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?
As the mods did not post the comments to this question in a previous conversation, putting it up again. Please bear with me and help me out.
Anyway, some other NLUs and JGLS will be releasing statements this week. Let's see how they are worded.
- The VC
- Poddar
- Surprisingly, some of the women faculty, including alumni
Why didn't they sign?
How do you suppose we get evidence without making changes ? It’s like you want the doctor to prove you have a disease and give you medication without letting him test or examine you.
What you’re proposing is - we do nothing to make nls better because we cannot predict long term effects. That’s silly - that will stop innovation and lead to stagnation. If you stop growing in this economy - you will get left behind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsiaKVJ-6fI
1) he is a patriot because he came back when he didn’t have to. And 2) we think his policies are good because of reasons provided in this thread. You’re moving goalposts.
You can go on and try to Interact with the final year seniors especially former position holders who can guide you for the rest of your student life better than those rip-offs.
Best luck!
Also, I dare say, getting into a Jindal or Symbi is, at least at the moment, better than getting into a newer or lesser known "NLU".
This video shows the huge size of the protest: thousands and thousands of black robes marching. I don’t think we have ever seen such a lawyers protest in India, let alone in the 150+ years of the Calcutta High Court. I’m not sure we even saw such protests during British rule, given that most of the lawyers at the Cal HC were then British.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GaVqI2LjNG0&pp=ygUYQ2FvY3V0dGEgbGF3eWVyIHByb3Rlc3Qg
The videos below shows former AG Jayanta Mitra and former AG SN Mookherjee as part of the protest and speaking to the media. You can spot some other seniors as well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EmTm5JJYV4Y
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/mZq5GFSIlNw
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7229746669230116864/
My personal opinion is that this one was a lot stronger and suitable for the occasion compared to the official SJA version, though it clearly mentions that it is complementary to the SJA version and not in derogation of it. The fact that several faculty and staff signed it too (surprise, surprise, neither the VC nor the faculty in cahoots with the VC did sign) makes it even stronger. The SJA one only had student signatories.
One becomes PA3 in 8 years
If the article is super relevant. They might publish it sooner
We, the students of WBNUJS, are profoundly heartbroken and outraged by the brutal rape and murder of a 31-year-old trainee doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College. We stand united in solidarity with her grieving family, the medical community, and all those affected by this horrific tragedy.
As students dedicated to upholding justice, we demand swift and decisive action to ensure those responsible are held fully accountable. We call for systemic reforms to protect the safety and dignity of all workers, particularly women, in their workplaces. We stand firmly with healthcare professionals across the nation in their demand for justice and safer working conditions.
In solidarity,
The Students of NUJS, Kolkata.
So the lesson is that your contacts, communication skills and grooming can outweigh the repute of your university.
(Source: I am an alumni of this college and have a fair idea of how my some of my batchmates, seniors and juniors are doing. All top law firms across the country have equity partners from Symbi (Pune) and there are many other notable lawyers elsewhere, too. People are doing very well in the disputes area as well. )
Symbi (Pune), in my view, is somewhat like a foreign LL.M. -- it is exactly what you make of it. If you apply yourself, go the extra mile and perhaps be more of an initiative-taker across all the semesters, you will get an education that is quite good (in terms of the national legal education standards). The college has decent faculty and good infrastructure (library, etc.), which provide a pretty good platform for a sincere student. It also has groups which can be called the right crowd (good company really matters for young people who have just left their parents' homes), so if one wants he or she can make the right kind of friends, too.
The main drawback of this college is that it is not located in a major legal hub (Pune cannot match a Delhi NCR or Mumbai in opportunities / avenues for gaining exposure). The formal alumni network is also relatively weaker (to put it politely) but that also means that most people are keen to help a junior or an intern.
It’s possible that the Supreme Court will tell the government tomorrow not to arrest people like this, but until then PLEASE be careful. Do NOT get carried away.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/student-arrested-for-post-calling-for-mamata-banerjees-assassination-6368984#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll
Gets murkier and murkier. Obviously a giant conspiracy involving EXTREMELY powerful people.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/kolkata-rape-murder-rg-kar-what-murdered-doctors-father-said-about-a-torn-page-from-her-diary-6368882#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll
Thanks!
I am not sure which field of law I want to pursue yet, but was thinking corporate since I've heard that makes the most money.
