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?
IT/Product background that too at any top companies - some TMT and Gen Corporate practices would consider you a good hire.
But work’s increased ten folds, so, lately, I’ve been waking up every morning in mild panic half expecting it to be noon just to find that it’s barely 9 am (which is about the right time to start your day, I guess).
Coming from different legal education systems and colleges of the country, I have realized that five-year LLB courses are quite long and must shrink to four years. This four-year course should be professional and in sync with the courts, subject-wise. I strongly believe in this way, both students and the legal industry will be benefitted. Considering the current scenario, if a student has five years of bachelor in law, then five years of practice, which makes ten long years. When will a student settle? Just like medical or engineering, undergraduate law courses must be shrunk to four years. Also, during this period, students should be directly attached with courts or lawyers, so that they attain practical knowledge.
All this feels like a sponsored attempt to malign a person!!!!!!!
Wow nobody spoke when there was no proper principal for 25 years and when things are happening better people complain just because they are not allowed to do internship! Grow up kid
Come out of this keyboard warrior mindset!
And yes doing internship is just picking up files and taking it here and there! What do u even actually learn!! Do u even have foundational knowledge built properly! Ur a student not a person who will learn something by practice! U know what a person who tries only to learn by practice is called! A labour!!!!
They have no other work to do!!
Look calling urself a “Helpless and Depressed student of GLC” means you have nothing else in your life to do!
U have based your entire identity on the college! And all u need is the college to get better so u can get out of depression! Grow up kid ! And get mature! All this nonsense must be stopped! U under the power of anonymity feel that starting an outrage against the college will gain you your self respect and remove u out of ur so called depression and helplessness! Seriously!!!
Being helpless becuz of a college doesn’t make any sense!!!
And ranting and starting an outrage is all you have done! Instigating people for something!!
Putting allegations is real easy but having any substance i dont feel so!
And its funny calling yourself a helpless and depressed human!! Seriously how can a college make u that????
Is it possible to directly ask firms for an assessment internship? what are some firms that are hiring?
please shed light on the salaries of disputes teams in T1s/2s/3s etc, for A0s through partners.
how different is it from corp?
This is for Delhi Bombay Tax teams
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/07/gen-z-screens-human-generation-online
Nevertheless, our clashes started because of atleast 12hr. working hours 7 days a week apart from the requirement to work some hours (which are not even considered) at home, unimaginable deadlines, even they make me draft arbitration awards for dumb ad-hoc arbitrators without even considering the gravity of work just to keep pressurizing with incomprehensive deadline.
I have two fold reasons that I want to shift:
1) I could have considered starting my own practice, but, even though I'm good at work, I have noo contacts. I have seen my senior that sometimes he fucks up the work of any client but they come to him because he portrayed himself to be personally attached with them, all these soft tactics to mislead, liaisoning and good network, owing to his past, has helped him to tragect and maintain his practice. My fear is that if I will leave this office, which I have to leave if I want to just live my life even as a human, I will loose my income and I have no contact as to how to grab my initial client. The initial clients also evade to pay a afresh advocate and I have any things to take care of with my money in my personal life at this age.
2) I am really interested in arbitration and commercial litigation, but, I have seen enough of arbitrations pertaining to building contracts, road laying, bridge construction, partnership, dealership, turnkey contract of electricity. I have no contact in any law firm, so I'm wondering as to how to get into a good law firm with varied arbitration and commercial litigation clientele along with financial security.
Again, Thx a lot for your response.
Now, if we approach towards the receiving enormous internship/job applications that only indicates difference in supply and demand of legal work and jobs, which firm/ chambers are exploiting. Gone are times where people accede to toxic work culture, peanuts pay, no real work etc
BTW, brother I have PQE of 3+ years consistently in the same fora.
Oh and about sticking around, it has become very hard now, since all these years, I have done most of the challenging drafting of the chamber, and now mostly I do drafting. There is 12 hr. working 7 days a week, apart from that I could be constrained to work at home as well at times. Sometimes, sleeping for just 4 hrs. or no sleep for 24 hrs. a day. I receive directions to extend and expand unnecessary contents in a draft, literally unnecessary things, that too in short time and unthankful and manipulative senior. So, it has become hell to work here.
