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?
Anyways In my understanding they'll be serially numbered, which would be matched with question paper. I guess that's what happened last time in CLAT PG as far as I remember
If you dont get a corp job have you considered applying under Sr Advocates in chambers for disputes? it will give you some experience to apply for firms next year.
you can go to lawyers irl in courts and ask them the old fashioned way, if you dont get it by emailing
Please advice
I need to plan my stay and book a pg accordingly. Would be very grateful if someone could guide me regarding the same.
NB: As the date will make clear, this article was written before the UK election of July 2024.
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/gandhi-party-demise-india-warning-left-rsfp0n38j#main-container
For those who can't access because of paywall, read text below:
Gandhi party’s demise is warning to the left
Bereft of positive ideas and culturally adrift, the once mighty Congress faces being wiped out by Narendra Modi’s BJP
Philip Collins
Monday April 08 2024, 9.00pm, The Times
Would you vote for a political party that offered the slogan “a shop of love”? Even if that party had been the political handmaiden of your nation’s fledgling years as a democracy? What if its rival, headed by the most charismatic leader in the country, had presided over real wage growth of 5 per cent a year? That is the predicament the once mighty Congress party faces in India, in the world’s most consequential democratic election.
The Indian Lok Sabha will be elected, in the largest democratic experiment on Earth, from April 19 until June 1. Approximately 960 million people are eligible to vote and, if turnout is the same as usual, at least two thirds of them will do so. No tutored eyes can see anything other than a third emphatic victory for the prime minister, Narendra Modi. In a recent poll, 64 per cent preferred Modi to the 17 per cent who selected Rahul Gandhi of Congress. In polls conducted this year the alliance on the right, headed by Modi’s BJP, have taken close to 50 per cent of the vote and usually a double-digit lead over the alliance on the left, headed by Congress. On the latest projection, Congress could hit an all-time low with 38 seats, close to a wipeout.
This is the party, remember, that ruled India almost unimpeded from independence until 1989. It is the only political party in the country that has run the government of every Indian state. In a vast and heterogeneous nation of 15 major languages and over 800 dialects, the Congress party used to be a national institution and, as Sunil Khilnani observed in The Idea of India, one of the solvents into which differences of identity tended to dissolve.
No longer. India is now ruled by a government that makes a fervent issue of identity, and Congress is on the edge. All short-term fixes have been tried. Indian party politics is highly local and diverse, with 39 parties in parliament and over 1,800 nationally, and so binding agents like Congress are crucial. Its leaders established the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (India) to maximise the force of the anti-BJP parties, but to little avail. Party strategists have tried to entangle Modi in crony capitalism, and Gandhi declared the election to be a choice between democracy and dictatorship. Though it is true that the Modi government has an alarming record with respect to the judiciary and press freedom, the charge does not stick, at least not when it is levelled by Gandhi. This is how they got to the meaningless alternative of the “shop of love”.
Nothing is working and this draws inevitable attention to the leadership question. Gandhi, the latest scion of the Nehru family to sit at the top of Congress, is always cited as the de facto leader. In point of fact, that post has been held since 2022 by Mallikarjun Kharge, an 81-year-old lawyer from Karnataka. Yet this hardly feels like the herald of post-dynastic politics and Gandhi has been vague about which of the two, himself or Kharge, will be prime minister in the unlikely event of a Congress victory.
The organisational and leadership problems, though, are symptoms of a larger failing. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Congress deserves the obscurity to which it is headed because of its acute intellectual shortcomings. The residual Congress ideology is a sort of English Fabian socialism left out too long in the sun. Congress built an Indian economy that discouraged foreign trade and inward investment and caught up commercial transactions in a web of regulations. To some extent the Nehruvian state was dismantled by PV Narasimha Rao’s government from 1991 but the change was short and liberalisation is not a current cause within a party that lacks a clear economic doctrine.
By contrast, Modi has a record on which he can run. India’s growth rate of 7.2 per cent is the second highest in the G20. More people have heat and light, more people have inside lavatories. India has been adding 10,000km of highway every year. Capital expenditure as a percentage of total government expenditure has doubled since 2010 and India now makes more digital payments than the next four leading countries combined.
