Pros:

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

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

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

Cons:

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

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

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

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

People will say 'BJP was afraid' but it was probably because he couldn't digest the fact that a proper background check was mandated for him (as is done for other contemporaries of his who rose to the Bench). Writing an open letter with an undertone of 'sorry not sorry' to the CJI did not do him any favours after this either.

The Placement Scenario hasn't been too impressive with the Batch of 2025. The IPC has had some serious issues this year regarding their incompetence in securing internships or miscommunication to the students, also the whole process of internships and placements are shrouded in mystery, there's no idea as to which firms approach and which firms are being approached by the University. A sincere effort by the Batch of 2026 to bring about better placements(by way of introducing a Recuritment Coordination Committee) has been met with immense hostility from the faculties of the IPC(Internships and Placements Committee). It is confirmed that 3 of the faculties have left the university, leading to a drop in already low faculty strength.There are very few faculties who are even credible and have built great resumes' but other than that the quality of the faculties and the teaching pedagogy is utterly poor(can't lay out the details of the faculties' incompetence), add to this it is a highly centralised system of administration which means that the students are met with bureacratic slump in getting things done, add to this it is now proposed recently that in the re-admission process(for the 2nd,3rd, 4th and 5th years) the parents have to be present physically to sign some useless forms. Honestly speaking, the academic environment and placement scene seemed to improve a bit, albeit in a snail's pace during the tenure of the previous VC(who was also an NLS Faculty), but now it has hit an all time low due to the administration trying to experiment with the syllabus,academic calendar and the number of working days and the students are left to fend for themselves regarding internships and placements.

It's a security measure to ensure that you can't copy documents etc off work email to third-party apps. This is pretty standard and a lot of foreign clients expect law firms to have these measures in place. I'm not sure to what extent other Indian law firms have these processes, but please stop making it sound Orwellian.

People like you are mad funny and pretty much retarded from my perspective. I have interned with multiple ASG Offices. The scope of work which can be allocated to an intern is very less compared to the work which you will get with an AoR or any disputes team as a matter of fact. The reason being is that in these offices, the main file is pretty much ready from the get go for an ASG to argue. Most of the other ancillary work is done by the associates. You may get to observe some hearings, do some misc work and make some connections, in your case, i don't think so any associate will pay any heed to you.

Hii, I’ve completed my 3rd year from tier 2-3 university in July I'm starting my internship at Trilegal, Mumbai in September and I'm torn between teams. Given my background in IPR and non-litigation (banking & finance), I'm leaning towards exploring different options. However, my true passion lies in media & entertainment law. My parents are pushing me towards the arbitration team. Has anyone had a similar dilemma? What factors should I consider when choosing a team? Any advice would be appreciated!

Funny, because my peers who work from home in their so-called “jammies” are meeting deadlines, and completing their work. Maybe the issue isn’t people working from home… maybe it’s you assuming everyone’s as unproductive as you might be when left unsupervised, which is the same regressive thought that plagues most seniors. The "WFH thing" isn't dead, its just that the generation in power feels they cannot exploit their resources as efficiently is the resources are not in office. Constant supervision, absolute discretion and instilling fear cannot be done by the bosses if the employees are not physically present, which is why authoritarian bosses don't like WFH.

Bhai, even Harvard is not the Harvard of the US. It has always been ranked below Yale, and on par with or sometimes lower than Stanford.

Not that it makes any difference. The gulf between Tier 1 lawschools in the US and in India is so huge that it is a mockery to call NLSIU even the Georgetown of India, much less the Yale or Harvard!

So, I’m a BO’25 student, not from an NLU, Symbiosis, or Jindal, but from a private college affiliated with a state university. Despite that, I’ve managed to secure multiple Tier-1 internships and have done fairly well for myself.

Back in April, a firm I had previously interned with called me for an interview because the partner knew I was interested in working with them. The interview went well (at least in my view). It wasn’t very technical. It felt more like a conversation than a formal interview. They mostly asked HR-type questions, and towards the end, the partner even mentioned that if I received an offer elsewhere, I should let them know. Naturally, I took that as a positive sign.

They said they’d get back to me by the end of May. When I followed up in the first week of June, HR said she would check with the partner and update me. Later, she told me that they were still interviewing other candidates but that I was free to explore other options.

I just don’t get it, why can’t law firms be honest? If they don’t intend to hire someone, why not just say it outright? Why keep someone hanging? These are the same people who will be looking for Associates later on because the same fresher they hired move away to greener pastures. I honestly liked the place and was fine with the salary they were offering, I am just disappointed

Classification and valuation customs mein bhi hai lol. Also, what is wrong with that? Its like saying you only work on compliance and deals. Advisory teams have more research and opinion work. Woh krlo.

Alag kuch chahiye toh go to some random chamber and work on smuggling and confiscation cases boss.

Saw somebody posted some pretty serious stories from Legal Cheak, the UK law news website, in response to this. Here's another one which will hopefully give more laughs than the ones previously posted, but which continues reflection on the general theme of professional behaviour.

https://www.legalcheek.com/2023/02/law-student-claims-tc-interview-offer-at-us-firms-london-office-was-rescinded-after-bofadeez-nutz-voicemail/

Can someone please help me decide between these two practice areas? Also, give me pros and cons of one over another? Would really be grateful for details?

Also which is better work life balance wise? (I know law firms generally have bad wlb, but can someone tell comparatively)?

I need help regarding what relevant and important topics in TOPA does one needs to study for a fresher's interview in the transaction practice.
If anyone could help me regarding this, it would be greatly appreciated.

All the associates/senior associates/principal associates/partners, please help your fellow junior with regards to this.

Curious to know how placements have been shaping up, recently my friend mentioned that faculty exits and internal issues have affected student prospects for the batch of 25 but placements apparantly havent been that bad the past few years with SAM, Tri and LKS hiring people. for the '26 batch is any real support from the university side, or are students mostly on their own?

Don't do it. The administration and faculty are proving themselves to be absolutely incompetant and despotic. The UG Dean doesnt listen to students. In an absurd and infantilising move, they’ve now mandated that final-year law students, 22 year olds, must bring their parents to campus to fill out admission forms and attend a so-called "parent-teacher meeting."

Electives are an absolute joke. The IPC head (who also studied here lol) behaves like an insecure teenager with an unchecked ego and this has directly compromised placement opportunities. The handful of competent faculty members are either being pushed out or are leaving voluntarily, having recognised the sinking ship for what it is.

The campus itself is a nightmare, concrete and sand, a scorching 35°C most of the year with no air conditioning, barely edible mess food that causes frequent food poisoning, and a non-teaching staff so hostile it’s as if they were hired specifically to make student life miserable. If you’re non Tamil, good luck. What’s truly tragic is that despite all this, TNNLU has attracted a few truly brilliant students over the years. But their achievements whether winning moots, publications, or placements, have come in spite of the university, not because of it. Every bit of success has been self-earned, often with the administration doing everything it can to obstruct rather than assist.

Before you consider joining, speak to some alumni. The successful ones are too busy erasing this place from their memory, and the unsuccessful ones are probably stuck here, teaching.

I get your point but let me put it in a different way and we can assume that CNLU will always be better than CUSB for law but the reason for this is that only Upper middle class or say middle class can study in CNLU because the fees is high and placement are also not that good another thing is that even the fee for appearing CLAT is Rs 4000 many student can’t afford so the point is that not having poor students is a very big advantage ( No offence to anyone ) another advantage is that it is located in Patna that too in the main city and since it is law specific college it has less red tapism but the Infrastructure and faculty in CUSB is Good.

It may be worth reflecting on why the work environment makes him feel like he needs to make up ailments in order to get a day off. Would you have given him the day off if he’d cited no reasons? In a reasonable work environment you should be able to take legitimate time off (within whatever annual leave is available) without having to explain yourself.

