she ordered the AOR to be personally present with the travel tickets - highly unusual for a court to direct for an advocate. Almost forgetting that the advocate is not the same as a party. And then when he appeared with the return ticket, she had some issues about the ticket from Delhi not being produced, as if the AOR could have travelled from his village to Delhi without leaving Delhi first.

More importantly, it was not just the content of these episodes, but also her tone, tenor & conduct during all this (and in other proceedings) - some harsh things are often accepted by the Bar when they come with a polite tone. But if they come with a harsh tone, too, of course there would be resistance.

And that is how a lot of lawyers felt disrespected. The farewell being something that lawyers give as a mark of respect, in return, I see it as no surprise that it was absent. This is my understanding of the state of affairs, and if someone else here is privy to some other information that sheds more light upon why there was no farewell, I'd be happy to stand corrected.

Vahura put out a summary which sets out the loophole allowed for foreign firms to operate in india - quite insightful: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vahura_bci-rules-2025-activity-7328744478779801601-ZVLY?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAA__1WIBdSvGLrf-XWqaeb0rjuJMeFgCBtc

Do you realise the dent of spending more than 42 lacs for a law degree, after calculating the interest it will be about 70 lacs (roughly) after your graduation.

You would have no other choice but to do corporate, any other profession would not allow you to repay this loan.

You may feel that you will do well in college BUT what if you just could not? And godforbid by the time you graduate there aren't just enough high-paying jobs?

Committing to such a loan would burn more bridges then creating. Hence, I would strongly suggest, settle for a lower NLU. NUALS has got a Rhoades scholar, RMLNLU rocks the public service examinations, NLUO has performed really well in recent years, CNLU also has a good record in judicial services examination, MNLU-N has got a freaking course for judiciary. Explore your options wisely, you can also consider taking a partial drop while taking admission where you can and re-attempt next year, this might save you 50 lacs. Hope this gave you a fresh perspective.

Former Chief Justice of India, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has joined National Law University Delhi (NLU Delhi) as a Distinguished Professor, marking a major academic appointment post-retirement.

In connection with this development, the university has announced the establishment of a Centre for Constitutional Studies, which will function under the guidance of Justice Chandrachud. The Centre aims to serve as a hub for rigorous constitutional scholarship, research, and dialogue on constitutional issues affecting Indian democracy.

Further, a new lecture series titled "In the Spirit of Justice: The DYC Distinguished Lecture Series" is set to be launched in July 2025, intended to bring together jurists, scholars, and practitioners to engage in critical discourse on constitutional themes.

This appointment marks one of the most high-profile transitions from the judiciary to legal academia in recent times. Justice Chandrachud, who demitted office in November 2024, is known for his contributions to progressive constitutional jurisprudence and is expected to lend significant academic and institutional insight to NLU Delhi.

I am a founder partner at a boutique (or, as people would call, a Tier III or even lower) law firm. This is the kind of situation we encounter often. The core issue is - (a) you have a more suitable offer (money, or type of work); (b) you would be unhappy / have a regret if you don't act on it; and (c) a lie often gets discovered. My advice would be to be gentle, sincere and truthful - explain the reason as a matter of fact (do not massage the reason - people can see through it). Do not prolong it, makes the situation worse (that you have known this for so long but did not disclose it). Some Partners would understand it, and the remaining would be displeased no matter what you say. However, the majority would appreciate the honesty a couple of years down the line (honesty/sincerity is in short supply).

People are both different from and similar to each other; the ratio for either varies to the extent that exceptions to the rule are more likely to be observed than those adhering to the rule. Yet ultimately, each life is individual and separate, a journey on its own, and must be lived in accord with what its owner finds good and worthy. Therefore, while this is not the last time you will encounter folks that you perceive as substantially different from yourself (in both good and less-than-good ways) yet you too are likely to be encountered by someone who may see you in a similar manner. The right way forward, of course, is to admire the virtue and forget the man for it was the quality that you first noticed and the man is only a vessel bound in space and time.

