Very true. I have heard the worst of their projects team. Nobody in their right mind should be joining their team. If somebody has joined, they should ideally (for their physical and mental health), leave the offer.

However, IBC team is great. But comes with longer working hours. But still better than others

Private colleges cannot use Indian-Bhartiya-National for their competitions. I am from a NLU but this seems a wierd discussion to have for BCI let alone make a finding

Link: http://t.ly/vFq_0

South Delhi flats are a mess. I’m past living like a bachelor, in a room barely 15 sq. m. I’ll save rent in Faridabad. I know that the commute will be a butch but hopefully the new Faridabad bypass will be a game changer. I think many senior advocates, partners travel from Gurgaon to DHC every day? Is their commute 1+ hour as well? How long of a commute are you okay with?

"For starters support your seniors in LLM, PhD and AP, that's your Gen Y. Yet you continue to mock them. Why would they have any sympathy towards you ?"

Although I disagree with the general tone of your whole comment, this part is exceptionally true. One will only reap what one sows

https://www.barandbench.com/news/bci-suggests-20k-stipend-junior-advocates-urban-15k-juniors-in-rural-areas

Just trying to do the math. I googled and saw that the average Zomato delivery boy earns 20K a month. So I guess the standard of living for a junior lawyer with that stipend will be similar to that of a Zomato delivery boy? I would calculate that as follows:

- living in a shared room in a PG or slum at Rs 11K a month, including price for gas and filtered water

- Rs 4K a month on bread, milk, vegetables and Parle G biscuits: maybe chicken/meat/fish once a month

- Rs 500 a month on bathing and toiletries (can bathe on alternate days to save costs)

- Rs 1,000 to 2,000 a month on transport, depending on location

- Rest on mobile bills, emergencies etc.

Works?

Hello everyone. I am a former legal practitioner with over 15 years of experience in the legal field. I can say partner make anywhere from the range of 1 CR to 8 CR basis their senorita, you also have to understand the fact that even a sum of 100 cr is nothing for the legal kings and queens, work hard, gossip harder.

People use "the non nlu" tag more than the NLU tag.

It feels like people have made a conceptual victim out of the "non nlu" thing. You'd see conversations where people think that they deserve jobs because they are from an non nlu.

They make it seem like that the only thing stopping them from becoming a big time lawyer is their college. However most Senior Advocates, Partners, GCs are from Non nlus.

People mask their failures by blaming NLUs whereas the fact is most people from all colleges are largely just stupid

1- monthly salary which can be decent if they are well funded; and

2. - selling their shares and amassing a good sum in one go if people are interested in buying the shares at those valuations

that's it?

so they basically draw a normal salary till they can exit fully or partially? if they don't want to exit, they take loans against their shares and spend that money?

Format -- Income after tax: car/watch/perfume /shoe (e.g. 20 lakhs Dzire/Tissot/CK/Woodland)

So can you help me with these income levels:

Rs 20 lakhs: Which car/watch/perfume/shoe?

Rs 30 lakhs: Which car/watch/perfume/shoe?

Just trying to understand what brands one should use to fit in better with the crowd. Thanks.

Interned at a famous law firm's Bangalore office in my 4th year. I was in the M & A team and there was a new group of fifth year girls interning with the disputes team. The 40 year old bald and married partner had his eye on one of them right from the very beginning and was making very lewd jokes with them ryt from the start. By the end of my internship he got into some sort of tacit understanding with the girl, they came to office together and left together and had insane chemistry (tbvh) and I overheard insane rumours. When I went back there for my callback few months later, she had a job there, and I overheard a few seniors mumbling and complaining that she was untrained. Still continues to work there and I heard that the partner has basically seperated from his wife and not divorcing only to avoid hurting his reputation among parents/relatives.

Apologizes in advance for this rant, but I had to vent this out somewhere. In 10th and 12th I had very good grades and was among top 5 of my batch. Due to various reasons including Covid-19 and online classes I became very complacent, and treated my first CLAT attempt as a joke. Then got into a state uni by acing state law entrance. Was not concerned about my future or higher studies, so did not retake CLAT again.

