"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

TMT is a sector, not an area of law. The core is - and will always be - Gen Corp, even and specially in TMT teams. Stop trying to get into a saturated and lesser paying team - there's a recession coming. Broaden your options, and pick whatever you get - unless you're sure that you can get another job with a phone call.

By every possible metric:

1. As a student: Best graduating student at NLSIU. Definitely one of the best students at Oxford, too, because only people who have achieved distinction in BCL are permitted to go to the DPhil. Please provide verifiable proof of your NLSIU and Oxford degrees, then dare to ask such questions. Otherwise, sit this one out.

2. Qualifications: NLSIU + two degrees at Oxford. Do you have either of these or anything even close?

3. Accomplishments: Rhodes Scholar. One of the biggest achievements in life that one can have. What do you have that is even close?

4. Publications: Books published by both Oxford and Cambridge University Press. Considering the quality of legal research in India, that is quite heavy for an Indian legal academic. Show me your publication list.

5. Experience: Has taught at two of the best law universities in India (NLSIU and NUJS), while also having taught at Oxford and Columbia. What have you done in life other than being a grifter?

6. As a university administrator: Doesn't tolerate nonsense, doesn't suffer fools gladly either (good thing, too, far too many fools in Indian higher education). Ensuring NLSIU operates like the best unis in the world, and that one day, it will be a hub for genuine research and intellectual work in law, like the actual Harvard, instead of just shooting his mouth off about it.

7. As a mentor: Other than his own writings, Sudhir has been publicly thanked by scholars in their own names whom he has advised on their academic projects. Tarunabh Khaitan (yes, the same T Khaitan, now of LSE) wrote an acknowledgement to him in a book chapter a few years ago. Provide verifiable proof of all the scholars who have acknowledged you in their writings.

There is no prescribed channel for the recruitment process for clerkship in the DHC, every recruitment that takes place is either though the discretion of the hon'ble judge or in the hands of the existing clerks who are about to finish their tenure. So if you know anyone who is about to finish their tenure, they can place your CV on the top for consideration or having a channel to the hon'ble judge will ensure your position.

If you have the resources, get an external monitor, a keyboard and mouse (I got a 32 inch one with keyboard + mouse for about 11K). These will help you in the long run. Try and get a chair with back support or a support cushion. Also, get a wallet/card holder, buy extra court fee, welfare and keep it with you at all times. If you're litigating and practising in the district courts or HC, buy a pen which has red and blue ink for marking exhibits. Always carry a pen drive with you at all times.

Irrespective of whether you're litigating or in corp, if you can, get an iPad, preferably the larger sized one, with an Apple pencil. There is a one time purchase plan of LiquidText, which you may consider getting. Also, if finances permit, get Adobe or any PDF software. I purchased Acrobat Pro for the Mac which is about 19K a year, but to offset expenses, I split it with a friend. Also, I use OneDrive to maintain my files and drafts, which allows me use of Outlook and Teams. You can either get that or use Google Drive or whatever works for you.

I also purchased an email address with my name, but that's completely optional. Get business cards printed and always keep a few on you. Over time, if you're flying solo, get files printed with your name, office address, etc. Subscribe to any App like Provakil, Libra, etc., to track your cases.

Whenever you work on a matter, buy the Act/bare text relevant to it. Over time you'll build up your own library of Acts at least. Commentaries or books you can buy depending on requirement and financial capacity.

My seniors in college! Their notes, their advice, them helping me through moots, competitions, and quite literally wanting nothing in return. I am so grateful to my college for it. I think GNLU has the best seniors in that regards. POV: They don't like being called sir or ma'am.

LI seems to be too rife with negativity these days. Let's have some positive discussions. Talk about some really wholesome people you came across in your college or workplace.

Personally, I am a T1 NLU graduate. Left Big Law in a year for a boutique firm; while my pay took a considerable hit but the managing partner is such a sweetheart. For the first time, I have been feeling content with my life.

(a) Improve the search console. You can even make a dropdown firm wise (use automation bots to search for keywords) and get all the information related to a firm in one place. Right now, when I search a lot of links I get are of old news article or partner hirings, which are not valid anymore.

(b) Each thread should open in a new tab.

(c) The same thread is displayed multiple times on the home page based on the number of comments its has received. This should be changed and one thread should be visible only once and not 20 times again and again.

(d) Verified accounts to diminish fake news and trolls.