Hi, so a bike nerd here. Firstly, as many people have commented here, it would first be good to know how much you know about the skill of bike riding. if you are beginner, then a 400 cc bike would be best (people here say 250 cc is good for beginners but in my experience, the recent 400 cc triumphs are good for beginners).

I am guessing that you genuinely want to buy a bike, and thus would at least have some skills and experience previously riding one, or at least a desire to do a long bike ride with friends, then i would say 400 cc to 650 cc would be an ideal range, it would require skills and effort but it would be worth it.

Standard caution: As someone who goes on regular bike rides, and loves riding, I would like to tell you that a motorcycle is much different than a car, mostly coz of the power involved in the motorcycle in comparison to the weight to safety while riding a bike, (i have gotten in enough accidents to learn to respect the throttle and be a better rider). Check out different bikes and test ride them, as different bikes have different riding postures and features, which shape the experience differently for each bike, for example RE continental is more speed focused with an aggressive back breaking posture, whereas KTM ADV 390 would be more relaxed posture with more stability.

So, coming to your choice, i would say most Harleys (except Panamerica) are useless, they are only good for nostalgia or "hype", Otherwise, they are too expensive to maintain and lack power in comparison to their competitors; there is a reason why Harley is unprofitable. If you like the idea of big bikes, check out Kawasaki or Triumph. If you like the old chopper look of Harley, maybe check Indian motorcycles (the company). Apart from that, the Suzuki Vstrom 850 is also a solid choice. I would like to suggest BMW coz their bikes are great but please beware,e they are expensive AF, like really really expensive. Lastly, someone here suggested norton, and it is good, but remember it would be expensive to maintain too, as it also lacks good service network. Hayabusa is a solid choice, in a good budget, it provides an amazing level of power but if you are a beginner, please, please don't buy it, it's way too powerful.

Also, you can also look at indian "affordable" options like Royal Enfield (too many service centers visit tho lol), KTM / Husqavarna or Triumph, etc, (Not Yezdi or Jawa or even Hero, they need to improve their service and spare parts availability before, and if you have budget, try to get something good).

Adding on, while you want to get a bike and yes it would be expensive, please understand, with the bike, the more important purchase would be the safety gear, like a good helmet (arai or shoei or smk or axor) and a good jacket, boots, pants, and gloves. I can not even count the number of times I or fellow riders I know have been saved from getting permanent injuries only because of the fact we got good gear on during the time of athe ccident, so please take this advice from a fellow rider.

Lastly, don't get overwhelmed, it's a lot of decisions, yes, but its worth it! the air on your face, the feeling of freedom and the power! its addictive! no matter which city you work in, you would find fellow female biek riders who would help you in your journey! i hope you do share an update if you do decide to get the bike.

Hey, just speaking from personal experience here. I go to a Tier 2 NLU while many of my friends are in Tier 1 NLUs, and even that gap makes a noticeable difference in terms of approach and opportunities. I’m not saying Christ is a bad college, I honestly don’t know much about it, but NLIU will open doors and shape your legal career in ways that Christ probably never can.

I don’t want to get into whether NLIU is truly Tier 1 or not — that’s a separate debate. All I can say is that a college like NLIU is 100% worth it. Sure, you can get a job through Christ too, but it’ll likely be much harder. NLIU has a legacy, a culture of mentorship, academic exposure, and peer learning that Christ may not be able to match.

I know the idea of a student loan might sound daunting, but it’s actually very common for NLU students. If you get into a college like NLIU, you can easily get a loan — and more importantly, you’ll be in a good position to repay it once you graduate. So many students take this path.

Of course, it’s your decision at the end of the day. But if there’s one thing I regret deeply, it’s not giving CLAT my all when I had the chance. Please, if you have this opportunity — take it.

I was recently interning at KCO Mumbai in their disputes team. Having mostly interned in corporate teams before, I knew basics about litigation. I once had to assist an A0 who was working from home on sick leave for an urgent filing. She called me and explained everything patiently and I was somewhat losing my shit because the originals were with me and I hadn’t handled an entire filing alone. Even amidst the frustration of having to explain the A-Z of filing to an intern on a leave, she helped me step by step and made sure I don’t succumb to stress. After hours of coordinating when the filing went through, she called me and said thanks for helping. Made my day.

