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?
1.What is the work like? At a research fellow level what sort of work can I expect?
2. What are the working hours like? Not on paper. Realistically how many hours do you put in everyday?
3. How often is it that you work on the weekends? Is working on the weekends the norm/bare minimum expected of you or is it for genuine reasons?
4. What is the pace and how much of it is driven from a fake sense of urgency? Are employees working on short deadlines because there is a genuine need for it or is the manager just messing with you?
5. How do managers treat their juniors? How is feedback given? How receptive is management to feedback?
6. What's the attrition rate like?
7. What is the pay like?
8. How is internal communication handled? Do they use google workspace/outlook etc exclusively or is this a Whatsapp and calls forward place? Additionally is there an expectation to stay available at all times?
9. Are people mean? And I don't mean public yelling but are people passive agressive? Does management openly play favorites? Are unprofessional comments the norm? How are disagreements on work put across?
10. Ever since joining Vidhi, have you had the time for personal commitments, socializing, just being a person in general or do you feel like all you've done is work, eat and sleep?
Would also love to know of other orgs doing similar work! (except for Square Circle, CLPR, CSEP, any TCF org)
You will not regret it.
Subjects like sociology, political science,History, philosophy etc become important as they cover the societal and humanitarian fields of inquiry.
This becomes particularly important as Law,as a field,is heavily intertwined with Society,Humanities and their constructs.
One cannot understand law in its full context without understanding the Societal conditions, Historical conditions,power structures etc.
Sure,one could argue that modern day capitalism especially in India,wages more focus on STEM and it's counterparts,
However,that's primarily because of its relatively easier access to the majority and higher economic conductivity.
The fields of Humanities while not offering immediate short term profits,Offers something greater to the common man.
The mechanisms through which one can understand Society,the idea of Power,The various philosophical Outlooks that change your mindset for the good etc.
The STEM fields of India are themselves in the road of brilliance,amounting to brilliant,dynamic hegemons like TCS,Infosys,HCL who are front leaders in the AI race.
In this context, understanding both STEM and Humanities becomes important.
It's no wonder that most billionaires or say even millionaires come from elite pedigree and privilege;They possess in-depth knowledge of Humanities and it's associates through the forms of cultural and social capital through which they understand the broader contexts of Life.
When you are run by Engineers and STEMtards especially in India,you risk the neglecting of important elements that balance and refine society and power.
you might get spineless institutions like IIT Delhi that remain mum while they get pegged;while colleges like NALSAR make two legal Institutions bend down and apologize.
I will wager an exception for the Medical and pharmaceutical fields who themselves are involved in the herculean task of managing the healthcare of such a nation filled with morons like you.
I know people might say that I’m asking for too much or expecting a perfect scenario, but if you could also suggest teams with a good work environment and strong mentorship, I would be really grateful. Specifically, I’m looking for opportunities in Delhi.
When Cambridge University interviewed Jason Arday for one of the most prestigious sociology positions in the world, he was an early career scholar and underqualified, by the school’s own standards.
Cambridge’s requirements, reviewed by The New York Times, called for “an outstanding research record of international stature” and a “proven successful track record” supervising Ph.D. students. Dr. Arday had a modest publication record and had bounced from one university to the next — not staying long enough to oversee a full three-year-or-more doctorate.
Cambridge hired him anyway in 2023, making him, at 37, the university’s youngest Black professor at a time when the school was under pressure to diversify. In doing so, Cambridge thrust him into the international limelight, giving him a platform at one of the world’s elite universities to champion academic diversity and making him a target for critics.
Dr. Arday was found dead in London on Friday, days after resigning from his jobamid accusations that he had plagiarized chunks of his papers, embellished parts of his recently published memoir and fabricated aspects of his life story. The controversy exploded along cultural fault lines — race, neurodiversity and academic hiring.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/15/world/europe/jason-arday-cambridge-hiring-questions.html
“The test-blind policy was a well-intentioned experiment,” she wrote, “but the reality in our classrooms shows that it has failed.” Admitting students who are unprepared, she warned, “sets them up for discouraging struggle. … We cannot afford another cycle of administrative delay.”
https://sfstandard.com/opinion/2026/08/15/uc-berkeley-sat-test-blind-admissions-math-scores/
So this brings us back to the universal debate that is waging both in India and the US: are we seriously compromising on merit if we admit people solely because they are from a lower social or economic background?
