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?
Associates should try to hear the seniors and explain their position also.
A lengthy Google form has been provided on their website. Can one expect to secure an internship after they can satisfactorily answer all questions? I have only heard of people getting in through references, so I was curious to know.
Just 5 minutes after that, my partner asked if I wanted to order dinner. Money wasted 😭
The point isn’t to single out one individual, but to engage in a necessary discussion about the qualities we value in our judiciary—qualities like deep courtroom experience, impartiality, and a clear distance from potential conflicts of interest. These are not trivial concerns, nor are they unique to any one candidate. They are fundamental to maintaining the integrity of our judicial system.
It’s also worth noting that the collegium’s decisions, like any human process, are not infallible. They deserve scrutiny—not out of disrespect, but out of a commitment to ensuring that our judicial appointments meet the highest possible standards. Questioning these decisions is part of a healthy, functioning democracy; it’s not an attack, but a necessary dialogue.
So, to answer your question directly: this isn’t about declaring that the collegium made a “horrendous mistake.” It’s about ensuring that, as we move forward, we’re vigilant in upholding the principles that ensure our judiciary remains fair, impartial, and respected. These discussions are not only about one individual’s qualifications but about the integrity of the entire system, which must be preserved and protected at all costs.
Kya hai esa to yaha par?
20 lakh per hearing ka jumla?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/nujs-student-group-takes-back-guv-invite/amp_articleshow/73179463.cms
Please do not tarnish all of us for the actions of a small, bigoted minority (and may I add that some of these woke people now work for firms advising pro-Modi industrialists like Adani, Ambani and Jindal —- height of double standards!).
Try your luck at boutique law firms like I did. They pay anywhere from 15-25k and the work is generally mixed in nature - advisory,gen corp, litigation etc.
Or
Join an LPO or process outsourcing job at one of the companies in gurgaon or noida .They pay decently but word of caution, you can get laid off at any moment.
I am the same person who commented above, saying I've visited Oxford three times in the last eight years. I didn't ask for this to be marked trollish and I certainly don't think that that tag is appropriate for the comment. In fact, I agree with it.
So the standard choice should always be DU, BHU, JNU, IITs, IIMs >> NLUs for PhD.
Anika, who was in her third year pursuing a BA LLB (Hons), was the daughter of Santosh Rastogi, an IPS officer serving as the Inspector General at the National Investigation Agency (NIA). According to sources, Anika had a history of medical issues since childhood, including undergoing at least three heart surgeries.
https://www.timesnownews.com/india/19-year-old-law-student-daughter-of-nia-official-found-dead-in-hostel-room-article-112971892/amp
You can knock on his door at any moment for ANY doubt.
Leaves are never an issue, provided you get your work done.
Generally a fun guy. Worked with him very closely.
Will give you a lot of exposure and visibility.
https://www.barandbench.com/apprentice-lawyer/rectracker-24-students-get-placed-from-rmlnlus-batch-of-2024
i feel nothing but excited about going to the office everyday. everything from the work you get assigned to the environment is beautiful. youll get to learn immensely and honestly? don’t care about the pay. astha ma’am is an absolute gem of a person and will teach you so much. learning is more important than money, especially if you’re just starting out. just cut back on your finances and youll be good to go.
Hope it helps.
Is this happening to anyone else?
The fight is now at the center of Mr. Musk’s bid to turn X into a safe haven for people to say nearly anything they want, even if it hurts the business in the process.
In dozens of posts since April, Mr. Musk has built up Justice Moraes as one of the world’s biggest enemies of free speech, and it appears Mr. Musk is now betting the judge will cave to the public backlash he believes the block will cause.
“He might be losing money in the short term, but he’s gaining enormous political capital,” said Luca Belli, a professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro, who has tracked Mr. Musk’s strategy with X.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/30/world/americas/brazil-elon-musk-x-blocked.html
With the draconian adminstration who is stringent on attendance policy and faculties having too much autonomy regarding marks (class participation and attendance )makes it hard for a student to avail better internship opportunities.
So when other university kids are doing 4 internships in third year/fourth year on an average the ones in NUALS are barely getting 2 internships and since those falls under peak months of December/June most of them ends up not getting any slots at good tiered law firms.
It is evident that the whole admin wants nuals to fall back into the levels of random glcs in Kerala.
As for the poster who writes extremely well while decrying the focus on money, don’t dismiss money so easily, my friend. Earning this amount in a law firm shows the individual has many qualities that make for an excellent public servant - an incredible work ethic, attention to detail, commitment and stamina across many years (even decades), the ability to understand and address the conflicting interests of different stakeholders, raw intellect and a mastery of at least one area of law. Last but not least, financial resources that mitigate the ever present temptress of the under-paid yet powerful - corruption.