Modi’s Hindu nationalism is an important part of his political movement, to be sure. The construction of a Hindu temple on the site of a destroyed mosque in Ayodhya, on what its advocates claim is the holy site of the birth of Ram, is a popular move from which the prime minister extracts all the political credit going. His party does not like dissent and is impatient with institutions which, in a democracy, are designed to question and curtail power. A revived Congress party should not yield on these points.
But this is not a path to victory. Congress needs to avoid being orphaned as the party solely of the dispossessed. The Congress manifesto, published on April 5, was a standard left-of-centre list of desirable state handouts. It said little about more inclusive growth. The top 10 per cent of Indians hold 77 per cent of the national wealth. Unemployment is as high as it has ever been and less than half of urban workers have full-time jobs. The India Skills Report 2023 found only half of young Indians are employable — one in five Indians cannot yet read. And, most alarming, India’s female labour participation rate has dropped from 32 per cent in 2005 to 19 per cent in 2021. In the second most unequal democracy in the world, after South Africa, there is a story that a revitalised Congress could tell.
To some extent the problems of the Congress party — lacking a convincing story about growth, sounding culturally distant from the nation and too keen to dispense state funds — are exemplars to the political left everywhere. Yet politics is also local and it is time — it has been time for a long while now — for Congress to go beyond the limitations of the dynastic Nehru family. The future of India will need good inclusive growth to fund good public services. It will also need a government that can be trusted with democratic freedoms. Congress is the only option to offer both, but at the moment it is no option at all.
For the time being, a new Labour government will not be able to deal with its sister party. Instead it will have to seek to finish a trade deal with the Modi government — which is by far the best way to detach India from its historic neutrality and proximity to Russia which are, strange to say, the other great legacies of the Congress party.
I would say, good talent made the correct choices!
I don't think universities have the competency or legitimacy to help students having mental health crises. When universities get involved in that things only get worse. I think the best that universities can do is offer time off for students suffering from severe mental health problems and allow them to return after they've recovered after they've had care by proper mental health professionals and with their families. University just isn't a hospital. And it fails at being one when you make it one.
Think of it like physical illness. You can go to the university nurse for help with a cold or a scraped knee or something small. But would you really take your diabetes or cancer problem or your PCOS to her and then be upset when she isn't able to take care of it? Wouldn't your health problem get worse because you're entrusting it to someone who doesn't have the resources training or competency to deal with your illness? I think the best thing universities can do is have immediate response on campus and tie up with existing hospitals for insurance and direct any students experiencing mental or physical illness to those hospitals.
Even for disabled students. When an administrator makes the judgment call about how much extra time or other kinds of accommodations need to be made- they only consider the needs of the student independent of how the course or evaluations are structured. And they might not even do that- they might just be looking for easy fixes that would appease students and avoid further complaints. They mostly just hand out extra time right? And that's a terrible one size fits all approach. A wheelchair user doesn't need extra time they need to be able to get into the classroom. A blind student doesn't need extra time, they need audio software and they need course materials to be in accessible formats. A student with time blindness or ADHD doesn't usually need extra time- what they might need help with is better planning their work and more check ins holding them accountable in the research process ( for term papers for example). An administrator is incentivised to just resolve these matters with extra time because they aren't invested in the student's long-term success, nor are they interested in course objectives being met. I have heard of instances in other universities where professors were asked to hand over notes to students as disability accommodation when there was an open-book examination. The whole idea is ridiculous.
I think faculty should do the job because they have a real relationship with the student that is not based on clientelism. They are invested in the students succeeding long term and are invested in courses being taught well. They are able to work with students to make sure disabled students meet course objectives rather than lowering standards. And allowing faculty to work with students on these problems brings about more trust and transparency in the university than appointing a manager, which undermines trust and, authority, and transparency. I think there could maybe be a committee of students and faculty to handle tougher cases, and there should be some sort of appellate process, but by and large, I don't think administrators who don't teach and haven't taught have a role to play here. I think by appointing administrators, faculty are washing their hands of the difficulties of teaching students with diverse needs, and students are incentivised to seek as much leniency as they can get without worrying about what might be fair and what might allow them to learn. The administrators first priority will be to keep their job. thats what managerial classes do.