It’s also interesting that these policies are followed in the US, UK and India, but perhaps not in the EU and definitely not in countries like China, Japan, Korea. What explains this? Is it populist vote seeking that prompts these policies without much thought?
I mean the entire premise is if you want to get a job, you either go to the best universities or work for long enough that your ability and CV speak for itself, that is how it works all over the world, people at hofstra get into tier 1 finance entities due to proximity, guys from harvard do cause of their brand, do you hear about guys from university of arkansas becomming a ceo of a fortune 500 company? No right, because you have one of two routes in the world.
Expectating the best of both is ridiculous and if you didnt have either by going to a no name college is a tier 3/4 city you anyway were never contending for t1 jobs ( it should not be this way in an ideal world because there very well could be exceptional people anywhere, but that is just how the market works)
Revitalizing this thread again
Can anybody share there experience of switching practice areas?
Really need to switch from Indirect tax, any tips or experiences would help
Thanks
2. Panag & Babu Law Chambers (PBS Legal)
3. Kochhar & Co. (Dispute Resolution / White-Collar Group)
4. Bharucha & Partners (Delhi Office
2. Chambers of Sidharth Luthra (Senior Advocate)
3. Chambers of Arshdeep Singh Khurana
4. Chambers of Vijay Aggarwal
Is there any other way to apply?
As someone who has gone through this exact same thing, once you put your mind to it, this entire process is not going to take more than six months. You'll stop making mistakes, your drafts will improve, and you will eventually become the senior dealing with people making mistakes, so don't stress it.
😂😂😂
Oh man, these humanities paglus who insist that humanities are as important as STEM crack me up!
Anyone here knows what is going on?
Is this just normal attrition or has something happened internally? Seems a bit unusual for so many people to leave around the same time.
Would be interested to hear from anyone currently at Lexygen or anyone who has recently left.
The left for hiring someone who was not suitable, just to quickly meet DEI targets. Then ignoring the criticism and accusing his critics of being racist. Then disowning and condemning him once it was found that the criticisms have merit.
The right for shifting from objective criticism to mockery and ridicule, branding him as a woke DEI hire. Such things can bring shame and affect a person’s mental health.
GNLU idt anyone made it
NALSAR 5
NUJS SLSP no idea
Also is there any other recourse? Please advise.
3 in AZB (All GC)
4 In CAM
5 In King and Patridge (All Day Z)
Rest 13 are PPOs from long term internships
5 CAM (3 Real Estate, 1 GC, 1 Disputes)
1 SAM (GC)
3 KCO (All Real estate)
1 JSA (Employments)
2 Trilegal (1 Cap marks, 1 Infrastructure)
1 Poovayya (Disputes)
even within BCI there are few who can take on MM
only the cockcroaches can take him on, perhaps a twitter poll by the CJP handle asking if he should resign would be sufficient for MM's malik to drop him, he has finished his usability and if one looks at the loose cannon that he is (and the damage he can do the brand) mota bhai may decide that its better to cut him loose
There in no mandatory internship.
Difference:
- National institutions
- Strong faculty
- Top business people in the country on governing bodies, especially IIMA
- Alumni actively involved and have a seat in the governing body
- No disruptive students and profs fighting woke culture wars
Compare with NLUs: absolute clown show, barring NLSIU to an extent under Sudhir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6qrYLlHy0s
This Man has been made. Quite self made actually. Let's just help nature and let gravity do the rest.
With a few exceptions, same goes true for IP too: most TMT lawyers are fairly well versed with copyright law because you need that everytime you advise on content related media / ad laws, including basic aspects like software/content licensing, ownership over AI-generated content, ad advisories, endorsement deals etc. What TMT teams don't typically also do is things like trademark registrations or patent filings or disputes on these. That's typically handled by an IP team. Very specific partners do all of this, and that's typically what is referred to as a 'TMT/IP' team. And yes, everything in my previous comment continues to squarely apply to these teams too - it's too small and niche a market, there's not enough partners, and noone wants to hire a fresher outside of PPOs. You'll have 50x more chances at M&A, if you pivot. Maybe you still want to do this - and I can respect that and related to it, but you should know the facts before you take that decision. All the best.