Several of these are innate qualities, difficult to acquire merely from books or experience. And they represent excellent building blocks for a distinguished judicial career.
Clearly, we would like every judge to be yet another Solomon from the very start. That is, perhaps, unrealistic. Solomons are made over the course of a life. Prior success in a career, evidenced by earnings, is a good first step. Best of luck to the new appointee for what(ever) lies ahead.
RIP 🙏
different perspective.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/senior-police-officers-daughter-anika-rastogi-19-found-dead-at-lucknow-ram-manohar-lohia-national-law-university-6467170#pfrom=home-ndtv_topstories
We’ll know the cause of death soon enough, but for now let us pray for the departed soul and wish her parents strength. 🙏🙏🙏 She was obviously a bright girl who worked hard on the CLAT, having made it to the merit list of a top 10 NLU.
Let’s also remember that a large number of deaths of law students have unfortunately taken place in recent years, for reasons ranging from car accidents to COVID to heart attacks to suicide. In fact, another very talented girl student (from Jindal) who was also the daughter of an IAS officer took her own life as she was suffering from exam-related depression, despite being a good student (see below).
Regardless of the cause of death, it’s a reminder to be kind to our fellow students. There is too much toxicity in NLUs.
https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/cities/mumbai/story/ias-couples-daughter-jumps-off-mumbai-apartment-dies-was-anxious-about-academics-2547422-2024-06-03
Internally foreign LLM+PhD faculty here compare it to Boston University School of Law, Notre Dame Law School, Vanderbilt University Law School etc.
What do you all think?
I am not sure of the situation in other law schools - truly hope nobody has to go through something like this. just wish the job market would fare better and a situation like this wouldn't arise. praying that these kids don't lose hope:((
Anyone from RML?
Daughter of senior IPS. Hope it’s not university negligence?
Conflicts of interest are the Achilles’ heel of any system that prides itself on impartiality. The challenge here is that Mr. Karia, having operated at the highest levels within SAM, will undoubtedly have had dealings with a wide array of clients and cases, many of which could conceivably come before him as a judge. The question then becomes: how do we ensure that his decisions remain above reproach, that they are free from even the appearance of bias?
In an ideal world, the solution would be straightforward: rigorous recusals, clear guidelines, and perhaps even the preemptive declaration of conflicts. But we know that the real world is messier. Relationships formed over years of professional collaboration don’t simply vanish the moment one dons the judicial robes. The bonds of trust and mutual interest that are the lifeblood of the corporate world can linger, consciously or unconsciously, influencing decisions in subtle ways.
This is why transparency is absolutely critical. The judiciary must not only be impartial, but it must be seen to be impartial. Any perceived conflict of interest, whether real or imagined, can erode public confidence in the system. And once that confidence is lost, it’s incredibly difficult to regain.
So, while we can and should congratulate Mr. Karia on his elevation, we must also insist on the highest standards of scrutiny and accountability as he steps into this new role. The mechanisms for identifying and addressing potential conflicts must be robust, transparent, and unyielding. For in the end, the credibility of our judicial system hinges not just on the competence of those who serve, but on their unwavering commitment to justice, free from any shadow of doubt.
Faculty exodus will be an issue, which is not bad after all. Good faculty will be paid well, as it should be. Even the private universities will be "forced" to raise faculty salaries.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/5000-students-and-30-courses-in-8-years-southampton-university-draws-up-plan-for-india-campus/cid/2045024
The answer, I suspect, lies in something far more profound than money. For those at the pinnacle of their profession, the motivation often transcends mere financial gain. It becomes about mastery, about influence, about leaving a legacy. When you’ve reached the point where your financial needs are more than met, what propels you isn’t the next crore—it’s the desire to shape the landscape of your field, to set new standards, to be the best.
But there’s also a cautionary tale here. The pursuit of ever-greater financial success can become all-consuming, potentially blinding even the most brilliant minds to other, perhaps more enduring, forms of achievement. The ability to command vast sums in M&A or dispute resolution is impressive, but at what point does the relentless chase for more obscure the larger picture—one that includes public service, ethical leadership, and contributing to the common good?
This brings us to the heart of the matter: when does financial success become a gilded cage, trapping individuals in a cycle of perpetual ambition? And more importantly, what happens when that drive is channeled into roles that demand a different kind of motivation—roles like the judiciary, where the stakes aren’t measured in profits, but in justice?
So, while we can marvel at the financial achievements of these individuals, we should also ask ourselves: what do we truly value in our leaders, in our judges? Is it their ability to accumulate wealth, or their capacity to serve the greater good, to embody the principles of fairness and integrity that our society depends on?
Motivation, in the end, is a complex thing. But if the drive to accumulate more wealth is all that remains, then perhaps it’s worth reconsidering what true success looks like—both for these individuals and for the institutions they might one day serve.
