We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
“We direct the Government of India and all states/UTs/Universities etc. to disassociate 3 of them forthwith and not to assign any responsibility which involves public funds”
https://www.livelaw.in/amp/top-stories/supreme-court-ncert-social-science-textbook-corruption-in-judiciary-suo-motu-contempt-525957
How should we read this? Does this mean dissociate only from Alok Prasanna, or also his organisation? Because another faction of Vidhi (Arghya Sengupta’s) keeps very good relations with both the Modi govt and the judiciary. They get tons of work from the Modi govt (which is their biggest funder) and they invite many current and former SC judges to their events.
There could be 2 solutions to this ambiguity:
1. Alok resigns from Vidhi and Arghya fully takes control. Because no statement yet from Arghya that he is standing with Alok. Silence so far.
2. A correction to the order exempting Vidhi. Because the court order also says: “This order shall be subject to their approaching this court for modification with an explanation.”
In the same week, I met with a partner at one of India's most prestigious tier-1 law firms. And separately, I spent time with one of India's wealthiest men, a billionaire who has built businesses spanning multiple countries, employing tens of thousands of people.
The contrast is something I cannot get out of my head.
The law firm partner, within minutes of sitting down, made it a point to tell me he doesn't engage with people who have less than five years of experience. He used words like "highly specialized group." He carried himself like he was doing me a favour by breathing the same air. I left that room feeling smaller than when I walked in.
The businessman treated me like I mattered. Warmly, genuinely, without any performance.
But it made me think about something I've been sitting with for a while. These firms operate in a protected domestic market. No real external competitive pressure forcing a culture reset. So the hierarchy calcifies. Seniority becomes the only currency. And the way you signal seniority is by making everyone below you feel it.
The businessman has actually built something. Thousands of families earn their livelihood because of decisions he made over decades. Genuine risk. Genuine skin in the game.
Yet he had more warmth in one conversation than I have encountered across multiple interactions with people a fraction of his stature in this profession.
Real security doesn't need an audience.
The legal industry talks a lot about mentorship and building the next generation. But it starts with how you treat a young person who walks into your room with nothing to offer you yet.
That businessman understood this instinctively. I wish more lawyers did.
The alumni base is strong in GLC, but that shouldn't be a surprise considering just how old it is. Besides these two factors, what REALLY sets GLC apart?
Most work is on commercial laws or labour laws. TMT work is negligible and majorly of their cash cow client.
With respect to the working hours - yes. In fact corporate lawyers make lesser per hour than lawyers in well-paying research centres or think tanks (which pay ~8 LPA) given the sheer hours of work, requirement to be available at all times, anxiety etc. It is only that the pay increases manifold with experience - but the stress and requirement to be available never reduces
Interactions will return.
And still y’all are having D-measuring contests over which firm and which law school is better? Your firms will literally go bankrupt and lay you off if this continues.
a. Your definition of what being at the top will change as you grow
b. If the sole scale of comparison with Kapil Sibal is his income, that too as starting point then no doubt you will feel despair. ( I don't think he made the amount of money he makes at the beginning of his career.)
In my opinion, it is best to consider building blocks which might lead you to success- something that is required to become a competent lawyer. Figure out an area of expertise, think through how you will practice it, and build knowledge and skills required for the same. I know that it is very difficult to think about getting clients who will ultimately pay you- but that is a problem which will be solved as you spend years in practice. You will find people willing to pay you for your expertise.
Now academics researching on proper legal issues will suffer because of this foolery.
After speaking with my colleagues, I can tell you that our internship-to-placement ratio has historically been higher for interns who had some form of personal interaction with us before the internship (apart from the CV obviously). This helps us remember them. This usually happens through alumni meets, judging moot courts, interactions with placement committees, or even identifying a common connection between the Partner and the intern.
I hope this helps. I also sincerely hope you are following the advice of people on this thread who actually work at law firms, rather than those who are still trying to get into one.
But they're nowhere Tier 1/2, it's a boutique firm of 50 odd lawyers.
Compared to that AMS donated Rs 15 cr from personal funds to Jiggles. I think he may have donated some crores earlier too. Anyway AMS and CR went on AMS donation sponsored trip to Japan, addressed the Diet there et al.
While folks at NUJS and even Bangalis (who suddenly matter to Kindness Co) may cry foul but it's just pointless bleatings of the sheep. Kindness Co have bigger fishes to barbecue and AMS is certainly invited to that party.
I'm actually curious about how much do MP's of Karanjawala & Co and Aggarwal Law Associates earn per year and what are their net worth considering they have the majority chunk of filing in the Supreme Court.
Generations of NLSIU alumni have got the Fulbright. A few from NALSAR and other places too. And, of course, hundreds from JNU, TISS etc in the humanities. End of an era.
https://www.usief.org.in/fulbright-fellowships/fellowships-for-indian-citizen/fulbright-nehru-academic-and-professional-excellence-fellowships/
AZB wala bawa uncle came and left.
Next in line waale bhaiya ki baari hogi ab.
Inka kuch nahin ho sakta.
Delhi office ka badluck hi kharaab hai.
Meanwhile we poor youngsters who work hard keep getting shafted when it comes to bonuses and increment.
On paper, the event looked extremely promising. The promotional material mentioned participation from several well-known law firms and senior attorneys, along with opportunities such as internships, scholarships, and certificate courses for participants. Unfortunately, the experience on the ground did not reflect those expectations.
First, many of the firms and practitioners that were advertised simply did not appear at the event. Only a small number of attorneys actually attended, and even those who did were not treated or hosted particularly well. For an event that relied so heavily on professional participation, the lack of proper coordination and hospitality was noticeable.
The situation was similar for participants. Several incentives were publicly promised inter alia, scholarships and certificate courses, but even after four months, many of these have not materialised. As someone who was recognised as a top performer, I was personally assured an internship opportunity, which has still not been provided.
Another point that deserves mention is the gap between what was marketed and what was ultimately offered. The event prominently highlighted connections with top-tier law firms and suggested internship opportunities with them. In reality, the few opportunities that did emerge were largely with tier-2 or lower organisations, which is quite different from what many participants believed they were signing up for.
Overall, the impression I was left with is that the event was heavily marketed but operationally underprepared. It felt more like a cost-controlled promotional exercise for “The Pact” and the organisers rather than a well-structured professional competition designed to genuinely benefit participants and legal professionals.
Anyone considering involvement with the 2026 edition should probably look closely at these issues and make an informed decision.
A consultant being someone who was not made an associate because they come from a mid tier or boutique firm with lower pay and/or a non-NLU background.
Consultants are also paid far less than even an A0 whilst having anywhere between 2-5 years of experience.
Are you ever made an associate? Are you forever a consultant? What are the bands in consultant? Will the payment ever match that of an associate?
Would love some insider insights.