To all the seniors who help their juniors step up by showing the right mentorship and patience, pray that you’re the happiest person in every room you walk into..

Bike nerds will only be able to help if you provide a bit more clarity into what you want out of the bike/what is your experience with litre class bikes.

Are you someone who can RIDE? And when I say RIDE a bike, I do not mean speeding. Have you put in your time in the tracks or at riding schools?

Based on how you answer the above question:

My guess is no: Start with a 250 cc bike. Although ideally it should be around 150-200, the ballpark bhp is around 30 so you have some really good options to look into. Choose KTM/Husqvarna for cheap and easy spares. Despite the online hate, KTM is built for performance so you will have plenty of that. There is also Hero Xtreme 250R for you, if you care about the India badge. I am assuming you are not looking to retain these bikes for long so figure out the servicing part yourself (motorinc is a good place to start) by conversing with the showroom peeps. Invest in track schools and once you are done with it (should be around 1.5 years with serious learning), shift to 400-500 cc. Don't go for Aprilia please. Italian machines are notorious for their unreliability. Besides its a new bike. Let the faction cement in. You can skip this ste-up process entirely and opt for a Yamaha R3 (since you are already into JDMs). That bike should serve you well for 3-4 years easy with a huge learning curve. Thereon, you can switch to 600-700 cc. Another 2-3 years on it and then a liter class bike should be controllable, if not good.

If you do know how to ride your basic, shift to a 400cc - 600cc bike. Throw in a mix of track schools and serious skill building. You should be ready for the Hayabusa in a couple of years given you learn superhumanly well.

If your answer to this mix is I have the money so I will splurge, buy whatever you wish to. That said, Harley and Hayabusa are two very different classes of bikes so I am not sure how I can ever answer you on an apple v oranges question. Also, I am not sure on your strength and build, so please be very sure you can handle a bike that large/heavy.

Also, if wow factor is a thing for you, you can choose Norton as well. They are supposed to be coming to India after the UK-India FTA went through.

Happy riding. Drop any questions you may have. Happy to see a rider on the platform. I thought lawyers were mostly just about cars and watches!

Filthy hypocrit. When it is your own sister/friend/cousin/daughter/mother, you will be singing a very different song, I will promise you. Look at how the Reform UK lot behaved the moment Rupert Lowe, the MP for Great Yarmouth, even dared to be critical of the party leader (and they are self-proclaimed free speech absolutists). Or how the U.S. administration treats those media outlets who don't behave like lapdogs and call it "Gulf of America". Free speech, like every right, must be exercised responsibly. If people can't even market themselves without fear of retribution, then I don't know where we are; oh, you forgot to mention, why should she encounter problems because of what her dad does. As for other media outlets, them being irresponsible doesn't mean we have to be irresponsible, too. Free speech is allowing this discussion to take place, which is happening. Just because you are a free speech absolutist, doesn't mean those who aren't are stupid or something.

Definitions: "confrontations that are less than pleasant" are hearing views that shock, offend, horrify or even disgust you. They do not involve encouraging of harassment or violating the rights of other people. Your understanding of these concepts is extraordinarily polarised, I beg to ask why you are so radicalised on these matters.

Read the UK government's immigration white paper, published yesterday. They are trying to make hiring of foreign workers even for the sectors you mention as hard as possible. A UK employer has to pay what is called an 'Immigration Skills Charge' to hire foreigners. That ISC has not been increased since 2017, but now they propose increasing it by 32%. They are also planning to penalise employers who, according to them, rely too much on foreign recruitment. That is especially the case in the sectors you mention. IT, construction and engineering are the ones they are focussing on to reduce net migration. They are even proposing to impose taxes on the universities (at a rate of 6% of international student fees), and they plan to redirect the money gained out of those taxes into initiatives for encouraging more British students to go to university. All this in combination with a reduction of six months to the amount of time an international student can stay in the UK on a Graduate Route (often known as PSW) Visa - earlier, it was 24 months, now it is 18.