Fundamentally, any master's course/certification/diploma at that stage of your career is not meant to demonstrate legal competence - that is assumed at that stage (and even if it isn't, noone expects any law school to actually impart the practical legal skills needed to be a GC).
So obviously, a place that has better creds for an MBA was chosen. It would've been absurd for CAM to invest into DOMS, Nalsar without there being a steady track record of successful alumni or interest.
Manan Mishra lowered the Bar with NALSAR threat. Shouldn't he pay for it?' https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bci-nalsar-row-supreme-court-questions-manan-mishra-order-bar-council-india-cji-surya-kant-2971115-2026-08-14
==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================
So you agree that there is not a single NLU that can align with and help law firms to be run as businesses.
I’m keen to learn the practical aspects of litigation, especially court procedures and drafting nuances, from someone with regular practice.
If anyone can point me towards a lawyer in Delhi who might be open to having a student intern/assist them, I’d be really grateful.
TIA!
waiting for FSR, B&F, TMT, Corporate, Disputes, Insolvency, etc
2. There is a comprehensive argument to study each and every one of the subjects you have listed, but I am going to give you a pretty persuasive one for only one of them: philosophy. Here's an article from The Economist, 24th June 2026. It tells you everything you need to know. If you think about it, you are the one who looks like an idiot, not anybody else.
Why big AI labs are hiring so many philosophers
The technology presents all sorts of thorny problems—a philosopher’s favourite kind
Jun 24th 2026
Ten years ago, as the ai revolution was gathering pace, arts and humanities students were told that, if they wanted to make themselves employable, they should “learn to code”. That may have been bad advice. These days, it is programmers who are nervous about ai taking their jobs.
They might consider learning to philosophise. Earlier this year the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published figures showing that American philosophy graduates are more likely to have jobs than their peers who studied computer science. In 2024, the most recent year for which numbers are available, 7% of those who had studied computer science were unemployed, against just 5.1% of philosophers.
Many are being snapped up by ai firms themselves. Students get job offers before they have graduated, says Luciano Floridi, a philosopher at Yale University. Academics are moving, too. Dr Floridi describes the scale of departures from philosophy departments as a “haemorrhaging”.
Some of the lessons that philosophy can offer ai researchers are ancient. The Socratic method—as described by Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher—uses feigned ignorance and sequential questioning to clarify meanings, spot contradictions and reveal ramifications. Many current ai systems tend towards sycophancy. Models trained in the Socratic method, says Jörg Noller, an expert on philosophy and ai at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, are less keen on people-pleasing and more willing to pursue the truth.
Then there is the idea of “Socratic ignorance”. In the “Apology”, Plato has Socrates claim that his wisdom consists mostly of being aware of how much he does not know. Implanting that humility into a model can help limit overconfidence, a common flaw that Dr Noller describes as “ai immaturity”. Iason Gabriel, a senior philosopher at Google DeepMind, an ai lab based in London, attributes an industry-wide decline in hallucinations to such efforts. More broadly, he says, philosophy lessons are “a powerful mechanism” for improving long ai reasoning processes known as “chains of thought”.
Philosophical training can also affect a model’s outlook in more specific ways. Feed an ai legal assistant the writings of John Locke, says Thomas Powers, a philosopher of technology at the University of Delaware, and it will favour robust property rights as an underpinning of political liberty. And if you don’t like those principles, the model-makers have others. The “Granite” series of models from ibm, an American computing giant, come with dials that let business customers better align outputs with their own corporate philosophies. Francesca Rossi, ibm’s head of responsible ai, says these can let users choose where to strike the balance between philosophical trade-offs, such individual agency versus social harmony.
Philosophy can help with safety, too. Researchers have documented all sorts of ominous behaviour in ai models, including attempts to evade oversight and even blackmail their users. One way model-makers try to discourage this sort of misbehaviour is called ai constitutionalism. This involves building a model around a scaffolding of rules and principles culled from philosophical writings with legal or moral authority.
Anthropic, an ai lab based in San Francisco, is one proponent. Constitutions for its Claude models have incorporated material from sources as diverse as Immanuel Kant, Apple’s terms of service and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The latest iteration, led by Anthropic’s top philosopher, Amanda Askell, was published on January 21st. Some staff at Anthropic have nicknamed the 78-page constitution Claude’s “soul doc”.
