The present generation has accent and diction that’s heavily influenced by modern TV and social media. A strange hybrid of Punjabi/Haryanvi/UP speech with American hip-hop speech. They speak quickly, don’t stress on syllables, don’t speak in a measured tone.

I think older generations sound different and classier!

I am currently interning at a boutique but well-known law firm in Mumbai. I joined the firm despite being aware of certain rumours surrounding one of the partners. He is widely regarded as extremely accomplished and highly respected in the securities market practice, which was a significant factor in my decision to intern here.

At the same time, there has long been a cautionary narrative associated with him. A commonly repeated refrain is that women should avoid the firm—although, interestingly, the firm does employ more women than men. I chose not to rely entirely on second-hand warnings and decided to make my own assessment by joining.

About a week into the internship, the partner called me on a Sunday and asked about my plans for the day. To be fair, it is entirely possible that the call was work-related or meant to check availability—something not unheard of in law firms. However, this interaction did not exist in isolation.

Separately, I had already heard that in the past he has called interns or former interns asking if they would like to “go out for dinner” or meet at a pub. I have also heard of at least one instance where an intern visited his residence months after her internship had ended—something that is, of course, her personal choice and not inherently questionable on its own.

But here’s the issue: when these facts are viewed together, they begin to resemble a pattern rather than coincidence. Each individual incident is defensible in isolation. Collectively, they create discomfort—and that discomfort is hard to ignore.

Here’s the blunt truth bomb: the legal profession has a long history of excusing boundary issues as long as the person involved is influential, successful, or “too important to question.” Excellence at work often becomes a shield against scrutiny, and juniors—especially interns—are expected to give the benefit of doubt even when their instincts say otherwise.

My question is whether such behaviour is genuinely normalized in parts of the legal industry, or whether this still falls outside what should be considered acceptable professional conduct. I am actively looking to join a firm where I can build a long-term career. I would prefer not to internalize discomfort or rationalize unease as a rite of passage, nor do I want to make multiple switches early in my career simply because I ignored early red flags.

Should students and young lawyers be doing deeper background research when choosing firms—beyond reputation, deal value, or the stature of individual partners? Or am I overthinking what could be dismissed as isolated, innocuous interactions?

I would appreciate candid guidance from seniors and practitioners. Please do not speculate about or attempt to identify the firm or the individual involved.

There's one AOR, Kartik Seth who has done quite well for himself and that too being from Jabalpur and not even in Delhi circles but someone here had commented about him apparently being a fixer, so unfortunately 1st gen successful litigators face harsh scrutiny and incidentally he posted on LinkedIn about people in the legal profession being unhappy and jealous about others progress.

Regarding other names apart from their social media profiles, I have no clue about their actual practice so no comments.

▮▮▮

Thanks for the post. Although, why are you discounting the IB, strategy, consulting, etc roles? Placement from a T1 college at a T1 firm is also not guaranteed with Jindal and other colleges creating some takers for limited T1 firm jobs. So why not compare the entire picture? I would reckon that once the top mgt posts are considered, whose packages are much higher than general pay bracket of T1s, maybe the conclusion would change

If there's work, there's work.

It's irritating but you kind of get used to it and you learn to make adjustments. And overtime others start trusting that you will work / deliver - which gives you a litte more control over your time because nobody is breathing down your neck 24x7.

Needless to say this is not true for all teams. Some are better than others. Some are hellish half the year, some are toxic pro max. No generic answer to this.

Seeking genuine advice from seniors as I'm under a lot of stress. I am Bo24 from a T3 NLU trying hard to make a career in Corp law. I joined a deadbeat firm, left the deadbeat firm, sat out for a while, and joined another firm that is deadbeat. I have a feeling that I'm cooked. Need recommendations of reputable firms which have a good learning culture. I don't care about the pay anymore. I can't be sitting around anymore. Also taking any suggestions to advance in this rat race. (Pls don't suggest litigation).

I implore you to please write a serious reply only. Thanks in advance.