Understand this: the net migration numbers (the difference between the number of people coming in and going out of the UK) recently have been far, far too high. It was 906000 in 2023, and 728000 in 2024 (after the previous government tightened norms). The new Labour administration continued with those tightened norms and the prediction was that those themselves would bring the numbers down to something like 340000 or something. The reforms published yesterday are forecasted to bring net migration to the UK down to 240000 by around 2027, at which rate it is kind of expected to become stable. At the same time, just under 1m British adults are 'economically inactive', meaning that they are not in employment, education or training. This is partly because of how the UK social security system works. At the same time, it is because of other factors. The UK government has increased taxes on businesses. They have a thing called National Insurance, which is basically a contribution scheme towards pensions. A working person contributes some money towards it, and so do their employers (these amounts contributed are known as National Insurance Contributions (NICs)). The government has increased the amount of NIC that an employer has to contribute by a not insignificant amount, which disinsentivises new hiring. They are also in the process of introducing new employment rights legislation, which would give new employees right to sickpay from day 1, among other things. In other words, another additional significant cost on businesses. Therefore, the jobs market is bad for everyone, not just foreigners. At the same time, a bad job market for the British means a disproportionately bad one for foreigners.

She is right. For most of the kinds of people from India who usually go there, it is not really the right place at this time. Unless you are willing to come for the undergraduate studies, or put in the time for a master's and PhD, don't come to the UK with any high expectation of getting a job. Sure, you can theoretically still play your cards right and be successful in that, even with only a master's, but that is getting harder by the day. Honestly, for her field, I am really astonished that she got a job at all. There are so many people in the UK with those kinds of degrees, that she must have had something quite unique to be able to land a job here.

Hello,

Is it considered solicitation under Bar Council of India rules if a lawyer sends cold emails to potential clients offering legal services? Just want to understand if this is allowed or strictly prohibited.

If allowed, are there any specific disclaimers, or aspects (such as payment consideration) to be left out? For instance would initially offering free services and then building clients on a regular basis be cold calling.

I ask this because I'm quite confused as to how one builds clients if it's strictly prohibited. Personal referrals may only work to an extent, specially when you are young and starting out.

1. The Clapham omnibus has many passengers. The most venerable is the reasonable man, who was born during the reign of Victoria but remains in vigorous health. Amongst the other passengers are the right-thinking member of society, familiar from the law of defamation, the officious bystander, the reasonable parent, the reasonable landlord, and the fair-minded and informed observer, all of whom have had season tickets for many years.
2. The horse-drawn bus between Knightsbridge and Clapham, which Lord Bowen is thought to have had in mind, was real enough. But its most famous passenger, and the others I have mentioned, are legal fictions. They belong to an intellectual tradition of defining a legal standard by reference to a hypothetical person, which stretches back to the creation by Roman jurists of the figure of the bonus paterfamilias.

Healthcare at Home v The Common Services Agency [2014] UKSC 49, per Lord Reed, with whom Lords Mance, Kerr, Sumption and Hughes JJSC agreed.

Continuing in Lord Reed's admirable style (but definitely not as classy as him), the "nontoxic Tier 1 partner" is, unfortunately, a character in your imagination, not one who inhabits either the legal village of Indian jurisprudence, or the legal village of Indian commercial lawyers. We do not know him, therefore, for our purposes, he does not exist. Until he can be introduced, a season ticket for him cannot be created.

You should be first be well-versed in Company Act, Contract Act, SAST, AIF Regs, FEMA, IBC, Comp Act, and IT Act, with a working understanding of IP law, basic labour law, and RE laws for due diligence purposes. Strong skills in DD, compliance mapping, and deal structuring (SPA, SHA, TS) are absolutely essential. Stay updated on MCA, SEBI, and RBI circulars, as well as key NCLT/NCLAT and SC judgments impacting transactions. Knowing the basics of AIF structuring, FDI norms, ODI rules, and sector-specific regulations (like pharma, fintech, edtech) is an added advantage.

