Has anyone else felt that some Tier 1 law firms (especially SAM) that publicly champion values like inclusivity, meritocracy, and people-first culture often don’t reflect those ideals internally?

In my experience, it sometimes feels more like a business driven by billables than by its people. Job satisfaction can take a back seat, increments and bonuses often feel opaque and disappointing, and promotions can appear to favour certain individuals rather than being based solely on merit.

That is down to the unmaking of the institution over a decade. Slowly but steadily. On the enforcement side we have a stillborn institution even after 25 years.

Originally, the DG and CCI were separate. Just like the EU Commissioners and DG Comp. They ended the Bhikaji Cama place separation and the power to appoint went to the CCI from the Central Government. The structural absorption of the DG created the first problem. It was solving for a lack of competition law knowledge and a loss of institution memory with the DG staffed by rotating officers.

The original separation was meant to mimic the independent prosecutor model. There was a reason the CCI could not originally close matters and why 26(8) had to be interpreted creatively. It removed discretionary power from the CCI. The matters before it were in rem. The college of commissioners were speaking to the market.

The CCI secretary ran the administrative side and the DG office ran the investigative side. Constantly rotated out and the DG office ran out of depth, while the secretary became a rubber stamp. There were 7 members, the "right-sizing" made the chairman / chairwoman way too powerful on the administrative side while solving quorum and constant natural justice issues.

Then there was a dedicated appellate forum which was dismantled. Early on, the Supreme Court in Brahm Dutt noted that since the CCI acts as a judge and issues heavy penalties, it must feature judicial independence. This forced the government to create a separate appellate body, the COMPAT.

The government also responded with judicial members as well. Now the lack of a proper judicial member as mandated continues to haunt the CCI. The current "judicial member's" ties are known. The fact that no retired judge has walked into the CCI for nearly a decade speaks volumes. The judiciary doesnt see eye to eye on the government on this issue anymore.

Then in Mahindra & Mahindra v. CCI the Delhi High Court, which by all accounts is in decline did a u-turn. By legally labeling CCI an administrative body, the courts systematically lowered the constitutional bar for strict separation of powers. Combined with the erasure of the COMPAT all this reduced the quality of immediate, independent judicial checks on the CCI's consolidated powers.

Because the CCI dictates the opening of investigations, controls the DG, and now has total discretion to accept or reject settlements or issue global turnover penalties, it wields massive leverage. A company is often forced to settle with the "investigator" to avoid being crushed by the same entity acting as "judge." This permenantly casts a shadow on the CCI's settlement and commitment regime.

The completely myopic manner in which the CCI grew also was made worse when the CCI never passed enough interim measures. Being an appealable order, the CCI never strengthened its legal wing enough to sit and defend interim orders hard enough fearing the defense of pre-judgement. This was down to the administrative side weakness.

The institution has lost balance but blaming this on suo moto powers is something else. That was always within the original mandate of section 19. The problem was someone wanted to make the CCI controllable. Someone wanted the CCI being capable of turning around and fine 200 crores while asking to review the same markets, acceptable. Someone wanted the CCI to look away when needed from the various monopolies it by itself fostered.

Such structural issues that come with combining concentrated executive power and declining state capacity by serial underfunding allowed competition law to be converted from an independent body with a market protection mandate into a tool for consolidating autocratic control. Where have we seen this before?

We hear that there’s a new leadership (on paper and for the media and outside world of course) that is going to be announced - The prodigal son inherits the firm while the brilliant daughter takes a back seat. The father reins the kingdom as an emperor now and not the king and the father’s trusted lieutenant will remain a lieutenant whilst with a new refined title. Certain senior officers have not taken this too kindly and we also hear that the lieutenant has accepted this as he has indicated his intention to move on. While all this happens, nothing materially changes the current functioning and all this is to show the world that the future is in safe hands - is it though?

That is misleading or, at the very worst, deliberately incomplete by being devoid of context.