Yes, only a select few partners reach that level of earnings, and it’s undoubtedly a marker of their success in the corporate world. But financial success in a law firm, while commendable, is not the same as the qualities required to sit on the bench. Earning 7 crores is a reflection of one’s ability to navigate complex business deals, manage client relationships, and drive firm profits. It speaks to expertise in a particular domain, certainly, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to the judicial wisdom, impartiality, and breadth of experience that we expect from those who hold judicial office.
The judiciary isn’t a reward for corporate success. It’s a position of public trust, one that requires a different set of skills and experiences—skills that are often forged in the rough and tumble of courtroom advocacy, where the stakes are more than financial, and where the consequences of decisions reach far beyond the balance sheets of corporations.
So while we can acknowledge the financial success of those at the top of the law firm ladder, let’s not confuse that with the qualities that make a great judge. The bench demands more than just expertise in a niche field; it demands a deep, broad understanding of the law, a commitment to public service, and the wisdom to apply the law fairly and justly. And that, “Hot Shot,” is something that 7 crores a year alone cannot buy.
Firstly, the argument that someone coming from a law firm will naturally be familiar with the courts misses a fundamental point. It’s not about mere familiarity; it’s about the depth of experience that only comes from the relentless grind of courtroom battles, day in and day out. Senior advocates, for all their transitions to the bench, have spent years honing their skills in the crucible of courtrooms, facing the unpredictability of live cases, the intricacies of argumentation, and the pressures that simply don’t exist in a boardroom or an advisory role. The concern isn’t that law firm partners are unaware of courts; it’s that they haven’t lived the life of an advocate, where the stakes are immediate, and the lessons learned are hard-earned through direct engagement in the adversarial process. That difference is significant.
Secondly, while you’re right that perception issues can exist even for senior advocates, equating this with the concerns raised about law firm partners is to oversimplify the matter. Senior advocates, by the time they’re considered for the bench, have built their reputations over years—if not decades—of public service, with a track record of arguing cases across a wide spectrum, often on behalf of the government or in the public interest. Their loyalties and competencies are tested in ways that are transparent and visible to all. On the other hand, law firm partners often operate in the more private, transactional world of corporate law, where their work, while important, is far less scrutinized by the public eye. The transition from representing private interests to suddenly embodying judicial impartiality is, therefore, far more abrupt and potentially problematic.
As for the point about domain knowledge, it’s a compelling one, but let’s not conflate domain expertise with judicial acumen. Yes, the complexity of modern business requires a nuanced understanding of corporate law, but that doesn’t mean that the best judges are those who come directly from corporate law firms. What we need are judges who have both the expertise and the broader perspective that comes from years of diverse legal practice—across different areas of law, in various types of cases. Senior advocates often bring this broad experience to the bench, while law firm partners, focused as they are on specific corporate issues, might lack the breadth necessary to fully grasp the wide array of matters that come before a judge.
Lastly, while we can all respect the decision of someone to take a significant pay cut to join the bench, we should be cautious about equating personal sacrifice with judicial qualification. The decision to become a judge should be motivated by a commitment to public service and a deep understanding of the law, not merely by a willingness to forgo a higher salary. That someone has agreed to earn less does not, by itself, speak to their suitability for the bench. What’s crucial is whether they have the experience, temperament, and wisdom to make just and fair decisions in a complex and often contradictory legal landscape.
In the end, while we may differ in our views, I believe it’s essential to maintain a high standard for those who sit on the bench—one that includes not just domain knowledge, but also a deep and broad legal experience, tested and proven in the courts. This isn’t about tradition for tradition’s sake; it’s about ensuring that our judiciary remains strong, impartial, and above all, truly capable of administering justice.
A note to the moderators- why are you holding back the commentary around this development and marking them trollish? Just censor the problematic bits and publish!
i. Supervisors and Research committee members are strict, which is good in an ideal environment but adds up years to your PhD
ii. Financial upport is absent or negligible. Unless one has JRF, one is not able to sustain themselves.
iii. No value of the NLU tag or anything. You don't even get interview calls from colleges recruiting.
iv. Takes a long time to set up things. Like external sitting over PhD thesis for an year. Externals are big people so universities also don't say much to them.
v. Colleges like JGLS provide financial as well as logistical support for publishing. Here, you have no financial incentives. Logistical support is there, but very patchy. However, I don't personally think fianncial incentives are good for academia in general.
It will be fascinating to see what happens now. Is Sibal going to be pushed out? Are the numbers still in his favour? Will Adish Agarwala fight again with BJP backing, or will a new face emerge? Maybe someone with more stature? Some interesting names floating around.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jagdeep-dhankhar-kapil-sibal-kolkata-doctor-rape-murder-adding-salt-to-veeps-fresh-fire-at-kapil-sibal-over-kolkata-horror-6466019#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll