Seen corporate lawyers get stuck at P.A positions, not make partner and pivot to other careers (MBA etc). Partner track has become 20x more tougher than it was for let’s say the 2007 pass outs who were needed to execution by the legendary founding partners who set up the practise.

Now - no one at Partner level is retiring or leaving. As a PQE7 at a Lala firm, my advise to kids just entering the law firm ecosystem is to think about other avenues - take it as advice from a mentor.

Corp law for kids graduating now is a formula one racing championship. Your career life will be brilliant, thrilling but short. You won’t die but you know, your career will.

However, for those who couldn't secure 'good T1/T2 tech-focussed corp law position' for whatever reasons, one of these may be a good option. Could anyone share insights as to whether IAPP cipp/a or other such certifications could help one in getting a foot in the door and what are more cheaper and reliable options?

Please stop trying to misguide innocent law students. The truth is out

https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/rectracker-24-students-get-placed-from-rmlnlus-batch-of-2024

Thank you for the thoughtful response. Let’s take a moment to break down what you’ve said, because it raises some important distinctions that are worth exploring.

Firstly, you suggest that I’m conflating the role of an advocate with that of a judge, and I understand why you might see it that way. But let me clarify: the point isn’t that these roles are identical—they’re clearly not. However, the experience gained through advocacy, especially in the courtroom, can be crucial in developing the qualities that make a good judge. It’s not just about legal knowledge or technical skills; it’s about the ability to navigate complex, high-stakes situations with fairness, impartiality, and a deep understanding of human nature. These are qualities that are often honed through years of direct, adversarial legal practice.

Now, regarding your point about the skills required in a law firm, you’re absolutely right that these environments demand presence of mind, resilience, and the ability to manage complex, often contentious negotiations. But there’s a fundamental difference in context and consequence. Negotiating transaction documents, no matter how acrimonious, occurs in a controlled, often private setting, focused primarily on financial and strategic outcomes. It’s a different kind of pressure compared to the courtroom, where decisions can have immediate and far-reaching consequences for individuals and society as a whole.

You also mentioned litigation lawyers who appear in court without a designation and those involved in arbitration. Certainly, these professionals possess valuable skills, and I’m not diminishing their contributions. But when it comes to appointing judges, we must prioritize not just competence but the breadth of experience. Judges deal with a wide array of cases, from criminal law to constitutional issues, and the ability to understand and adjudicate these matters impartially often requires more than just specialized experience in arbitration or transactional law.

The real concern here is about ensuring that those who are appointed to the bench have the most well-rounded and comprehensive legal experience possible. It’s not about excluding those with a corporate or arbitration background, but about recognizing that the demands of judging require a different kind of preparation—one that is often cultivated in the adversarial, public, and unpredictable environment of the courtroom.

Finally, I appreciate your willingness to agree to disagree, but I think we owe it to ourselves to dig deeper into this discussion. The standards we set for our judiciary have profound implications for the trust and integrity of our legal system. We shouldn’t shy away from these debates, because the consequences of getting it wrong are too significant to simply leave to a difference of opinion.

So, while I respect your perspective, I remain convinced that the unique challenges of judging require a specific type of preparation—one that goes beyond the skills typically honed in a law firm or arbitration setting. It’s about ensuring that our judges are not just competent, but truly equipped to handle the full spectrum of legal challenges they’ll face on the bench.

Cheers.

I believe majority environment "enthusiasts" are in academia or NGOs across the world. In India, they're in law firms, meaning they work for money over environment. I am yet to see any names in Indian academia that work not only for sustainability but also for air, noise, land or water issues !

Realistically, seeing the spending patterns of most people, HDFC's Swiggy Card and Play cards make the most sense. 5% cashback on food deliveries and extra discounts on dining out & e-commerce. ICICI Coral/Sapphiro have negligible benefits and horrible cashback scheme. Plus they'll call you ten times a day to sell you a ULIP that they know is ridiculous.