Defendants in the US frequently challenged the structural legitimacy of SEC and FTC administrative law judges, arguing their protection from removal violates Article II of the US Constitution. So to avoid getting bogged down in years of collateral constitutional litigation, the FTC increasingly files its heavy-hitting antitrust and consumer protection cases directly in federal district courts.

The recent conservative-majority US Supreme Court drove this, focusing on reining in the "administrative state", with Big Tech aggressively capitalising on these new legal weapons. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority has indeed carried out what legal scholars call a systemic effort to deconstruct the "administrative state".

By systematically stripping away agencies' independent powers, the US Supreme Court purportedly attempts to shift structural power from unelected regulators directly into the hands of federal judges and the president. This is pushed by unitary executive theory, a constitutional law concept advanced by the Federalist Society, asserting that the president of the United States holds absolute control over the executive branch.

In the United States, this has been the cover for authoritarianism – institutions are viewed as being under attack.

Coming to India, we have a parliamentary system, and we do not have a theory of a unitary executive; the executive draws its powers from the legislature. We have a deliberate dual executive. Yes, we hear rants that we wish we had a presidential system, but we don't. We have Modi pushing for massive centralisation and pretty much undoing the independence of regulators, including the RBI. We just had the Supreme Court rule on the lack of the CJI in the selection committee for the CEC.

Most critically, unlike the US, we do not have state governments with their own antitrust laws that sweep into regulatory space where the federal government withdraws. Instead, we have independent regulators. It is not a new concept. Institutions like the RBI and CAG have operated in this manner for decades. Does India have the judicial strength of the United States? Tribunalisation was an answer to another problem. In India, for the CCI, we had Brahm Dutt and SAIL – the Supreme Court looked into this.

Now, coming to a simple point – the questioning of tribunalisation – it is legitimate, but for one particular regulator to surrender has all the hallmarks of sabotage backed by a law ministry or SG opinion. There are several other regulators who have suo motu powers and adjudicatory powers. SEBI (Section 11 & 11C of the SEBI Act), RERA (Section 35 of the RERA Act), CCPA (Section 10 & 18 of the Consumer Protection Act), etc. So why does one particular regulator commit harakiri before parliament?

Hi. This is more or less where I have landed after doing some digging. (1) Yale is -- out and out -- a public law school. They seem to place a real premium on applicants with a "demonstrated" interest in scholarship. It is also absurdly difficult to get into. From what I have gathered, the LLM cohort is only about 24 students. (2) Stanford -- relatively speaking -- is a little less forbidding. A great deal depends on the programme you are applying in. My understanding is that it is especially well regarded for environmental and tech law related work (I think they call it 'Law, Science and Technology' -- or something along those lines). (3) Harvard offers a general LLM, so you're effectively free to build your own programme from an enormous catalogue of courses. The class is substantially larger than either Yale's or Stanford's -- so at least in theory -- the odds are in your favour.

Anyway, that's about as much as I have managed to piece together. Hope it works as a fair primer. Expect nothing more from a fourth year.

Dear All,

I have noticed that several faculty members have recently O.P. Jindal Global University. Some have joined public universities while others have moved to Munjal University in Gurgaon or taken up opportunities abroad.

Does anyone know what the main reasons are for this apparent outflow of faculty?

Not much to be said here, except that the disputes practice places much more reliability upon juniors than any other practice area. It is not a desk job; it requires technical clarity, procedural clarity, physical readiness, along with courtroom demeanour, and very importantly, it is a judge and CLIENT FACING role. Tons to learn here - different courts have their own rules, filing, clerical stuff, managing other side, etc.

Freshers do get hired but only the ones who have trained themselves well to be useful to be a senior litigant. No hand holding and absolutely no excuses. Disputes is a ruthless practice, but if you got it, you are already a far better lawyer than almost any other transactional lawyer.

Train madly. Know your bare acts. Stay updated on latest judicial pronouncements. Practice talking in front of a mirror. Mostly this is it and then the rest is genuinely magic.

fact check on "NUJS has highest median salary, but placement percentage is significantly lower than NLSIU and NALSAR" as per the table placement percentage for NUJS is 91.7, for NLS its 96.5 and for NALSAR its 100. Can a difference of 4.8% and 8.3% be said as signifcantly lower?