Hi, I’m from a T1 NLU, and my end goal in law school is to secure a PPO from a T1 corporate firm. So far, I’ve done litigation and research internships to build my CV and gain experience. I’m a bit unsure about the timing for applying to corporate internships. Should I start applying to T1 firms during the break after my 2nd year (before 3rd year starts)? My goal is: if I secure a T1 internship, try to convert it into an assessment internship and eventually a PPO. Is the June break between 2nd and 3rd year too early for that? Would it make sense to apply to T2/T3 firms instead just to get more experience and strengthen my CV, even though ideally I don’t want to be placed there, so that I can target T1 firms in the October break? The downside to this is that since the PPO process at T1 firms is a 2 internship minimum commitment, the later i start, the less opportunities I get to secure a PPO with a T1. (example - I intern at x T1 firm, secure assessment, don't get PPO) Then, wouldn't the earlier I start give me more try and fail attempts with other firms before Day 0? (1st trimester of 5th year).

Any advice from people familiar with the internship and hiring process would be really helpful!

> Is it worth interning at RK Dewan after graduation, given that they have a minimum three-month internship policy? and What are the chances of converting the internship into a full-time job? I have a strong interest in ip and wish to work in this domain. Any advice will work!

I was looking at a fellow who misrepresented himself as a lawyer in media and election campaigning in the recent ▮▮▮ municipal elections. Which by the mods have deleted!! Why guys? I have not even mentioned the name of the fellow.

In digging through, I have realized that (1) There is a law firm in and around Mumbai, which is representing that persons who are not even law graduates yet, being shown as lawyers in the firm. (2) Googled their names, and I found their college had uploaded their internship completion certificates, same 2 or 3 no name firms have issued internship certificates to same set of people from the same college. I believe they are formality's sake.

My question is, can I do something about this without exposing myself? I don't want to get beaten up or thrashed or worse, murdered.

In recent yrs i believe it has been observed that the placements for nalsar are better than nls in domestic t1 and in the magic circle firms and so i would like advice on whether it is better to go to nalsar or nls since nalsar has 100% placement but nls has 76% and the increase in class size will only make that more acute and like nls lacks courses in m and a and other corporate fields so pls advice.

Having worked at law firms in India (Tier 1), US and then London, I felt most like a second class human at a T1 where at a junior level partners reminded daily we were lucky to be employed, to have received that PPO, and to be making enough for rent and have time to sleep. This chatter wasn’t present outside. Also found visas to be fairly straightforward if you have a stable white collar job.

Curious to know where other law schools stand? NLSIU is appointing many alumni practitioners, but what about others, given that many NLU VCs from the TLC lobby are hostile to involving alumni?

However, it’s also important to maintain quality. The article mentioned that Priyanka Chaturvedi (not an alum) was appointed at Jindal. Clearly done to curry favour with the SS UBT in Mumbai. While no one would question the credentials of someone like Shashi Tharoor, Priyanka Chaturvedi is just basically a social media celeb.

https://theprint.in/india/education/they-teach-what-textbooks-cant-rise-of-professors-of-practice-in-india-why-universities-want-them/2824164/

Hi, are you speaking from experience or know someone closely? Cause i have been trying to explore these options and all of them seem next to impossible.

--> Take the SQE - but how do you move? how do you find vacancy? most junior level hiring is via "vacation schemes" etc via which are atleast 2 year long pathways. that sounds maddening to me, cause why should i leave my T1 job to go be an intern/paralegal for almost 2 years. Vacancies that i see on linkedin of recruiters is usually for Singapore offices or at times for Dubai offices.

--> do LLM in the UK - people that i have talked to, who have gone to Oxbridge often say that the uni doesnt have campus placement for grad students, then how does one land a job?

On top of that economies are closing and job market is saturated, so what is the way out.

it is a good bet, there is a serious lack of interns who have done proper bnf range of work. considering the nature of the work, t1 teams dont usually prefer day 0 hires as they take time to train, instead going with laterals. if you have really set your eyes on bnf (and there is nothing wrong with that, it is rewarding in the long run but will test you every single day) - go ahead and conquer!

debt will always have scope as long as humans are humans

Post Qualification Experience.

Qualification is from when you are qualified to practise law. When you graduate you are qualified but not qualified to practise law because you are not registered as a lawyer. Once you get registered, you are fully qualified. Therefore PQE comes from date of registration as a lawyer.