(e) Verified accounts for HRs

You people are such gullible fools but I am not surprised.

Most of you need a class in journalism - most of you are no better than whatsapp uncles.

Anonymous sourcing after anonymous sourcing is huge red flag for credibility for news.

Articles across Indian press and Sputnik of all things don't pass the smell test.

I can see the people already calling this a victory for "India" and equating Adani to India.

This is what paid PR narrative building looks like in the age of disinformation.

thank you for your thoughful response:

a) I would suggest something like a matrix, say a 4x2 table, each with a seperate topic (each topic should have at least 6-7 ongoing discussions and maybe one or two pinned threads). Maybe something like https://www.theguardian.com/uk. or if you want to take the more direct version with the top links like https://www.rollonfriday.com/

b) pinned would allow the community to focus on some ongoing topics

c) ask for some donation though, I am sure most partners would be happy to spare a few change

d) I am confident that most RCCs would be happy to contribute

e) mooting is one of the few objective parameters that may ever be used to compare performance (can attest that size does not matter). It is transparent (everyone knows who won etc.), quantitative (as long as there are acceptable standards to categorise and score moots), communal (around 10-20% of the batch would participate in some form or other with mooting activities), usually not very costly (except for the phoren ones) etc. As long as we dont get too excited and only take it as a data analytics and reflection, it would be healthy to see how things evolve across the ecosystem.

For Indian companies/firms: No. For foreign: Yes. The foreign LLM degrees that you see were acquired in 2000s or early 2010s when Competition Law were not taught in India and it did not have any jurisprudence. Today, for Indian firms and companies, an LLM does not add any value. However, if you want to move abroad then an LLM from a good UK/EU University can do the trick. Make sure to pursue LLM after a few years at a T1 Law firm. Work Ex really matters for getting hired at foreign law firms.

This article looks to be mostly plagiarized from an earlier article written by a Kashmiri engineer in ORF in 2019: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/indus-water-treaty-beyond-the-rhetoric-49396

Basically, the IWT just put on paper the best practical reality for both countries. Nothing has changed since then and any talk of IWT repudiation is just rhetoric and even if it is done, there will be no impact on the ground.

Hello. I am a first-generation law student from a baby NLU. I have been browsing LI since the clat days. I’ve explored and have decided to litigate in Delhi. I have a good batch rank, some competitions and publications but my biggest asset is my internship performance and my passion for knowledge. I want to intern at the chambers of senior advocates/AORs that give me substantial work and pay me an apt stipend. (the acknowledgement of my work matters more than the amount)

Overall, I am looking for suggestions where I could utilise my skills and diligence. I don't care if the work is 13-14 hours a day as long as I am able to make my boss’ work easier and I am getting to learn something I have some prior drafting experience and I can work for long hours without any problem, basically implying that I don't have a life.

Recommendations would be greatly appreciated. I want to work in places where the junior gets a handsome salary but I know that is impossible in third year. I want to prepare myself for that standards in my remaining two years and secure a job with the elites (i.e. AMS, Sibals, GShanks) before graduating.

This is 100 percent true. I used to feel depressed and get a lot of mood swings. Literally ever day. Social media really triggers this. The algorithm is such that you inevitably come across content that makes you sad or angry. Even if you start watching something very simple, like a cricket video or music video, spend an hour or two and you will eventually be scrolling through negative content.

Now, I severely limited my use. Instead, I read two novels over the course of a month. Honestly, I just felt so much better and positive. Never once had negative emotions. Then I paused and returned to heavy smartphone use. Back to square one. Then back to reading books. Cured again. Also doing exercise helps.

You don’t need to visit a counsellor. Just stop smartphone addiction and you will stop feeling depressed.

SAM has rolled out world leading legal AI platform Harvey across all its offices. Harvey can do complex DD tasks in few minutes. Other major law firms are also testing various AI platforms. Need for junior level associates to do grunt work will rapidly diminish. Are we going to see large scale hiring freezes and layoffs?

1. First off, congratulations! You are going to a pretty good law school. Maybe practice reading books generally, as much as you can. Not necessarily law, politics, history, philosophy or whatever, even fiction should do. But keep up a reading habit! You very rarely are gonna get a time like this in your life again - maybe the only next occasion might be several years later, if you are good enough and lucky enough to secure a PPO before/during your final year, and you have those last few months of law school to relax in, knowing your job's secure. But there are many long and difficult years ahead, before that second (not guaranteed) happy phase of relaxation. This one has fallen into your lap, use it! Do whatever pleases you - playing a musical instrument, learning a new language... it really doesn't matter. Oh but obviously, if you are at school still, focus for a few months on your final school exams. It would be a shame to mess those up, now, wouldn't it?