Nujs has an amazing ppo count…gnlu is picking up the pace at DayZ…genuinely no clue for nluj but heard the TC count is fair..NLIU/mnlu are struggling especially Bhopal has seen drought (job drought) for the first few days… today firms are gonna come and hire but the count won’t cross beyond 40sh I am assuming

This is scary, dude. I mean WTH? I got into IP from interest and also from the economics perspective. I have also interned with some boutiques and also have brief experience with true blue IP law firms where I got hands on experience with artist agreements and got to see the practical side of how collabs work, I worked on agreements representing artists. I am in my 4th year right now, traditional non-NLU State university. Do I need to rethink my plans?

SA gown is no longer the ticket to become a high roller. I have engaged and heard about many SA who would do an entire Application: Argue, draft reply, file it through their junior or firm account, advise and do conference all in 2 Lakh. Some non SA charge as high as 1L for appearance and separately for each draft. It all depends on how known the counsel is, and most importantly - WHOSE SON OR RELATIVE THEY ARE, who they play golf with, with which judge they are super chums with, with whom they share regular drinks, which judges come to their parties, etc etc. SA gown is more about how well connected and deep rooted you are with judges. Some non-SA are much much better than SA.

My chamber experience has been the absolute worst. The owner/senior treats his associates like slaves, and says - 'nobody is irreplaceable'. LOL. The owner's wife gets involved in the day to day activities and she is another nightmare that the associates dealt with, her screech voice and randomly wasting associate's time to explain her regular matters. The senior also had a god complex, he wouldn't show up for hearings because he would have a hangover, woke up late, had a tiring morning coz of workout or plain - Mann nhi kr rha. If the associate was forced by the judge to argue/make submissions instead of seeking an adjournment, and the associate got a good order that day that made the client happy. IT WOULD PISS HIM OFF SO BAD !!! Needed constant raves about how amazing he is (which he was not). The things he taught me are - 1. How to lie regarding his laziness to client-judges-senior advocates engaged in a matter, 2. Be a secretary and even a personal secretary for him (to the extent of carrying his choice of cigarette and lighter even when I didnt smoke), 3. Fake appreciation to stroke his ego, 4. laugh at his stupid jokes, 5. Over work because he would need constant guidance in his ear during senior advocate briefings- arguments before court, 6. BECOME PATIENT - with clients as he would neglect them, wait for him while he was out traipsing across the city partying, to his irregular demands on all days at all odd timings and MOLLYCODDLE A 46 year old.

definitely do it if you are from a non nlu uni/college and have the finances and are not dating anyone exclusively. Best experience ever to live it up and groom your self/have the best time of your life while studying. yes you will start to earn 1 year later but finances are not a concern is a going in assumption.

This is 100% true just few days back we just breifed a senior for just 60k
and that too for a big matter as he just wanted to stay relevant.

this Sr. that Snr. has nowdays loosing its charm just go to DHC and see yourself now, every other guy you bumped is now a senior now a days there are not many interns roaming then seniors with gowns

A lot of bullshit advice here from people who have never done it. Definitely don't break the bank. If the finances are easy, then go for sure. It expands your world. You will start thinking differently, maybe discover careers you don't have right now. Even if you return to India, you will come back with networks and exposure. Sure, people like all these commentators will be jealous, but no one ignores an Oxbridge degree. The most important reason is personal and intellectual growth. Not worth lifetime debt but absolutely worth it if it's financially accessible.

Worth reading and learning. Many law firms on this same path. Culture eats strategy for breakfast!

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/02/us/politics/paul-weiss-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Sorry if I sound snobbish, but Phuket and Dubai are not exotic or aspirational. Largely visited by lower-middle class tourists on their first trip abroad.

Brazil, Peru, France, Italy, Croatia, Malta, Cyprus, Kenya, Morocco, Seychelles, Namibia, New Zealand... now we're talking.