If you really want something else, consider going for Airtel Axis - if you do your wifi router payments through that, you save more than enough each quarter to justify the annual costs. Then the Axis discounts and banking experience is just a bonus.

Bullshit, it was not lol. Out of the 39/75 offers which was there, 6-7 were in litigation chambers(the pay in those is peanuts) and few in very small in house roles or think tanks. Only 26-27 were law firm (+ ICICI) offers compared to all 37 offers at hnlu being at law firm or inhouse. HNLU did significantly better than nluo this year.

Actually, NLSIU & NUJS did not, in fact, post 100% placements. NLUJ was further behind, and NLUD's & NLIU's placements struggled so badly a lot of them are still reaching out to us for openings. GNLU did quite well, all things considered, but again RML, HNLU & every college thereafter barely had placements. HNLU got a little more than half the batch placed, and that too with a good chunk of them getting Low-paying jobs — and that's apparently the best record out side of the top NLUs.

I'm not tying to ridicule any college. But a 100% placement in THIS market was no small feat at all.

So while consulting options with BCG/Bain etc typically require an MBA and/or 5-7 rounds of interviews, this hire right out of law school was primarily an option because of the hard work (and networking connections) of a member of the recruitment committee. If you want to get one of these big firms to your law school, just help your recruitment committee find a viable senior contact as a connection point and hope for the best.

The problem with such scenarios, unfortunately, is that there's an obviously upper hand for the person whose contacts eventually got the firm to come to the university — even in this placement from nalsar, objectively more qualified candidates had negligible chances to get picked, and the job eventually went to the same person who had the senior contact with the firm.

You win some, you lose some. :)

Question is where are you working as in house counsel?

Tech Mahindra, Infosys or Wipro - you can go into labour/tmt/gen corp teams.

L&T, Vedanta, ICICI etc you can go into arbitration, projects and finance teams.

Switch will be easy but work will be hard as you will be expected to work insane hours which you never heard off in an in house team.

Hi guys, let's make this thread useful for the law students who are really anxious about placements as not everyone has the privilege of their campus placing them and have to rely on PPOs. Please drop, if you know of any teams in GC, cap marks or B&F in tier 1 law firms who might have vacancies for 26 batch (assuming hiring for 25' is already done). Any help and leads would be appreciated.

I am planning to apply to a few T-1 law firms. Can someone please tell me what my CV should include? What type of questions will I ask? Can I lie subtly in my CV?

It would be great if someone could show me a draft, which I understand might be a little difficult.

But please help your bro out. He really needs to find a new job after being cheated by his two-faced partner.

You are spot on. 200 downvotes is simply impossible. Especially 200 downvotes without even a single counter-comment. I am 100% sure it's a bot programmed to downvote anti-reservation comments. These are known as "votebots" in the tech world.

I am posting a separate thread on LI about votebots.

just read about this on bar and bench (https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/rectracker-86-students-from-batch-of-2024-at-nalsar-get-placed-records-100-placements ) saw the placement stats for nalsar. 1 hire from BCG for b/o 24. im from another t1 nlu, really wanna move into a consulting role post law school, in social impact / government advisory verticals of places like BCG/Dalberg/Grant Thornton, so anxious to think about a future in a law firm. any leads on this would be appreciated, especially wrt to BCG and nalsar, whether it was a direct hire or crc invited placement. thankss

Bro, you already have the answer from QS rankings. Jindal's QS rank is 72 and NLSIU's QS rank is 151-200. In Jindal's case, Northwestern is at 68 and UT Austin is at 79, so these are the ones comparable to Jindal. In NLSIU's case, The US law schools in the 151-200 bracket are:

- Fordham

- Mich State

- Penn State

- Illinois Urbana Champaign

- USC

- Wisconsin

- St Louis

So these are the ones NLSIU is at par with.