2 and 3. Plenty of time for all that later. In fact, at this stage, I'd rather you didn't get into that too much. For one thing, you'll be straining your brain at a time when you should give it a well-deserved chance to relax; for another, you might misunderstand stuff, and unlearning stuff is much harder than learning it fresh. One thing you could usefully occupy yourself with, however, is building a skill foreign law firms tend to call 'commercial awareness' or 'commercial acumen' (they mean the same thing). That is, a high level of awareness of how the market operates, the factors that impact a business's performance and a law firm's place within the market (as a business). You are already reading newspapers, that's good. Maybe start reading some good financial/economics newspapers, if you can (Economic Times, Financial Times, for example). Again, not something that you need to do now or something that would destroy your life chances if you didn't do it now (as there's plenty of time to properly develop it), but useful to get started early. If you are ever actually thinking of a law firm career outside India - particularly in London - you might, at some point, want to pick up this book: All You Need to Know About the City, by Christopher Stoakes. Explains how the market works very well. Dead useful. It may seem more like a finance bros type of book, but trust me, it's as important for commercial lawyers, at least, to be good at talking about finance as it is for them to know anything else - and foreign law firms tend to look for that kind of knowledge.

4. Please do start playing tennis again, if that is what pleases you. Don't necessarily do it with any specific aim in mind, however, especially if you are looking for internships or law firm jobs in India. It won't help you. However, if you are looking to apply for something like the Rhodes Scholarship, which expressly puts value on sporting achievements, then go into tennis with all twenty-four guns blazing and horns blaring, spare no effort.

5. Really can't think of anything else. Maybe get yourself a good, new laptop?

Top 3:

Khanna (the sacrifice for doing the right thing will never be forgotten)
Hidayatullah (all round legend)

Lodha (simply the best, the most honest, the most independent and most importantly, who brought great change without self promotion in the last 50 years - improved infrastructure, came down on corrupt Govt and caged parrot CBI, gave the BCCI report in 1 year and stepped away, and always shunned the limelight)

Create different sections / forums within LI so that people can focus on the topics that matter to them. Like a college / CLAT section for aspirants and students who want to discuss college related stuff. Career section for questions and discussions on careers, law firms, litigation etc. And a general section to discuss politics, news, which law firm has the most good looking people and such other crap.

just want to play devil’s advocate here because I see so many people bad-mouthing Legally India, and every time someone sees me using it, they pretty much shame me for it.

The truth is, if you’re not from a legacy law family, being a law student can feel incredibly isolating. I study at a Tier-2 NLU, and the channels of information about things like vacation schemes, moots, PPOs, etc. are very limited. There’s practically no one I can go to with doubts or questions. In such situations, it’s very reaffirming to know that I can always count on Legally India.

I haven’t been on the platform as long as some others, and I agree with a lot of the critiques, but I still think we need to appreciate LI for the platform it is. It helps a lot of law students and lawyers stay connected to the wider legal community. In more ways than one, it shapes conversations and directs the narrative around legal education and careers. Plus, it’s a great place to get general advice.

Before this turns into a full-blown love letter, I’ll stop but ya, credit where it’s due.

A straightforward question from a long-time user without mincing any word.

This platform owes much of its popularity throughout the years to juvenile inter-law school rivalry and trolling. That has been quite obvious over the years.

Ever since the new IT Rules came into effect and Kian withdrew from the forum, the quality of real or useful news has reduced drastically, which was not unexpected. Unfortunately, it got replaced with mostly trolling, name-calling, abuses aimed at individuals or institutions, political bickering and other toxic attempts at free speech, which was not surprising though undesirable.

In the light of this and given the lofty though fairly arbitrary standards that an occasional moderator has been known to espouse here, here is my question, are you actively trying to leverage toxicity, irrational hatred and abuses in the guise of anonymity and freedom of speech in order to bring back some of the past glory of Legally India or at least to sustain your fleeting relevance in the legal community? If so, then that is of course your prerogative, but at least you owe it to your readers and supporters to come clean about it.