Currently I am on the brink of entering my 4th year and I have realized that I have no hopes in this sea of mediocrity. Whether it's for BCL or LLM from a prestigious university you need to have a good CGPA in your undergrad. My mediocrity when combined with horseshit valuation which rarely give marks about 70 to any student, means that max I can get even if I improve is around 6.4/10 CGPA.

Even my CV is mediocre with internships being with 4 goverment orgs + 2 Tier law firms, 1 publication in a mid journal and tons of free certifcate courses.

To make matters worse I am a first gen lawyer with no close relatives in law. Even the contacts I have are at SA level and at most can only arrange me an internship.

How I wish I could turn back 3 years into 2021...Or can I?....I have registered for CLAT 2025 this December. Here I require your opinions, what do you think I should do in the bleak scenario where I get NLSIU or NALSAR? Should I go? Also another question, this time to recruiters and law firms proffesionals, will my age at passing (26) be a problem during Day Zero?

This is true. This place has not learned anything from the EY tragedy. You are targeted, demeaned and ridiculed at, when you start taking care of your health. For them you are simply a machine who is supposed to work 18-20 hours a day or even more, without any weekend, sleep or rest. This way, not only your mental health (which for sure is going for a toss) but even your physical health goes for a toss. There are many recent unfortunate examples.

Absolutely not. You can stay here for decades and still "demand" respect in the society just cause you're a vakeeeel. It's the most pathetic profession that requires zero efforts. If people find out how better ADR is, they wouldn't need lawyers. Just like how corps are finding out CAs are better corp-tax lawyers than lawyers.

I joined a law firm about a year ago and was immediately put on several matters, which is exactly what I wanted. At first, I was really excited about the workload because it felt like a step up from my previous job, which was pretty bad. But things quickly spiraled. The long hours were tough, almost everything was unfamiliar, and I started making a lot of mistakes.

Initially, my team was really supportive, trying to train me and get me up to speed. But after a while, I could sense their frustration building. I just wasn’t able to match the performance of other associates, and now I feel like I'm constantly walking on eggshells. I can see them losing patience with me, and I’m terrified that I’m on the verge of being fired.

Has anyone else been in this situation? Any advice on what I should do to turn this around, or how to handle the anxiety of potentially getting let go?

Bhoumick’s team is committed to consistently deliver to their clients needs through their expertise and diligence. He has cultivated dynamic and inclusive culture within the team promoting teamwork and collective success. He is also an inspiring mentor, guiding and developing the next generation of lawyers.

For that we need internships. I had applied to hundreds of firms but got no response. I'm guilty of not applying properly though. I am improving my applications now and thinking only if I had applied appropriately earlier I may have got those who knows but no regrets. Whatever comes in, I'll pull through

I truely do not wish to dismiss your life experiences and can certainly understand that there is (and should be) genuine feeling here, but can I ask in good faith if I am the only one who feels like the author of this post failed to entirely resist the temptation of getting AI to help him?

1. Work life balance is pretty good compared to Indian tier 1. Most days are 10 hours or less.

2. Lawyers get paid equivalent to Investment Bankers and consultants. Basically MBA folks and law folks are equal.

True or false or a detailed explanation of it depends.

Most of the times, people who've been through shit and toxic bosses decide to pass it on to juniors. This is what happened with me when the SA I used to work with the most was passive-aggresive and routinely complained about me to the Partner, whenever given an opportunity, while never confronting me directly. She herself had been through major mental health issues in her previous firm. Instead of speaking to me, she decided to make my life miserable.

I fully understand how this is going to sound, but law firms need to start coming to terms with the fact they aren't the always the number 1 option. As someone currently in one of the T-1s it's legitimately just started to get frustrating how many times Recruitment Committees get flak from firms because the firm hasn't gotten applications from the "Top-20" students in a batch.

1. It feels like every firm wants the same 10/15 students to send their applications, and even taken at face value, it's impossible for the top rankers to apply for all of them. Because firms tend to get even more upset if someone withdraws after selection because they've got an internship elsewhere and don't offer replacement spots. So committees are forced to open internships only after

2. The focus on ranks is so unnecessarily arbitrary. It feels like all firms care about is the number next to your name, firms don't seem to care that a lower ranking candidate got a really good grade in the course of the field they want to work in / have prior work experience in the field, it's all just rank. Why does someone's corporate law grades / work experience matter less than their rank which gets affected by all sorts of irrelevant things - such as History / Sociology grades in BA LLB degrees.