Thx a lot for your response.
so ignorant all this is.
In terms of the future of the institution, we have an unusual situation where the top brass are all all human rights and public law people, but the job market is tilted toward commercial law subjects and most of the students want jobs in that area. Further, Naveen Jindal has now joined the BJP and the college is completely tilting towards the right. So a fundamental contradiction here!
However my NLU’s support is non existent and I’m a first gen so my network is quite small. Any suggestions alongside the relevant contact details would be greatly appreciated.
I can work 75-80hours a week if the workplace seem to have a scope for placement in future. (or atleast if the stipend is handsome :P)
menrightsindia.net
For similar stories.
** Before bhakts start pouncing on me and saying that Tai has removed income tax for this bracket, we pay GST on everything, even health insurance. Then road tax, swach Bharat cess, property tax etc etc.
Is it to suit its US clients with a more global English sounding name? Or is it a distraction from the fact that most senior partners/ lawyers have left the firm, within a span of less than a year?
Such a high churn rate (even at senior levels) for a small firm seems to be unusual.
For six months, India's markets have slid as foreign investors pulled out, valuations remained high, earnings weakened and global capital shifted to China - wiping out $900bn in investor value since their September peak. While the decline began before US President Donald Trump's tariff announcements, they have now become a bigger drag as more details emerge.
…..
"Now, we are in the midst of a massive economic crisis for the middle-class. On the one side, white-collar job opportunities are reducing, and raises are low. On the other, the real inflation faced by middle-class households - as opposed to the average retail inflation that the government compiles - is at its highest in recent memory. A stock market correction at such a time is disastrous for middle-class household finances."
….
This correction is a much-needed wake-up call for those who entered the market just three years ago, enjoying 25% returns - that's not normal," says Ms Halan. "If you don't understand markets, stick to bank deposits and gold. At least you have control."
What's the state of the above mentioned fields?
Any other different paths that you'd recommend?
For more details you can refer to this thread: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/408586-NLU-JODHPUR-WHAT-TO-LOOK-FORWARD-TO-
Do let me know if you have any other questions.
It's 11.5LPA. Is that true? Seems a bit too optimistic. Could anyone shed some light on this?
Would really appreciate if someone could talk about thier internship experience at either of the two firms as well
In your first paragraph, you say that I think disagreements never lead to anything meaningful. That is false. What I said was that there is a certain kind of a discourse (usually liberal but not exclusively so) that makes a fetish of disagreement to the point that it confuses all instances of people disagreeing among each other as positive signs of diversity, rationality, and competence. My position is only that some disagreements are meaningful and others are not.
In your second and third paragraphs, you refer to the history of modern sciences. I think any serious student of this fascinating history will surely be aware of Feyerabend’s Against Method where Galileo is prominently discussed. And while I do commend your vain attempt to draw some kind of epistemic analogy between Galileo and my argument(s), I do not think you have succeeded at all in the endeavour. You accuse me of being a moral absolutist and cite that as a flaw in my position(s). Well, anyone who has ever found themselves in the position of having to actually take a decision has to — in the moment of doing so, at the very least — be a moral absolutist. The privilege of pretending that none knows better — that what is “right”/“good” is not one, indivisible attribute and that the will to act in order to satisfy that “right”/“good” is a delusion of men pretending to be gods — is nothing but intellectual and moral cowardice of those relativists who underestimate the intelligence of their own species and confuse the peace of living in a society that has no fundamental values of its own — which it can define and fight for — with rationality. But it is not so. Immanuel Kant, among others, have argued, in great detail, the necessity and the inevitability of the human need and will to define their “good” and to act upon it. It represents far from simple arrogance of the ego. If anything, it is an act of great responsibility to define what is “good” and to then make the ultimate sacrifice of all that is pleasurable and trivial in human experience in order to achieve and realise that “good”. That is what beings like Galileo did and your misunderstanding of their moral and intellectual enterprise greatly distresses me.
In your fourth paragraph, you accuse me of reducing your positions to a strawman. But since you yourself admit that ideology is not the primary agent of change and meaning in human affairs and which is precisely the point that I have been making all along, I really do not see how I have misrepresented you. Perhaps I am guilty of compelling you to clarify your position from the jumbled mess that it originally was but I will let others be the judge of that.