I request the current administrator and ALL the moderators to respond to this, because your individual stance may differ from the forum's. If you don't see any problem with the posts and threads being allowed, then also kindly clarify that, so that we may understand your perspective. I am just doing this as a last-ditch attempt to keep my ties of over sixteen years intact with this platform, rather than leaving it and judging people for their continued and demonstrated association with it from now on. Call it misplaced loyalty or naivete or whatever you will.

DCM = listed debentures.

Billing available on stock exchange website - search for debt offer documents. In key information document - law firm fees are disclosed. Ranges from 10 to 15 L.

Contractual provisions similar to B&F - debenture trust deeds also available on stock exchange websites.

JSA has a small cap marks practice so I don't know why the person who commented suggested this to you. You can try applying under Anand Lakra and Nosh Modi tho.

CB is Crawford Bayley. They pay around 12 lpa with an infamous 3 year bond. Try mailing Sanjay Asher, although they're not looking to hire much from what I have heard.

You can also try applying to Rajani and Rajaram Legal (now River Law), they're good but picky. Keep an eye for others like Desai Diwanji and Bharucha as well other than T-1s.

Best judge: Vivian Bose. Absolute class act. Rest aren’t even 1% of him.

https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/columns/why-cant-a-judge-also-be-a-rockstar-a-study-of-the-interesting-life-of-justice-vivian-bose

This depends on the company, but if you're doing a routine contracting role, it's often easier to transfer someone from, say, the India office, than to hire someone afresh.

I know at least 30 in house lawyers who have been transferred to foreign offices of their employer. But PQE~1 is unlikely, you'd need 2-3 more years, at the absolute minimum.

Here's a tip: everyone and their uncle wants these roles. One of the most reliable ways to get them is to just ask. If everyone is equally good at their work, the one who has actively expressed their interest is likely to be remembered when it comes to choosing someone.

Hard to say "the best", but some of my top faves whose judgments are enjoyable to read even today (not in any particular order):

1. Vivian Bose

2. Patanjali Sastri

3. Fazl Ali

4. Gajendragadkar

5. KK Mathew

6. Krishna Iyer

7. Ruma Pal

8. Radhakrishnan

9. RV Raveendran

10. Madan Lokur (somewhat diminished by his post retirement ranting)

11. RF Nariman

12. UU Lalit

I am excluding sitting judges from this list.

Some of the worst (there are many more):

1. Subba Rao

2. AN Ray

3. Bhagwati

4. Tulzapurkar

5. Chinnappa Reddy

6. JS Varma

7. Lahoti

8. M Katju

9. Cyriac Joseph (IYKYK)

10. Arijit Pasayat

11. Dipak Misra

12. Arun Mishra

this is all my opinion:

Best: Unquestionably H.R Khanna. To take on tyrants even at the risk of harming ones career is sadly not a quality often observed among Indias supreme court judges.

Strong second-place contenders: Chelmeshwar, Hidayathulla, Sathasivam, UU Lalit, RF Nariman, maybe Kurian, maybe Indu Malhotra. Fairly independent minded judges, many of whom demonstrated deep appreciation for the Constitution and for the rule of law generally. No major corruption allegations; they did their work quietly and did their work well.

Worst- I don't know, maybe Ranjan Gogoi, or Dipak Misra, or K. Subba Rao. Maybe K G Ballakrishnan Big corruption allegations make everyone lose faith in the law.

Both best and worst: Krishna Iyer, Bhagwati, the Chandrachuds, Altamas Kabir, Katju.
These I go back and forth on. They're really good on some issues but seem to lose objectivity on others or have unseemly public lives that lead to loss of faith in the objectivity of the judiciary. They are all impactful though. Not forgettable. Law people can discuss their legacies for years and not come to an agreement.

Not an answer to your question, but: This is one of the first useful pieces I have seen posted on Legally India. Thanks. I am completely blind, and this sort of thing tends to get very confusing indeed for me, because of the criptic way assistive technology software packages (often called screen readers) often announce/describe these emojis. (And BTW I am Gen Z.) Even the piece isn't perfect, because it doesn't use the exact language which a common screen reader like JAWS or NVDA would use when encountering such a thing, but I can correspond most of the descriptions in my head to what words the piece uses.

So yes, if you do want some sort of an answer, you might send such a message. But if the associate on your team happened to be blind, they might just wonder what the heck you meant!