The biggest question, though, is what sorts of rules should be put in those constitutions in the first place. Philosophers have zeroed in on two main ethical frameworks. One is deontology. Popular with Kant, among others, this imposes strict rules that prohibit things like lying, coercion and treating people as a means rather than an end, even if it is for a greater good. Anthropic’s constitution incorporates many deontological strictures. These can make ai behaviour more consistent, says Dr Powers—a plus for deploying robots in homes and public spaces.
Models with a deontological take on the world have other benefits. One is greater honesty, a trait widely noted in Claude. Models that are more truthful, says Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, are less likely to mislead their users. Inflection ai, another Silicon Valley lab, imposes deontological constraints onto its Pi chatbot, which is designed to provide emotional support. Sean White, its boss, says Pi is good at spotting users at risk of harming themselves or others. Deontological constitutions also help with legal compliance, says Dr Floridi.
The other approach to ethics of interest to philosophers of ai is called consequentialism. It weighs costs against benefits to decide what to do. Models more sympathetic to consequentialism include OpenAI’s Chatgpt and Google’s Gemini. Google’s ai models are designed to produce “likely overall benefits [that] substantially outweigh the foreseeable risks”, a classic consequentialist goal.
Consequentialist algorithms are also crucial in software for autonomous vehicles: if an accident is unavoidable, a decision must be made on the least tragic way to crash. Chris Gerdes, a senior engineer at Waymo, which makes self-driving cars, says the trend is to make driving software more consequentialist. Consequentialism is also central to ai weapon systems. Military objectives must be weighed against possible civilian deaths, says Jack Shanahan, a former head of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Centre, which studies ai for America’s armed forces.
Thorny problems abound—a philosopher’s favourite sort. Are there cases when deontological rules should be overridden? How do you make decisions when the consequences are unclear? Should ai systems take into account animal welfare, or the state of the environment? Would it be morally acceptable, asks Stefan Heck, a philosopher and the boss of Nauto, which makes ai-powered safety systems for lorries and other commercial vehicles, to prioritise young pedestrians over old ones? He predicts ethically fraught lawsuits: consequentialist algorithms, after all, explicitly permit one harm as long as it is designed to avert a worse one.
Critics fret about “moral deskilling”: if computers increasingly make ethical calls, might people become less willing to make their own judgments? Roman Yampolskiy, an ai theoretician at the University of Louisville, argues that morality “is historically unstable, culturally variable, strategically manipulable, and often only retrospectively legible”. Unemployed coders take note: there seems to be no shortage of work for philosophers of ai. ■
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/06/24/why-big-ai-labs-are-hiring-so-many-philosophers
3. This commentary of yours also displays a profoundly ignorant understanding of how university governance works. It also displays something shocking: an inability to read a two-page article.
(a) As somebody has written on LinkedIn, nobody in western higher ed making these kinds of decisions about cuts really wants to do this. There are external pressures on university finances (in the case of the UK, perhaps also in the U.S. case, I don't know) and regulatory pressures (in the U.S.). That person in fact said very beautifully that trying to get into these stupid and reductive conversations about defending the humanities with administrators which you have raised is pointless, because it is preaching to the quire.
(b) The earlier point is justified if you actually read the article. Neither you nor the OP seem to have done. They have given a breakdown of who was asked to go. Mainly admin positions. So even what Harvard is actually doing does not seem to be supporting this absolutely stupid crap that has been published here.
Moderators, the fact that you didn't point this out in the case of the OP commentary (by use of a 'trollish' tag or at least a 'contested') is pretty surprising to me. If only the article had been posted without commentary, I would have understood. But commentary has been posted clearly pointing in the direction of an opinion.
what is the legal basis (appropriate section or rule) for the BCI to intervene?
if this is allowed to stand, can BCI tomorrow stop enrolment of a law student who puts forward any politically inconvenient views?
what is the objective standard of determination of what hurts the public confidence in the profession?
no whatsapp forward please; the notice does not really illustrate any meaningful regulatory foundation, a few sections are thrown about and a case is cited, classic pray and spray, hoping something will stick
10 from NLUJ
4 from GNLU
3 from NLS
What are the numbers for NALSAR, NUJS, SLSP,