I think it is completely fair to pay faculty doing these administrative things a higher salary and training them to do it well. But I think its vital that the person/ persons who play the SWO role be an academic teaching at the university.
Sabbaticals and research leaves are earned. Sudhir needs to explain to the EC why he is keeping people on the payroll who aren't turning up to teach and he needs to convince them that they are a worthy investment for the university. He doesn't shy away from doing that- but if you have only been teaching at the university for less than two years- that is a very difficult sell.
I also don't find the faculty whinging about research leave credible because NLS places the least amount of teaching load on faculty across universities in India. You have to do one a term, Jindal makes you do two- or two sections, all other NLUs make you do at least two courses maybe more if they have a need. In contrast, NLS faculty are teaching half the time. And they produce so little good research despite all that. Where is all of that extra time going? are people even producing a paper a year? If you don't build that reputation and show that you're sincere about research in that way, I wouldn't fault Sudhir for not going to bat for them.
I don't really care that Sudhir doesn't walk around handing out sweets and hugs. Part of being an adult with a job is to sometimes have confrontational conversations with your colleagues and being able to handle being challenged. Is he berating people for having an opinion? or is he arguing with them about a difference of opinion? those are different things. I have had disagreements with my boss, and that doesn't cause me to be traumatised or want to paint myself as a victim. I have often won arguments with my boss and he isnt victimised by that either. Thats just how working in organisations goes- you will disagree with other people and you will have arguments. If you cannot handle the heat you should probably get out of the kitchen.
I have not posted anything illegal. Many students at Columbia and Harvard have said the same thing I have said. Literally every second in the US has shown solidarity with BLM and Antifa and condemned Israel. Why should I be singled out?
(a) joining a boutique firm as an associate;
(b) joining any firm as a paralegal/ assessment intern for minimum 3/6 months;
(c) joining a litigation chamber, so that you can show some PQE;
(d) - (zy) some other random options.
and when you have exhausted all, please do consider joining PG at an NLU.
Oh but of course, the complaints redressal forums are also involved in the huge conspiracy! The Chancellor is Sudhir's... what? Tennis playing buddy? Drinking buddy? Sorry, I am confused about what the exact nuts-and-bolts of the conspiracy are, forgive my vagueness. Oh, how like Trump and the MAGA rioters of January 6 you sound!
How you ever got the opportunity to teach at the country's best law school is, as a P.G. Wodehouse character beautifully says, a matter into which "we shall not enquire".
One Partner has worked in Cooley for just a year. 🤷♀️
There are more people with credible foreign work experience in KCO where three major partners (and one counsel) have worked outside India for very long.
Indian cities making to the list
- Delhi, Rank 3
- Chennai, Rank 5
- Mumbai, Rank 8
- Kolkata, Rank 13
Why didn't Bangalore make the cut?
1. Price of a decent 3BHK right now, if you want to buy: between 5 to 15 cr, depending on location and quality. To downgrade, you can go for a tiny 2BHK in a bad location and in a low-quality complex. You may get that for 2-3 cr perhaps.
2. Price for 1 child's education at a good IB school: 10-12 lakh pa, if I include spending other than fees. If that's too much, then a regular ICSE school for 2-3 lakhs pa. ICSE is a good board and miles ahead of CBSE, but still not IB.
3. Price for child's education: If you go for the Ashoka/JGLS + postgrad abroad option, then budget for 2 to 2.5 cr. Else the child can go to a local college for zilch.
4. Price of a decent car: 7 to 30 lakhs. Sure, you can cut corners and get a small car or second-hand for 3.
5. Living costs for 1 person and spouse: 2.5 to 3 lakhs pa: include maid, nanny, eating out, petrol etc. Again, you can save by eating out at McDonald's or street food, instead of a nice restaurant.
6 Vacation: A foreign holiday for a couple can be anywhere between 2 to 10 lakhs, depending on where one is going and the class of travel and airfare. You can downgrade to a vacation in Lonavala instead. But that is the difference between a good upper-middle class and struggling middle-class life.
We negotiate like hell when its time to get our clients the best deal possible but never look at the deal we ourselves have with the firm lmao.