I am an A2 working in the Banking and Finance team at a Tier 1 law firm in Mumbai. I am looking to shift to an in-house role considering the work pressure and lack of work life balance in my team. Request if you all can suggest good in-house roles for me. My salary expectation is at least 1.1 lakh in hand and my 2-3 lakh bonus. Thank you

As someone who has previously worked in the team, here’s what I have seen:

1. Female led: it’s a small team, with mostly female partners. They are friends first and colleagues later, which means the firm works in slightly informal way where the culture is quite laid back but also dynamic. This is not to say that they don’t take their work seriously, but outside work, it is quite casual.

2. Remote first: they offer remote work. Remote work is great if it’s a chill job, or if you’re able to build a good rapport with your senior. But remote work in a legal job is not exactly ideal. It requires lot of coordination and being on the same page as your seniors. While the seniors do take initiatives to make juniors comfortable, sometimes it may come off as performative. Building a good impression remotely is not easy. Add in usual politics and it can get quite difficult to manage.

Work hard, but also focus on better visibility. Then you might extra perks.

3. Pay: pay is low, but maybe they individually negotiate so can’t say much. Also, their “thing” seems to be hiring ex- Tier 1 law associates by telling them that they are not as toxic as them.

Bit debatable. It is partly true and partly false. It’s partly true - no shouting/ screaming; there is a sense of boundaries which is recognised.

It’s partly false - Their idea about not being toxic is not making you work till 5 am regularly.

The bar for what is ‘not toxic’ is too low in this industry, so can’t comment. To each their own.

4. Team culture: They say culture flows from the top. Very true in this case.

AR works remotely and moves across countries while working. She works on mostly early stage VC deals, and doesn’t expand the team too much. This is very intentional. This allows AR to live on her own terms.

If you try to do listed M&A or late stage deals, they are lot more teams, lot more coordination and lot more scrutiny. Early stage deals are fast moving, and you can do it with a lean team. So she hires heavy hitters who we are sharp and can lead deals.

AR is fiercely independent. She is sharp and impatient, but she can also come across as quite ruthless. AR lives on her own terms and she has carefully curated the setup so she’s in control of all 3 - financial freedom, location freedom, being amongst like-minded high achieving individuals.

Team culture: The team is usually polite and friendly, and others are not as impatient. But make no mistake - the culture is not - oh we are a family. It’s like Netflix culture of being a sports team -Either you are performing at your highest levels, or you’re out.

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

Damn. My computer conked out on me so somehow this comment got sent when still incomplete.

The only ambiguous case would be if you wanted to gain some magic circle experience, for example, but not to stay there long term and go back to India. In that event, there are arguments on both sides.

On the one hand, you'd have the exposure that only an LSE can give you vs. what somebody else has said about the quality of Indian legal education - most importantly, of course, being access to the advantages that LSE can give you in terms of magic circle/American Law firm London office access such as their careers service, brand name, environment of constant grooming for careers in the city (finance, law firm etc), ability to get onto the firms' first year schemes (a red carpet pathway towards vac schemes/TCs in the case of many firms) (something that even those who talk up the prospects of Indian law graduates to get into MC firms will admit is not there for Indian law schools, because that just isn't available) (though the FY scheme, like anything else, is hard to get into for even the UK law students).

On the other, you'd not have that exposure, but a much cheaper legal education, excellent by Indian standards. You would still have a crack at magic circle law firms if you wanted to, but you'd just have to work a lot harder to get it.

If the ambiguous case (i.e., getting experience in the magic circle firm or American law firm's London operations and getting admitted as a solicitor in England and Wales for the tag, but working in India long term) is the eventual goal, then it'll be up to you to decide which way you want to go. Personally, if I were in that situation (having been to one of the other Russell Group law schools in London), if money were no object (either because of funds available to me through personal sources and/or scholarships), I'd go for LSE, but keeping in mind two trade-offs (which would be fine for me, but maybe not for you)):

1. As above mentioned, the equivalence exam/further study needed, once you get back to India.

2. In both Indian and British legal cultures, a number of good things in the working environment happen because of organic networking (talking with your office mates over lunch etc), which is made easier by common experiences such as being able to laugh about the character quirks of the same professors, etc. Your experiences in that regard will be completely different from your fellow professionals in the Indian environment, were you to go to LSE.

If you wanted short term barrister experience (pupillage, followed by a year or so and then returning to India for litigation practice), then definitely better to go for LSE. Other than Indian citizens who took their first law degrees (LLBs) in England, all the Indian barristers I know of in the UK are either people with Oxbridge master's and PhDs, or people like Harish Salve, who have already made their name in India and got in based on that.