I’ve been trying to continuously enquire about the delay from the Registry. Initially, they informed me that the results would be out in the second week of May. I called them up again and surprisingly, they weren’t even aware that the results were delayed and insisted that the results are on time.

Not a single Notice or communication regarding the reason for delay. Complete lack of any accountability. Even the Registry, the first point of contact is clueless

Hello, LI Hivemind. I really want to start learning about the world of PE and VC laws in India. Those who have been working in this field, can you please suggest some literature and material that I can start with? I have been studying company law in general and have also come across a lot of material on project finance that I am going through right now. I want to be as prepared as possible for when I manage to secure a position in a law firm in any of these teams. I know that this kind of preparation is not a substitute for hands on experience, but I do not want to give less than 100% from my side and it can only help me later in my internships and job interviews, right? Please provide some guidance if you can. Thank you!

I don't think any tier 1/2 law firm would let you join in as an associate with no experience in the field of taxation, which is highly technical. (im saying no experience cos im assuming you must have done those internships somewhere around 2021-2022.) Pursuing an LLM in the field of taxation along with doing some internships here and there would definitely give you a better chance of getting the job you want.

Btw you didnt mention whether you want to pursue DT/IDT and Advisory/Litigation

P.S. It's just a suggestion. Please do your own research or consult someone you trust before making any decision.AZB, Khaitan, LKS, ELP, NDA All of these firms have a decent tax practice.

4) I don't think that you get an option to pick and choose unless you have some extraordinary knowledge in a certain domain. As a fresher, any employer would expect you to do all kinds of work. Send him an email; maybe he'll allow you to do the kind of work you're really passionate about. And all the best!!!

If you ask me, getting 3 months notice (with I assume full salary) and for no work is in itself a severance pay. In other words your friend is being paid for nothing :). Let me indulge you(r friend) with a nice long ramble here! :)

Tell your friend this:

1. just use the 'downtime' to look for a good job, catch up on health and other things that need to be resolved. I've shifted jobs multiple times and the notice period (in spite of all the drama that can happen) is a valuable time to plan holidays, sort out bank account issues, liquidating underperforming investments and other things that we typically do not have the time to do on a full work schedule. Take this 3 month runway as an opportunity to have a break and sort out anything that needs your attention and patiently look for a new job.

2. AVOID ANY UNNECESSARY INTERACTIONS with the management of your firm. They clearly seem to be under pressure and the last thing you need is for them (especially the partner in question) to 'lash out' unnecessarily and terminate your friend immediately.

3. MOST IMPORTANT: take a note of all the criticism they have given you and (just to be on the safe side) ensure it does not repeat itself in your next job. When the chips are down, take it as a thumb rule ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that law firms will start removing Associates (especially the younger ones) in the blink of an eye. Be smarter and more alert in your next job and watch work flows closely.

4. Do your diligence of the next firm you join and how established is the partner. Partners who just got elevated are always a shaky bet since the existence and viability of their book / workload is always a question. In the bigger firms, the junior partners depend heavily on one or more senior partners passing on work, for the junior partner to stay afloat. Which means that a junior partner who has been with a firm (as an Associate, AP, Counsel or otherwise) for longer than 6-7 years is usually a better bet than someone who has recently joined a firm (i.e. less than 2.5 years). The Senior Partners tend to promote the 'known' faces more and that's a fairly universal rule. When you shift as partner from one firm to another, in my experience, it takes at least 2.5 years for your full book to 'shift' because most of your clients will not immediately start sending work. Same goes for the Senior partners pushing work to you. They will size you up with small stuff before pushing the bigger stuff. So joining a young partner who has just been elevated or has been with a firm for less than 2.5 years is ALWAYS a risk. Law practice is not about the flashes in the pan. It is about chugging along for many years (if not decades). Now why do I say 2.5 years, it is because a partner and his/her team need to survive 2 complete years to see how good or bad they are doing. 1 year is too little data to compare and 2 years is the bare minimum. As an Associate, what this means is that you need to pry as much information as you can (during the interview) about the firm, the partner and the team. Apart from these LI chatboards, try and speak to Associates working in the teams, well before an interview (through common connects).