It really give a short boost to motivation to persuade litigantion
7L+ pm today (all inclusive) at a T1.
Another partner drives a Land Rover, and the equity partner comes in a Honda City. The equity partner is far more respected.
It really does not matter what car you drive, unless you decide to be a dick about it! ✨
I humbly rejected the offer, and went on to have a frank conversation with the person, explaining them my financial necessities and need to build a reputation before I could join a smaller firm. They understood and wished me well, in addition to suggesting me places I could intern with, in my fourth year. I went on to give my all in various subsequent internships, and built on the same for references and offers.
I ended up with 5 job offers, including a bunch of T1s, without even sitting for Day Zero. I chose a team & partner that prioritise providing extensive mentorship at a higher paying T1 firm, and am in general much more satisfied with my work life than my topper friends who blindly went to the T1 firms on Day Zero and got saddled up to partners they don't like.
So, if you're in law school and its too late to do something about your grades — that's okay; you can still get good jobs! Remember, all someone's looking for while offering a job is a person who can be of practical help to their work profile. Good academics are used as a proxy to assume your discipline & bare minimal knowledge necessary to meet the targets your boss will want you to meet. If you can demonstrate that you'll be of effective & practical help regardless, then the potential employers won't care about such proxies.
2. It’s also stupid to criticise the team for having people with great credentials - if people with great credentials and international work ex are consistently joining this team, it speaks to their ability to attract good talent.
3. On attrition, most people who have left their team are those who went to study further for LLMs (which happens in most teams) or those who weren’t getting partnership (agreed that the team is very top heavy).
Local IAS Babu refered his son who barely could put together a draft in 4 attempts, got hired.
Believe me, I have had experience of a British law school, and there's no 'American law school' pathway about this. That place is full of admins, a number of whom don't need to be there. I think Sudhir's way of thinking at this point (because of the way law schools in other countries have done it) is that if Britain and U.S. law schools have made it in the competition for the international rankings to where they are now (whether that competition is worth it is a very important debate, but too large to be within the scope of this discussion), then the best in India should also go down that pathway.
At the same time, just two points about faculty workload/administrators:
1. I am a bit surprised, honestly, that you would suggest an SWO kind of a job for a faculty. Wouldn't it be better for someone who has received perhaps training in mental health crisis management or mediation or whatever to do that job? It just seems like an unnecessary addition to the workload to me. Faculty's job is to teach students and contribute to the knowledge in their field by producing original research. It just looks like a weird thing to have in the job description. Seems to me like it would reduce the faculty's ability to do all parts of their job properly. I would also say that as things become more equitable with, for example, more disabled students accessing higher education than ever before, you need to respond appropriately with staff who are trained and experienced in handling their adjustments. A professor would know about equality law, maybe, but would she be able to read a Specific Learning Difficulty diagnosis (or have the bandwidth/scope to assist a student through the minefield of getting one) and say whether 15% or 25% extra time on exams was appropriate for a dyslexic student?
2. NLS is trying to admit foreign students. Don't you think they may need to do some outreach work for that?
3.5 x 3 = 10.5 - 3 Houses
5 cr for Education and wedding
1 cr Buffer
Total is 16.5 cr. Without even taking into account cost of interest income for buying 3 houses. And if somebody is starting out today, you can't expect house in Santa Cruz to stay at 3.5 cr by the time they acquire enough money to buy 3 of those!
And do you mean 1.5 L rent per each 3BHK?
Who is whining that they should be allowed to come and go as they please without doing their work? The leaves policy does not even cover such things. Faculty are only asking that study leave for PhD and sabbatical leave for research, which ugc itself provides for and other universities also provide for, should be restored.I agree with the administrators point with you and OP, but I see you are silent on his behaviour towards colleagues. That's very telling. You are either OK with being treated that way or you don't face the brunt of that kind of behaviour becuase you are his buddy. I have seen him shout at a former Vice Chancellor over a disagreement on policy. I have seen him berate colleagues because they voiced an opinion he did not like. The one good thing is that he is indiscriminate about his bad behaviour because he treats students, staff, senior and junior faculty equally badly.....