The worst attitude. If you dont have bandwidth, don't speak for others with your apathy. You choose to be in a system that rewards obedience, silence and self-serving behaviour.

This is me speaking as someone who worked 10 years in a T1 and still consult for them. I go for the parties hosted by law firms. Everyone quietly whispers the same thing.

The judiciary is clogged, underperforming and worse, corrupt. The fix is in. Everyone knows that the best way to serve clients is through ministerial contacts and other means.

Even the law firm elite acknowledge the problem, if you are in the right firm. Nobody dares speak out because there are opportunities on the line and there is community of conflicting interests.

In the long-run thinking like this won't help anyone. Umar in prison is just a symptom. A highly powerful government based discretionary policies is the actual disease.

Is anyone ever truly first gen in litigation? Anyone who seems to get even remotely any traction on social media also turns out to be a cross-generational lawyer. Amish Aggarwala is the son of Adish Agarwala, in fact even Shrutunjay Bhardwaj from Law vaarta is the son of Arun and Anubha Bhardwaj, Senior Advocates and bjp cronies.

Everything behind the social media gaze is also gate kept - from chambers to clients.

Those who have interned here, is this a good place to work at? I have done Direct Tax internships since my third year but I am fairly new to Private Client. Have heard extremely mixed reviews about this place from LI. From your own experience and your friends, whats the deal here?

"abroad" is the keyword. Every single job "abroad" pays more. Be a oil rig worker in the seas, and even that pays more. Moreover your indian work experience will not cut it abroad. Here a masters and NET is considered more than enough to get you a foot in the door. Abroad a PhD is the minimum expectation. Then a few high quality publications and grants. Then you'd get somewhere.

Ajkal ke bache itne chu hai bs muh khol ke "abroad" bol dete hai, not realising that the ones who made it abroad have a much higher level of qualifications.

These examples are people who were very well known in their work, had connections and wanted to shift. These are not your random A1s who want to shift. If Tommorow a Judge, even a district court, wants to switch to academia no one will deny it. It's the prestige before the pedigree. For everyone else who thinks academia is easy, remember a PhD is mandatory and even after that there's no guarantee of a job without research publications.

LSE of course.

In any Indian law school the syllabus is backstabbing, jockeying for attention, power hierarchy, lack of everything, sarkaari classroom, teachers who think they are Roscoe Pounds but are nobody in global academic world, shitty journals that nobody reads and campuses that don't even funds to landscape their gardens.

I've got an internship at JSA's Bangalore office. I'm currently in my 4th year and wondering if it makes sense to travel all the way and spend a month there. JSA rarely gives out PPOs, and even when they do, it's after interning with them for 6 months- something that I wouldn't be able to do. In that case, it's just a look good entry on my CV, and I've been thinking of requesting a change in location. Any advice, please?

All opportunities and pathways to London are not the same. From a T-1, you can:

-> take the SQE and move directly to a Magic Circle or US law firm

-> do an LL.M. in the UK and look for positions at city firms, Magic Circle, US firms

-> do an LL.M. in the US and look for corporate positions in US firms

first year salaries (NQ) could be £50,000 at boutiques or north of £200,000 at firms that pay at Cravath scale.

Two cents of someone who spends half their life researching (Read: AI is coming for my job)

SCC: Holds true to its full form. Amazing for Supreme Court Cases, and research on general constitutional issues (Probably the MVP for college moot courts) but terrible database once you become a working professional. Haven't touched it in years.

Probably the second best search function

Manupatra: The GOAT. They got back assisted search. Probably the largest database anywhere. Obviously, this makes the search function less effective, but once you are able to understand keyword searches and operators, you have unlimited potential.

Taxmann: By FAR, the best search function of any website, period. Most relevant cases show up first, interactive timeline works flawlessly.

Unfortunate that it's database is good only for tax (not sure about competition). But every tax person can vouch for this.

Indiankanoon: The only website with a larger database than Manupatra. Greatest advantage is that it not only has judgements, but also interim orders, which are essential for litigation folk, but not offered by anyone else.

Obviously, the impossibly large database makes the search function essentially useless. Takes very specific keywords and prompts to use effectively.

Essentially whatever you're looking for is 99% there in Indiankanoon, but finding it can be like finding a needle in a haystack.