Good luck!

Hey. I'm glad some of what I said got through. Just dont let the world define and limit you this way. Theres nothing about you thats more abnormal or less abnormal than anyone else. And you can speak about identity- it sometimes matters- just dont make it your whole life or assume thats the first thing people encountering you will care about.
Go to a cognitive behavioural therapist or read Feeling Good by David Burns. Its the first CBT book I read, start from there and work your way through this.

Court will take cognisance of a lot of cases. Maybe theres even merit in it that has not become apparent to me through this conversation. But for your own well-being- move on. Do other things you can be good at.

Shoddy https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-pleas-against-delhi-hc-direction-for-nlus-to-revise-clat-ug-merit-list-291493.

BIG BREAKING: India and UK sign FTA, but legal services liberalisation left out... SILF scores a MASSIVE WIN.... UK Law Society says it's a "missed opportunity" for young lawyers in India

I am now convinced that SILF has direct access to the PMO --- possibly through Adani??? Else it's impossible that every sector is liberalised except legal services.

Below is the statement from the UK Law Society:

“This is a missed opportunity for a significant breakthrough in terms of market access for lawyers in both India and the UK. ...A deal including the legal services sector has the potential to reap massive economic benefits for both countries and would have been highly beneficial for members working with the Indian legal profession. India is one of the last large jurisdictions in the world in which the establishment of foreign lawyers is not possible, meaning a lot of India-related legal work currently takes place outside of India....The presence of UK law firms and UK lawyers would not only facilitate international trade but also provide opportunities for young legal professionals to develop globally competitive skills, without needing to leave India for another international hub."

https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/press-office/press-releases/uk-india-trade-deal-misses-the-target-on-legal-services-market-access

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/missed-opportunity-india-trade-deal-leaves-out-legal/5123197.article

https://www.barandbench.com/news/21-supreme-court-judges-make-their-asset-details-public

WOW. I wasn't expecting them to have hundreds of crores like Senior Advocates, but I expected at least 20-30 cr, earned as lawyers before becoming judges + inherited wealth. Some of them don't even have 5-6 crore. How come??

Bro / Sis, I was in the exact same position at 1PQE and wanted to make a move. But here’s something I learnt the hard way: most Tier 1 disputes/arbitration teams are extremely lean, and lateral openings at the 1-year mark are very rare.

Most teams start looking seriously for associates around the 2–4 PQE range, when they need people who can independently handle some parts of the brief. At 1PQE, even with great experience, it’s tough to be slotted in because you're still being trained and Tier 1s prefer to do that with their own first-years.

I personally couldn’t shift at 1PQE either despite trying, but by the time I hit 2PQE, I had offers from 2 T1s. So, if possible, hang in there for another year. I understand financial pressures can’t be ignored, but if there’s even a slight chance you can hold off, it might make your options far better - both in terms of learning and compensation.

All the best!

Look man. If you wanted to talk about a particular case- the straight thing to do would be to talk about the case. not this nonsense where you pretend there's some puzzle and clearly are disappointed that someone has not given you the answer you want. Just try being upfront with people in the future.

A couple of points just after reading through what youve written:

1) CLAT consortium and the VC of NLSIU are completely different entities legally and practically speaking. Sudhir has repeatedly expressed that he disagrees with them on many accounts and even tried to find a way so he wouldnt have to admit students through that stupid and poorly run exam. He's in a bad marriage with the consortium, where he is blamed for everything they do wrong and also not allowed to leave.