They were penguins on heat in their previous lives.
Thandi thandi pawan chale, tan man mein haaye aag lage.
1 YOE - 12,000
3 YOE - 15,000
4 YOE - 20,000
5 YOE - 30,000
6 YOE - 10,000 (Corona)
Started Independent practice
7 YOE- 3,00,000/-
8 YOE - 5,00,000/-
The risks and the struggles are all worth it. Extraordinary work life balance. No drama. Absolute confidence.
Your last sentence is honestly insane. Being a lawyer is being an officer of the court- it's not chopping wood or carrying cement. That's not all employment. And for many government jobs , for jobs as doctors, teachers, etc etc you do have to sign a piece of paper disclosing criminal background. And lying is punishable with termination. Guess what to be a chartered accountant, there are regulations you need to meet too, and to be a teacher you need a teaching license and to own a shop or a restaurant you need to abide by safety standards, health standards, liquor licenses, so many regulations. That's kind of how we make sure that people stay alive. The BCI exists exactly to do this regulation and you want to create some slippery slope fallacy where none exists.
And early career folks who have just joined who want research leaves? It's quite silly the ask itself. You do need to invest in an institution somewhat before asking the institution invest in you. And even when these research breaks are granted no real research comes out of it. Everyone comes back to India with a foreign degree and puts on airs of being a great researcher- few of them are.
I will concede the last: I do not think administrators who haven't taught a day in their life should have many jobs at the university. Most of the university should be run by faculty; hiring management people and administrators leads to fee inflation and it leads to jobs where people aren't really contributing as much as they take away.
I know why Sudhir went this way, because asking faculty to take on administrative work makes them unhappy and they will use it as an excuse not to research or write. But there is a balance to be struck there. Maybe not every job should be done by faculty- maybe someone running your Twitter/ website should be an administrator. But student welfare officers and wardens and people engaged in disseminating research should be academics and preferably professors. I also doubt that university needs the HR/ people and function department. senior faculty should hire other faculty and you need one person to do the paperwork basically- that person can just be the registrar or his assistant. NLS doesn't need some admissions team doing advertisements and such. They have a decent reputation anyway, the registrar's office on its own can handle most of that stuff. There is fat to be trimmed there.
And I think Sudhir might have gone down the American law school model uncritically on this without thinking through what happens to universities when administrators come in between students and faculty. And how they might be incentivised to keep tensions going so they keep their job. And how this role might cause distrust both among faculty and students.
What can I expect at the internship? I have never actually done commercial disputes before, so I'd really appreciate the help. This could be my make or break because I do not have any other internships lined up any time soon and my 0 day is fast-approaching.
Any help at all would be ideal, thanks.
- 3 flats x 3.5cr = 10.5 cr
- 5 cr for kids education
- 14 crores rest
- 1 crore emergency buffer
Total = 30.5 crores!
Not entirely sure why you are slating his numbers in that case.
An MBA abroad is obviously more preferable, but expensive!!
If someone gets registered with a state bar council and pays the enrollment fee (which was ridiculously high earlier), doesn't the exam look some kind of formality only?
Shouldn't this be the other way around, where you pass the exam and then only be eligible for registration as an advocate?
Shortly after I left, they called me. The Managing Partner had become available, but I was in traffic and couldn't answer. When I called back later, I was told they had updated the Managing Partner about the situation. When I inquired about rescheduling, they said they would inform me later.
After some time, I followed up and received a new interview date but no specific time. When I asked for the time, the associate said she would let me know. The day before the interview, I texted for time confirmation but received the same response. On the day of the interview, I texted again and was told she would check with the Managing Partner. Later, I was informed that the Managing Partner was busy and the interview wouldn't happen that day, with a promise to provide a new date later.
Throughout this process, I emailed the Managing Partner twice to request rescheduling, but received no response. This is the third time I've experienced such issues during my job search as a fresh graduate. The first law firm went silent after the interview, the second stopped communicating mid-process, and now this situation with the third firm. The rest of my applications have also been ignored.
It's been 3.5 months since I started applying, and nothing positive has come out of it. How can I secure a proper date and time for an interview, and what should I do in this situation, given that this keeps happening during my job search?