There is a problem of plenty when it comes to senior gowns in delhi particularly the delhi high court. Some seniors are willing to appear as low at 35,000 per appearance while some non designated counsel charge 1,00000 per appearance or more. Senior gown is no longer the barometer for excellence and court craft in some courts like delhi. Real people who do litigation know a gown does not always make a difference but the oratory skills and domain knownledge do.

This is a lie. NLS does not ask for the entire fee when someone repeats a year; they only ask for a course fee, which is around Rs 5k/course.

On revaluation, it takes time, reval usually takes place after the next trimester has started, so your friend may have to wait a bit longer for that.

What is your demand? Student should be handed the degree regardless of whether they pass the papers? The sheer entitlement at display is unbelievable! If someone fails a law school exam twice, then they don't know about the subject, hence should sit for all the classes again and learn it first.

No 'point'

If you want to do academia in India - do an llm at nlu or some other college (3L) and then do a PhD.

Foreign llm has no value in the Indian job market. Even in international job market it doesn't have much of value. It's almost impossible or very difficult to get hired as a lawyer in US / UK / EU with a foreign llm of that respective jurisdiction. They prefer native lawyers with JDs. Immigration is difficult. Law is not a skill like nursing or engineering for which foreigners are even considered.

If you are really rich and can comfortably spend 50L to 90L without any loans zero expectations of return on investment. Then go for foreign llm. It can give some exposure if it's a right college. I would say save 70% of that amount. Spend a summer travelling across Europe or north America instead of an llm.

Even at top places like Stanford, NYU, Cambridge. It's pretty much easier to get an LLM than any other degree. LLM is just a cash cow for these colleges and are not job oriented courses.

Mistakenly send my pervious message

My primary motive of asking this question can I replace my non nlu with something else that can be seen as sign of intelligence. My college is decent at best

But To be competitive at law firm application that why i consider it to put in my cv to been seen as other sign of intelligence and grit other than college rank and nlu status

They won't help you in any significant way for most traditional career paths in the profession. Anybody who knows what an LLM course is actually like knows they aren't of any value. Perhaps the tag. If you can afford to spend that kind of money on it, that is.

Of course, there are two major exceptions to this. One, if you want to work in academia. Two, if you want to do specialized policy research that requires a specialized LLM area. This goes for any kind of job that requires particular specialization, not just policy, to be fair. But these kinds of jobs are extremely few in number.

So if you're thinking of pursuing corporate law/litigation, no, they are not of much use. However, there are some niche areas apart from academia where they may help, but I'd still say its worth is not even close to the amount of money you put in. Unless you get a scholarship, of course. In which case, enjoy your paid one-year vacation.

This advice is both helpful and unhelpful.

Helpful because it gives a good suggestion as to the direction you might want to take in your career. In fact, it gives you a pretty clear roadmap!

Unhelpful because it is a paradigmatic situation of doing the working correctly but still arriving at the wrong answer. Therefore, only 3/5 in my book, I am afraid. At the end of the day, all manner of skills, experiences and abilities can serve as helpful indicators as to how or why you may make a great commercial lawyer to a recruiter. Chess can equally be one of those skills. Indeed, one of my best friends is a trainee at Linklaters London office (also got a TC offer from Clifford Chance) who mentioned having played chess competitively representing her uni on her law firm applications and they were quite impressed by it.

So by all means: develop your skills in a practice area. But do and talk about other things that make you memorable. Loads of folks follow this exact roadmap which this response to which I am responding has suggested. If your application can be the one which follows this roadmap and adds to it by talking about your chess experience and if you have done well, then so much the better for you, I'd have thought... after all, that extra thing is what sets you apart from the others.

NB: I don't play chess so don't understand it and what you might have achieved in it. (Tried to play when I was younger but somehow couldn't take much interest in it.) Therefore, the only thing I'd add is to take this advice I have given with some caution if you haven't done awfully well in chess, and you don't see any prospect of yourself doing so in the future.