2) This person you speak of honestly seems immature. Of course a university page is going to highlight students who have succeeded at different competitions and are optimistic and offer an aspirational example to other prospective students. Not just because those students are aspirational, but because it might be exploitative to put the trauma stories of students who aren't doing so well on the website. They might regret it; The internet is forever and a 19 year old may not be able to make a considered decision about whether to put their trauma up on a website for all to see. The university might just be protecting them and their future selves by keeping a light tone on its own website. It's got nothing to do with class or who gets encouraged at the university. A person who got into Yale for his LLM from NLS this year is a queer disabled first-generation learner who got tons of support from the university.
University website pages are also not there to "encourage" students. Not everything exists to encourage students. Students are not fragile little tinker bells who will die if they don't get applause constantly. University website pages are there for the university to publicly communicate with the public - they will put up calls for papers and applications, notices of news and events, faculty scholarship and an occasional fluff piece about new students or faculty. they only do that last so prospective students might draw some inspiration and consider applying. so crucial to that would be to point out all the opportunities NLS can offer them. It's not there to do the purpose you think it's there to do. This is not there to give validation to the students featured.
3) Are you saying that someone with an illiterate mother or a disorder of sexual development cannot compete with others on an equal footing? Are you suggesting that this individual is morally or otherwise inferior in her abilities? I don't think so. I've known plenty of people who were first-generation learners and did extremely well. Sudhir himself—his mother only has high school, and his father was a watchman. He went to school on scholarships and the charity of Christian organizations, and he made something of himself. And once he made something of himself, he was celebrated. The idea that people should be held to a lower standard because of their background - that they somehow lack capacity for brilliance - is honestly quite bigoted. I have known plenty of children from single parent homes, including yours truly, who thrived at NLUs, were not any different than anyone else.

4) What is the great source of agony here? What is it that we're supposed to get worked up about? The university website page that hardly anyone reads doesn't celebrate exactly the type of person you want and deem worthy? Because from your obviously biased summary, I gather that your candidate did not actually make it into NLSIU. So they very well cannot put up a profile of her as an admitted student. If it was money she was worried about, she could have taken loans, tried out for Aditya Birla, or reached out to IDIA. It seems she wanted a lowered admission standard and I'm afraid sometimes in life you have to take the L, or work harder to ace clat the next time. Thousands of students attempt clat and don't make it to NLS and move on with their lives. This obsession seems unhealthy.
5) Besides the laws can and do account for- you must admit disabled candidates who qualify, dalits and adivasis who qualify etc. She was not denied admission just because of her disability. What you're asking for is something else. You're asking for everyone in your life to celebrate and treat you like a hero because you have a trauma story that you personally think makes you superior. I'm afraid you simply cannot compel others to see you the way you want to be seen. Or at least that the university celebrate other candidates you deem worthy because of their traumas. None of us have that right. If we did, it would be a dystopia where speech and thought could be compelled.

6) If the assertion is that because your friend was not admitted—no one at NLS currently has trauma or comes from disadvantaged backgrounds and therefore it's an elite institution—that's honestly just ignorant. Hundreds of people on a university campus, many of them come from troubled backgrounds; nearly all of them do not make it their entire identity; they focus on self improvement and learning the law to help others. You might consider doing the same.

You should always try for a call-back. The big names are spread over. Anuj Berry & Kunal Gupta (Tri), Avik Biswas & Manavendra Misra (KCO), Alina Arora (SAM) hv large teams but don’t take a chance if you have a way into PBB. T-1s pay T-1 salaries. It’s a niche area difficult to get through & tough to survive.

1. No. Theoretical IP is increadibly different from what you would practice at work. The actual work is increadibly boring, mundane and repetitive. I don't understand who are the people saying this is going anywhere but the number of partners and associates telling me to they can't leave even though they're trying tells me another story. I was told to venture out before I locked in, and I couldn't be more grateful. A profession in IP academia seems interesting but actual practice will have you begging to opt out.

2. Low attrition, but equally low demand. A lot of IP work can very frankly be taken up by someone who knows basic data entry and can replicate submissions, you do not need a law degree or for that matter even a deep understanding of IP. The pool of resources and cases is small, and India's IP practice is not nearly sophisticated enough for it to require you to use your brains

3. If your only concern is getting placed, it would not be hard. But you would be paid a lot lower, the work does not get more interesting, and the scope for you pay scale to increase doesn't increase much either. Think of this in the long term, not just for the short term. IP litigation might hold another story, but even in that a lot of recent cases seem to revolving around IP issues that have largely solid foundations and clear answers.
4. Start elsewhere, the work you do in IP will largely be the same everywhere. And unfortunately so is the pay, most tier 1 firms do not pay their IP teams at par with others. The only difference that you would face, is maybe the quality but even that would be marginally so. Start at a boutique firm, build your connects and then branch out.