3. It's frustrating to see that you generally have to be decently smart and hardworking to get into a T-1 law school as is, but even if you make it, that doesn't matter. Why is ranking let's say 50 at NLS/NALSAR/NUJS considered not good enough to be considered for an internship interview?

4. Some of these firms demanding top-20 ranks aren't even T-1 firms, which is when it gets especially ridiculous because they'll refuse to give a single spot to the people who did take the time out to apply to them on the basis that they didn't get top-ranker applications

Newsflash: they will simply never get top rankers because top rankers don't want to intern with them. And by rejecting the students that have taken the time out to apply (often times insulting them by fighting with recruitment committees on why no "good" applications have been submitted) and hope for an internship there, all they do is generate further bad-will in a potential future employees.

It genuinely just feels frustrating working hard, but being punished just because you aren't at the absolute top of your class. Someone is always going to be a lower rank - someone is always going to be outside the top-20, and firms need to start looking past this one goddamn marker because there is a talent pool that exists beyond that that's worth a shot.

Did you paid them the fee when you handed them the file? Because no one is gonna read the file for free bro. Be it allahabad or Bombay. Also being from a tier one law college won't do shit in litigation. I frequently see lawyers from tier one law colleges and they are destroyed here at HC. Seen numerous alumnis of Tier one colleges who joined litigation but chickened out and quit.

I know a shady woman lawyer at Allahabad hc, lucknow bench who was the gf of a judge. She was her junior. The judge got her made a standing counsel. She remained a government lawyer for 20 years and retired as Additional government advocate, a kind of high gov post. She was very rude and downright arrogant. Even her name was sent for judgeship at one point but was rejected by collegium since it lacked merit. Now after retirement she comes to court and argue whatever few matters she had. Another such female lawyer was in live in relationship with an IPS and ALLAHABAD HC has pronounced a famous judgement of live in relationship on her personal case. She's currently dating another married Additional advocate general. She herself is married.

Honest question; what do leaders and people in management value more- technical competency or syncopancy? In my limited experience it has mostly been the latter. You have given sound advice and to an extent I follow that, but I guess it has never worked for me atleast. It seems that quite often than not it's such class of individuals that succeed at the workplace. Honest and hardworking people always get mistreated by their superiors and nobody recognises their work unless they shout and tell the world. Law, in my humble opinion seems to be one profession where incompetence is rewarded more than anything else. Bear with me but I am just very disillusioned. If I could go back in time I would ask my younger self to consider not joining this profession because this profession is not about merit. It never was. People like me have no leverage in this profession because neither do we come from generational wealth nor do we have contacts/clout/social status. I try everyday to give my best in things that I have control over-hardwork and improving my art; just trying to be good at my domain, giving my 100 percent in whatever I do. It's an uphill task to maintain faith when the entire world seems to be conspiring against you. Thank you for your suggestions and for taking out the time from your schedule. Appreciate it.

Honestly, that's something I'm also working on. I can't just fall stoop to their level. It's not in my basic temperament to unnecessarily hurt people, but if given the opportunity to and the resources to exact a revenge I would do it for sure.... Because internally I know they deserve a taste of their own medicine...

For so-called problem questions (where you are given a scenario and you have to apply the law to it):

1. Read the question carefully. Think a lot about what it is asking you to do. Many questions might say 'advise Party X'. This is not 'argue for Party X', it is 'advise'. Therefore, you should take a judge's birds-eye view of this sort of thing. You should advise impartially, applying the law to the facts, justifying whatever conclusion comes.

2. You would obviously gain marks if you not just applied the law, but also tried to do things like distinguishing. E.g., if a fact-pattern in a particular case comes to mind, think of how the fact-pattern in your exam is different to the fact pattern in that case; if you do spot a difference, explain to the examiner why the obvious case A might not be most applicable, or why case A's approach would have to be different in the circumstances of the facts you are given.