In your fifth paragraph, now that is what is called a strawman, except you are doing it to me. As I have repeatedly said before to the point of exhaustion, some disagreements are meaningful and exciting because they clarify our facts and/or methodological frameworks, and some disagreements are lacklustre precisely because they contribute little-to-nothing and indeed, only further serve to obfuscate. And while I am happy that you have come around to accepting my position on this, it does you little good to now accuse me of being “suspicious” and acting in “bad faith”. This is an unfortunate example of the kind of disagreement I have previously called as absurd and lacklustre since I have never even suggested that just because not every disagreement is sensible that one should use that as an excuse to ridicule or mistreat others. What I have argued is to be critical in assessing the worth of knowledge as it develops through confrontation. It is pitiful that that you should have had to stoop so low in order to make a pointless point.
In your sixth paragraph, you say that poverty and famine are “difficult problems to solve”. I will need you to elaborate on what you mean by “difficult” here. Is it the act of defining what is poverty and what is famine? Is it the complexity of governance through which we respond to them? Or is it the simple incompetence and ordinary corruption of human personality that is the problem? But here you also contradict what you said earlier in your fifth paragraph. Like a lapsed believer, you cannot help but cling to (your) ideology. It is apparently impossible for you to see disagreements as anything but instances of ideology. While I am more than happy to say that I take no exception to people of different intellectual outlooks coming together to solve a problem, I find it unnecessary your insistence of reducing everything human to ideology. It is almost as if you are afraid that your own ideology should not be left out from the debate. I understand your anxiety but I do not think it is relevant here.
In your seventh paragraph, you re-state — what you falsely accuse me of mis-stating — your own mis-statement of my position. I must say, I admire the audacity with which you accuse me of doing what you have already done to me. Again, as stated so many times now, I never said that all disagreements are worthless. Indeed, it is only natural that human beings should think differently about the kind of reality in which they live and the kind of actions that are possible in it. But the possibility of possibilities is not a contradiction of geometry. Different experiences of human beings, while being valuable in themselves, are not proofs against gravity. The solution to hunger is simple and absolute. The struggle is in making that solution tangible and sustainable. It is a struggle of human personalities, of ambition and apathy, of consensus and corruption. My position is not a rejection of ideology itself but that of its centrality, its primary relevance in the nuts and bolts of a discourse. You can still disagree with my formulation here but what is the sense in distorting my actual position? But it seems this is the only way you think you now possess to respectably exit this conversation by reducing me to a strawman.
Finally (whew!), in your eighth paragraph, you seem to be channeling your rage from somewhere else upon me since I have never claimed to be an anti-oil activist, or of any other kind for that matter. For what it’s worth, I am happy (at long last!), in this instance, to agree with you. The anti-oil activists you referred to are a tragic example of how one should never argue. Their contribution to the discourse does not outlast the moment in which it is conceived.
I understand that after reading my response, you may think I have again done all the things you have (falsely, I assure you) accused me of doing. But I have not (I assure you, again) and I hope you will extend to me the same courtesy. I have being enjoying this conversation (up to a point) and I eagerly await your reply. But I do expect better arguments. Until then, good day/night to you, dear fellow.
1. Trilegal- Kosturi Ghosh & Wiseroy Damodaran
2. Argus Partners- Jitendra Soni & Ankit Guha
3. Indus Law
4. Quillon Partners- Namrata Sinha
Thanks!
Of course you love yourself, as does every narcissist. Good for your family too, if you have one that is. And no, we don't want your 'priceless' advice for which we wouldn't shell a penny. Perhaps if you had learnt to refrain from offering your unsolicited advice to every stranger you come across, people might have thought better of you.
If you dismiss committees as useless, your argument weakens, leaving only a rant. Instead, approach this systematically. Every element matters, but balance is key. You can’t push for change while ignoring the necessity of a structured system—especially when concern was absent as long as the lack of structure was convenient. It’s as if mismanagement wasn’t a problem until it started affecting comfort, and only then did it become a concern.