Hi, so I was working with the Mumbai team of TMT law practice, this specific team works for a very prominent production house. The partner is extremely rude and unprofessional and so is the principal associate. Pay is also somewhere around 35k-40k. If I am to comment on the way they talk to their peers on the WhatsApp group, nobody would ever want to join them. The firm's other teams and Delhi team is good i guess. But this one specific team i am talking about, please stay away from it.

Different take here. You're very clearly mixing up advocacy with judge's function. That's not the case. Secondly, I'm not sure about your background but all the skills which you mentioned are needed to succeed in law firm also, presence of mind while negotiating transaction documents (which is quite acrimonius at times, to put it mildly and also running for hours at a time, as opposed to only two hours sessions in courts), lit lawyers also appear in courts even though they aren't designated so have these skills and so do people in arbitration. But I think you've very strong views (though you do see others points without being blinded by your views) and let's agree to disagree. Cheers.

hello, has anyone received a confirmation on their internship at fox(the one with the blue logo and 'without' the &) for October? I had followed-up with the HR a few weeks ago, and she asked me to be patient since August interns were still interning. Was wondering if they've shortlisted candidates for October already or should I follow up again.

Is anyone studying in faculty of law DU ? Can you please list a name of professors, including associate and assistant, that are geniunely good. I have gotten an opportunity to pursue my doctoral degree from there, alongside my litigation. However I am aware that some faculty is only there to hassle you. I would be curious to know if there's anyone who knows who the student and research friendly professors are ?!

HNLU had AZB as the only T1 on day zero for the 2025 batch. They made 4 offers (3 on Day Zero, and 1 PPO). All in all, we have secured 16-17 offers, and just 7 of them are day zero recruits. The class of 2024, on the other hand, saw 38 offers out of 67 who participated in the recruitment drive. Low recruitment seems to be an industry-wide issue this year.

Which is a better firm in terms of ppos? I’ve been told both have assessments internships but have rarely seen people get a ppo through a single internship at lexygen and are often called back for another one. Don’t know much about quillon in this regard. I have both lined up for December and need to choose asap. Since I’m from batch 2025, december will be a crucial month.

Any information would be appreciated. Thanks!

What areas of law are typically covered in dispute interviews? Are there specific legal principles or case law that I should be familiar with? Are there any additional resources or strategies you would recommend for preparing for a dispute interview? Given my limited experience in this area.

You’ve raised a valid point, and let me clarify: the argument isn’t that law firm partners have “just a passing familiarity with the law.” That would be an oversimplification, and I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the depth of legal expertise required to succeed at the top of a law firm. However, it’s crucial to distinguish between the skills that make someone a successful partner and the qualities needed to be an effective judge.

The point I’ve been making—and one that ties directly into the broader discussion—is that the judiciary demands more than just specialized knowledge or corporate success. It requires a form of wisdom and experience that is often cultivated through years of direct courtroom engagement, where decisions are made under pressure, with immediate and far-reaching consequences. This is what I referred to earlier as being “battle-tested.”

Law firm partners are undoubtedly experts in their fields, but their experience is typically oriented towards client advocacy and transactional work, rather than the adversarial and public nature of courtroom litigation. It’s not about lacking legal knowledge; it’s about whether that knowledge has been honed in the kind of high-stakes, public-facing environment that judges must navigate daily.

As for the suggestion of training akin to what IAS officers undergo, it’s an intriguing idea. Such programs could indeed help bridge the gap for those transitioning from corporate law to the bench. But even then, we must be cautious not to overlook the unique and irreplaceable value of the broad legal experience that comes from years of courtroom practice. It’s this experience that ensures judges aren’t just technically competent, but also possess the deep, intuitive understanding of the law’s application in diverse and often unpredictable circumstances.

So, while I respect the expertise of law firm partners, my argument is that the judiciary demands a broader, more varied form of experience—one that’s best cultivated in the courtroom. It’s not an “empty hypothesis” but a recognition of the different demands these roles entail. And as I mentioned before, the stakes are too high to assume that success in one realm automatically translates to readiness in another.