3. As this is, after all, an academic piece of writing and not a true advice letter to a client, the examiner is not only interested to know whether you know what the law is and how it applies to this situation, but she may very well also be interested in your ideas of what the law should be. Therefore, you may want to delv into your list of 'further' or 'recommended' readings in preparation for your exam and think about how you may want to encorporate some ideas from those. Maybe a small paragraph saying something like 'If the law worked the way Author E in Article XYZ says it should work/proposes how it should work, the outcome in this case would be different because...' and then maybe 'it should/shouldn't be different because...' [advance justification].

4. You may find ambiguities in the wording of problem questions. Always assume these to be deliberate. Write down in your response at the relevant point what you would infer from the ambiguity - if there is information missing, what you think it would have been, if it had been given. NB: If there are two or more possibilities, don't bother exploring all of them in detail; only get into a possibility of what an ambiguity might mean if it changes the legal advice (i.e., if your conclusion on that specific point of the scenario or your conclusion overall would change depending upon the possibility).

5. In terms of structure and how to deal with approaching individual elements (sub-parts almost) of the question, divide your response into clearly-marked sections, using headings and subheadings. You will always be looked upon favourably for this. A heading would be a specific aspect of the problem (e.g., whether there is consideration if thinking about a contract formation), while any subheadings would deal with things under the broader section. Depending on how much moving-room you have in terms of word-count, include an introduction and conclusion. In the introduction, explain clearly what you will argue, and signpost the reader to how you will argue it and where in the body of your answer you will argue something. In your conclusion, recap your argument, tie it back together, showing how the threads of your argument connect together. NB: Be pragmatic on this! If you have a lot of ground to cover but very few words to do it in, there isn't any reason, in my view, why you shouldn't be able to dispense with the introduction and conclusion.

6. Keep the language simple. No need to be flowery. Nobody's checking here if you are the world's next Shakespeare. At the same time, your writing should be as accurate and correct as you can possibly make it.

as someone from karnataka, you need to understand karnataka rajyotsava is not a political issue. It's matter of pride, recognition and celebration of the kannada language, its various dialects, and cultures and the unity that we find within it. It is okay if you don't celebrate it, it is also okay if you don't care for it. The least you can do is shut up and let the people of the state celebrate something dear to them.

Please understand you may not be from karnataka, and karnataka rajyotsava may have absolutely no bearing to you. But it does to people, hoisting the "Karnataka flag" (not teh kannada flag, don't be ignorant my dear) is routine of karnataka rajyotsava. I have seen it happen every single year from school to college and beyond, and it is a day of pride.

Why are you so insistant on seeing this from the myopic lens of your own self. This isn't about you! Respect the practices of the state you have chosen to migrate to or find someplace else to be!

Snowflakes. Welcome to the real world. You put up or perish. Start being mentally strong. Otherwise this is just the beginning. Let's see you ask for this liberal attitude from law firms when you slave there for income to sustain your liberal open lifestyle. Bunch of pussies we have here. Stop complaining and start doing something about it. For starters support your seniors in LLM, PhD and AP, that's your Gen Y. Yet you continue to mock them. Why would they have any sympathy towards you ? Stupid

I think it's fair call, you're saying the a college shouldn't get repurcussion of it's another student, then by same logic the brand value and other benefits that NLU students get should be stopped immediately.
instead of crying over the spilt milk, NMINS should get its act together, they should have made some strict regulation regarding it, their student come for Internship as if they're son/daughter of Prime Minister of India ( he don't have it, ironically )
well done by LKS for banning NMINS

Not necessarily. But the person who will become/remain the VC (eventually) will be an avatar of Dr Sandip Ghosh. Needn't necessarily do/support exactly the same kind of excesses. But has to be an able FrontMan for the Squid Game that is played in the House of Spoils.

The scene in other NLUs isn't any different. Messiah is in a different game. All this is too pedestrian for him.

It’s real bad. Just in September, they done like over 10 deals. But that’s not even the worst part. There’s this insecure associate partner who’s all about making the team compete with each other instead of working together. Most of the team is new, don’t got no experience, and the place is just toxic.

And if you don’t follow the partner’s every word, they push you off to do the most boring stuff like making indexes and deal bibles, and just keep putting you down every day.