My 2 cents on AI for legal research: We will be getting screwed.. eventually.

But for now, AI can not do legal research (except select propositions of law which have a lot of material on the internet).

The benefit we have is that Indian Judgements are very poorly drafted. Oftentimes, there is no clear bifurcation between arguments advanced, excerpts from other judgements and findings of the court. You need an individual to actually read them to figure out what the ratio decendi is.

However, with another major leap, I definitely foresee research work becoming obsolete. Maybe 3-4 years.

PS: my opinion on AI is based on my use of various tools including but not limited to Jurisphere, chatgpt, Harvey and Lucio (Very invested in whether my job is becoming obsolete so went out of my way to try them out).

Hello all, I'd like to get a general idea of what firms look for in vac scheme applicant candidates. As I understand, A&O cares largely about batch rank (top 3-5% of batch); Linklaters is slightly more forgiving (top 20%) - I may be incorrect.

Beyond this, what do firms look for? A traditional CV sometimes does not have to be submitted, so how does someone stand out, and come across as a sincere candidate?

Small tip that made my life on SCC a bit more bearable: download an extension (available on any the chrome store) to auto-refresh your website. Open the extension on the SCC site and set the auto refresh to refresh every 480 seconds. The extension prevents the need to login and search afresh by fooling the SCC site into thinking that the user is still on the page. Now you don't have to worry about tedious timeouts and the lags in searching for your cases all over again. Not a solution to all of SCC's isssues, but hope this helps!

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/sc-asks-nfsu-to-examine-full-audio-clip-implicating-former-manipur-cm-n-biren-singh/articleshow/126400333.cms?from=mdr

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supeme-court-asks-govt-to-forward-entire-audio-clip-allegedly-on-former-manipur-cm-biren-singh/article70481436.ece

Remember, NFSU is the only university in the country whose reports are admissible in courts as legal evidence.

https://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/nfsu-reports-get-legal-sanctity/81856624.html

Bro I started corporate law at 29. No one is counting, but you. If deep in your heart you want to do it, go for it. If you stick with it, it has some solid money, at least by the standards of what I have seen in my family growing up. My general observation is that people who start earlier, also burn out more often or take breaks during the career. The net math of becoming partner remains the same more, or less.

Incoming associate(A0) here. I have got PPO from a practice area in which I dont see for a long time in. Is it possible to switch my practise area within the firm? I have internship experiences in the practice area I would like to switch to? Could someone please shed some light on the procedure, difficulty etc?

Come back, cause the money seems great right now but if there is no long term prospect might as well move out of their asap. Also, avoid real estate (someone v senior advised strongly against it)

Try in-house probably? or how about labour roles in a law firm wherein your current practise might be of some use? just suggesting.

on your last statement, is it though? I am in a T1 (Noida office- max tower) i see firms becoming more and more conservative in giving promotions. Especially from a PA to counsel/ partner. Even at junior level, earlier one would become a senior associate after 3 years but now across all T1 firms, they have adopted a 4 year policy.

Practise areas like IP and competition are extremely crowded: 1. because of the niche practise area 2. lot of boutique firms are present, which can provide same/similar service at a much lower cost. therefore, acquiring clients becomes even more competitive.

Additionally, since law firms dont have a set retirement age (atleast nothing on this, that i am aware of) most senior partners tend to stay put, making it difficult for the younger lot to acquire clients.

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

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

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

Responses to some potential objections:

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

2. The headache:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only ambiguous

for comparisons like these i used the analogy of apples and oranges, but henceforth i shall use lse and nalsar

if you do your UG at LSE and come back, you would need to go through the 1 year conversion course at goa and then sit for the equivalence exam (not the bar exam)

so, if your aim is to practice in India, and you do not have a godfather or mother who is a well known senior counsel, who have at least one podcast, I would suggest to do your ug in India

Another year gone by of hoping that things would change. That we would be graced by the presence of foreign law firms - a balancing market force that would democratise this hellscape of a practise area. But nope, nothing. Is MBA now the final solution. The quality of life in a city like Delhi coupled with the the reality of our jobs is heartbreaking.

Neither. If you are moving to a foreign firm, they will look at your overall work experience in India and see how much of it would be relevant to what you will be doing when you join them and usually only take into account a part of that (the rest of the Indian law experience will be written off) and assign you a PQE in their system.