I wouldn’t fire the guy, just explain to him that he doesn’t need to be silly about taking legit earned leave to pursue whatever his hobbies are.

First of all my intuition says that GSTAT will still take more than one year to establish, Custom matter gets you decent fees and yes the volume is low but it will grow with the size of economy unless ofcourse paperwork for import and export is decreased for the sake of ease of doing business. Direct tax is largely settled law whereas indirect tax has variety of taxes the primary one is GST now the bad thing for lawyers in GST is that the law is largely same (not exactly same) across all state and it has become comparatively easy to interpret it where as earlier during the CST and VAT regime the wording of VAT law was different for every state therefore the game of interpretation was on a very different level but still IDT is one of those practice area that if one day you decide that you want to live in your hometown IDT matters will be there maybe less in number but that is not the case with other practice areas like M&A and Capital Markets.

Stay where you are if you like the work and the environment. Just because the other firm has a more established name doesn't mean you'll be getting a similar experience, a learning opportunity or the environment. Learn from the seniors in your current firm and make a switch once you feel that the work is getting dry and there is no learning opportunity left.

Bumping this up. In the same boat. Started at Law firm M&A team. Litigation gives the change of working independently in the future, I believe it is very difficult to become work independently as a corporate lawyer. Corporate lawyers start off with good salaries, but have very less chance of an exit. No option left but keep going to the same toxic office and toxic boss. Even when you're hating your environment, a corporate lawyer has very little power to change his circumstances and has not control over time whatsoever.

Here’s the hard truth — the falling academic standards at NUJS have led to a situation where students have become indisciplined and lost respect for authority. Even JNU and Jadavpur university students, despite their rowdyism and radical politics, would not behave with a guest professor like this.

Can you think of any other university in India where students would unilaterally write to Jagdeep Dhankar’s office and retract an invitation? All because he supported a law which the Supreme Court has also not interfered with? And which now has some justification after the attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh?

Also curious how such rage disappears when it comes to seeking accountability from the admin or the state government.

I had the opportunity to attend his classes at NALSAR, both in Constitutional Law and one of the electives. He is one of the few professors who has a truly holistic understanding of the subjects he teaches. With his depth of knowledge and clarity of thought, he could easily have been an equity partner at a Tier-1 law firm or on the path to becoming a Senior Adv. But he chose academia because he really is meant to give legal education something in return.

Although our interactions were limited, what stood out to me wasn’t just his teaching (which was excellent), but his kindness as a person. There was an incident, something I would prefer not to detail, but during a hearing, he remembered something about me from two years ago and actively extended his support without even asking for it. That gesture stayed with me. That day, I saw beyond the professor and truly recognised the warmth and empathy he carries as a human being.

Also, he is very enthu, he ran several things in NALSAR from the front and back-end, which he should in NLS as well, but ofc, for next 2-3 years he should focus on completing his phD, publications and his research output which is lacking as of now as he did not do that for a long time, AND IT IS FINE.

You will usually be assigned work by associates/partners as and when they need you. They will mostly come upto you and give you work, but if you feel like you're sitting idle for an extended period of time in the day (couple of hours etc.), its best to go to the team members individually and ask if you can help them with anything.

Remember that the quality (and quantity) of work you do has the most impact on your final assessment. If no one from the team particularly remembers you or the work you did, they will not be inclined towards giving you a more permanent role.

slowly but surely, its becoming increasingly clear that i might not get a job. im from the bo26 and i’ve had a decent run - good firms, good feedback, decent cv. somehow, things still don’t look optimistic. I want to understand what my alternatives are

1. llm - a. is it worth it to do an llm from india? even from nls? what are the opportunities that one gets through an nls llm? is it limited to academia, or do firms etc also hire?

b. llm abroad is scary because i don’t want to be a crore rs poorer and 2 years older to find myself jobless again. thoughts?

2. mba - is this really viable? what are the chances? any allied degrees i can look at?