5. No. Theoretical ipr is increadibly different from practical. Most students after a single ipr internship usually end up deciding that this is not the thing for them.

God I love mooting so much man, i want to keep doing it. And I love my friends with whom I get to do it. I dread the time when i finally graduate and won't get to do it again :((((

To answer your question, no. They can't do that. Neither are you required by firms to have done any of them.

Get a thinkpad t480, refurb ones go for like 20-22k and it's the best cheap laptop for college (assuming you only wanna use it for research, drafting and the like) dont go for older ones as theyre dual cores only, whilst this has 4 cores which is more than enough for this stuff. Also make sure youre getting the 1080p IPS model and not the TN panel one.

Have you ever thought that the anonymity model may be past its prime? Perhaps if people were forced to use their real identities (or, at the very least, if setting up an anon alt was made harder), many might comment more responsibly.

I just think that, in recent years, a lot of people have been getting far too angry about very trivial things where earlier, this wouldn't have happened. In such a charged atmosphere, this high level of anonymity is fuel on the fire.

I was in your place a few years ago, but didn’t want to take the risk of a policy job over a Tier 1 law firm job. Ended up in general corporate but not TMT work. Back then, TMT was limited to telecom and some net neutrality, data protection consulting work. Everyone herds you to general corporate because it’s safe.

Ended up in the US years later and realized privacy, data protection, cybersecurity, AI, crypto, cloud etc. have really good employment prospects if you have the domain knowledge, both in law firms and companies. General corporate is the practice many find themselves stuck in because they had no other interests to specialize in.

My 2 cents: if you’re passionate about TMT and can bear not to start at 15 LPA, take 1-2 years to work at places which will help you lateral into TMT. Or, work in general corporate at a firm and then lateral into a TMT team. Either way, no harm reaching out to TMT associates and partners so they know you are interested and looking for an opportunity.

How are people to then access all the vast pages and pages of law materials which are available only in English (or primarily in English, with materials in translation not necessarily being reliable), once they land up at law school? Court judgments from around the world? Legal theory materials? International law materials? Read Eliav Lieblich's primer to research in international law. He clearly says that if you can't 'access' materials in English or French, 'your research will unfortunately be limited'. Starting a bonfire of academic standards in the name of so-called 'inclusion' is dangerous, unhelpful and problematic. How much easier to do something like this than to actually try and ensure that children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds get a good education, which gives them the knowledge, skills and tools necessary to be successful in a global marketplace. How much easier to pontificate about grand theories of neocolonialism or whatever other crap people tend to pontificate about these days, instead of just imposing a hard, significant tax on the rich (maybe imposing a world-wide taxation regime like how the U.S. does) and using those funds to build more schools, recruit more qualified teachers, etc.

Hi, I am looking for a trustworthy divorce lawyer in Chennai who has experience dealing with narcissistic abuse cases , and charges a reasonable fee . If anyone knows a reliable lawyer or any NGO that can provide legal support or guidance, please let me know. Any help would mean a lot. Thank you in advance.

Please get commentaries but bare acts.

Bare acts become obsolete too fast due amendments and ordinances which are become more frequent now. Like I never thought my Indian Evidence Act bare act would be obsolete but here we are.

You're better off printing the Act off IndiaCode, SCC or Manupatra ahead of the hearing / matter.

Realised I should update. Did my callback and they worked me like a dog and gave amazing feedback but didn't give PPO. Same thing happened at 2 other tier 1s (SAM and JSA) where I ended up wasting 2 and 4 months interning. However, I kept applying and about 2 months after graduation I got a call from KCO. People I had worked with in the past had referred me. Smashed the interview and now working here. Being patient and having confidence in yourself is very necessary