If you have so much problem with college change your college from 2nd year, nmims or NLU as you suggested , go there please.
I myself have problem with the college but just bcoz your attendance is weak and some faculty doesn’t allow you to write exam, then the college is bad???
Just classic example of blaming the situation and putting the blame on someone else.....with no accountability of self... i have friends who have graduated from GLC... who said 10 years back too there were hardly any lectures held... old faculties have gone, so new are hired, laws updated in last 3 to 5 years, new rules and laws added, and u would want writer of the constitution to be your faculty .
Give a wide berth to women in office.
Find meaningful relationships outside.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/propalestine-students-face-crackdown-at-columbia-university-donald-trump-s-role-questioned-101741268647248.html
the post straight up stating "throw WLB out for ten years" "available at all times" is what is scary.
i hope things change but at the same time with the constant growing population of india, it is bleak even if the younger generations stands up for it as hard as they can.
Get off your high horses assuming you're delivering top notch work and need to be treated well. Because - spoiler alert. It ain't true.
All of physical science evolved by people disagreeing about how to collect data, how to interpret it and how to test their hypothesis. Very good people disagreed with each other about whether the earth revolved around the sun or not. Galileo was persecuted by the emperors of his time because he said the earth revolved around the sun and proposed a helio-centric model.
The lesson you take from Galileo is that everyone should have had the implicit knowledge that the earth did revolve around the sun (even though Galileo was heretical for thinking so) and should have dismissed, condescended to, and ignored any opposition. The way you think about these questions would assume that we all know what the right thing to do is and we should all act on it. The truth is, we don't all know what the right thing to do is. No one knows what the right thing to do is—we're humans and not gods. What we can do is through free and open debate come to an agreement about some facts. In a world where heretics are ignored or persecuted, we would not have most of modern medicine, we would be giving heroin to babies for a cold and not have any knowledge of what a gene or an atom is.
Youre drawing a strawman by saying that I think ideology holds all answers—thats explicitly not my position. My argument is that no ideology- not right left or middle- holds any answers. So if we're really invested in solving problems,. Solving problems rather than virtue signalling, then we shouldnt shy away from freely discussing how different people view problems and what solutions might or might not work.
Just because some disagreements are unproductive- take the flat earthers in 2020s- does not mean we begin from a place that treats disagreements as suspicious or from a place where we characterise our opponents poorly. Doing that—what you're doing in this discussion now—thats a bad faith argument.
Everyone in the whole damn world wants to end poverty and famine. The fact that we havent done so already doesnt indicate some apathy in society, it indicates that poverty and famine are difficult problems to solve. And we will not solve these complex problems by writing off arguments because they come from a certain ideology. we will not solve these problems by ignoring the experiences and data produced by people not considered ideologically pure enough.
I never said implementation or details dont matter. What a silly little strawman youve created. All I said was that the idea that every good faith disagreement would only boil down to details and implementation and there are no good faith disagreements to be had about how we view the world is silly.
Theres no point at all to gluing your hand to a road and screaming "just stop oil" if you do not want to have an adult conversation about how we conserve the environment while continuing to pull millions out of poverty. Just stop oil activists are very convinced that anyone who disagrees with them does so because theyre evil ghouls who do not care about the world. And that entertaining disagreement there is to give in to some thought control or liberal navel gazing. Its neither. They simply have a world view entirely devoid of nuance and depth and imagine that they can scream complex problems into a solution and that anyone who disagrees with them must be an evil facist.
Not like BITS or Amity is any better though
I honestly think the problem is that the moderators themselves seem to be students who lack maturity. They seem to be unable to behave in a fair manner. Perhaps some adults in the room need to step in to moderate.
If there are genuine greivances- against scam courses or professors- the appropriate place to bring it up is with your VC/ Dean. Follow an internal process.
Its not the professors job to make you know the information. Its your job. Its the professors job to know the information himself and to be available for guidance, do the needful in classes, evaluate your work. Thats it.
You wont become a good lawyer if its done in any other way. Cause a legal education doesnt end at university.
If youre not able to keep up with that- maybe you shouldnt be a lawyer- maybe you want an easier less challenging life- go work in a bank or run a restaurant.