Depends on what you want in life. Go-getter bros aiming for a Merc, a high-end 3BHK, Patek watch, and a high-maintenance wife/gf still aim for an equity partnership at a tier 1 -- but be prepared for crazy work hours and stress,
2. German companies are better at paying but since those opportunities are practically non-existent, I don’t even have a ballpark figure to give. Maruti on the other hand offers somewhere around 35k to 45k in hand.
3. Adani - depends on the vertical. If you are in land acquisition/title verification or HR compliance then it’s somewhere around 35-40k in hand. If you are in HO and doing gen corp then that is pushed to 60-70k.
4. I don’t really know what are WITCH companies. Sorry.
5.Investment firms don’t really hire law graduates unless you have CFA or CA cleared at some level. Plus they like someone with an engineering and science background. Insurance companies pay around 35-40k in hand provided if you are in the claims department. Lower this if you are in the branch offices. If you are in gen corp team at HO you can expect around 50k.
Hope this helps.
Usually the opportunities which are posted online are also floated internally as “Internal job postings” and that is a much quicker way of drawing an interview.
Hope this helps!
We have read your policy. Please publish the comments faster. This comment is not intended to troll moderator.
The first few batches under Faizan Mustafa at NALSAR were fine. Graduates had good outcomes, even a Rhodes scholar, many going on to graduate schools, and many steadily climbing the corporate ladder. But the last few batches after FM has been at the helm for a while? Not the same thing at all.
Also, "everyone else is also bad at the law so lets not even try to get better" is not a compelling argument when youre talking about the best law school in the country.
A review in Nature, by
@candice_odgers
, asserts that I have mistaken correlation for causation and that “there is no evidence that using these platforms is rewiring children’s brains or driving an epidemic of mental illness.” Both of these assertions are untrue. https://nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00902-2…@zachmrausch
and I have been collecting the published studies on both sides since 2019, organizing them, and making them available for public viewing and commenting, in multiple Google docs available here: https://anxiousgeneration.com/resources/collaborative-review-docs… In the “social media and mental health” doc, we currently list 22 experimental studies (16 of which found significant evidence of harm) and 9 quasi-experiments (8 of which found evidence of harm. Odgers cited only the 9th one.) We also examine the many meta-analyses and review papers. I lay out the evidence for causality (not just correlation) and walk the reader through the Google doc in this post at After Babel: https://afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic… People really need to stop saying that the evidence is “just correlational.” Sure, there are a lot of correlational studies (79 in our Google doc, of which 64 found significant correlations with variables related to poor mental health.) But there are also many experiments supporting my claims of causation. I’ll write a post at http://Afterbabel.com in April responding more fully to the arguments of the skeptics (including Odgers). For now, I point interested readers to a post in which I laid out 6 problems with the way that the skeptics have conceptualized the debate: https://afterbabel.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong… I just want to note two more problems with Odgers’ review. First: She says that I am offering a simplistic one-factor explanation: it’s social media! But I am not. My story is about two major factors (end of the play-based childhood, rise of the phone-based childhood), each of which has many components that bring a variety of harms to different children in different ways. My book is full of lists of causal pathways. There is no one causal pathway that, on its own, explains “the kind of large effects suggested by Haidt.” Yet when you add up all the different ways that the phone-based childhood is harming different kids, some of which we learned about in that Senate hearing on January 31, you end up with a lot of kids being harmed in many ways, and these many harms combined can easily explain the “large effects” even though most pathways affect only a subset of kids. Yet Odgers and the other skeptics focus intently on studies that operationalize social media in one crude way (total # of hours per day), and then correlate that number with some measure of anxiety, depression, or other mental ailment. When the correlations turn out to be around r = .15 for girls (which is actually a number we agree on, as I explain in the previous link), the skeptics conclude that this is not large enough--by itself--to explain the epidemic, so social media must be only a trivial contributor to the epidemic. This is an error caused by an overly narrow operationalization of a complex phenomenon: the radical transformation of daily life that happened for teens between 2010 and 2015. Only a sliver of the story is captured by the crude measure of “hours per day” on social media. The skeptics’ skepticism would be more compelling if they had an alternative explanation for the multi-national decline in mental health that happened in the early 2010s, but they do not. Odgers claims that the “real causes” of the crisis, from which my book “might distract us from effectively responding,” are the lingering effects of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, which had lasting effects on “families in the bottom 20% of the income distribution,” who were “also growing up at the time of an opioid crisis, school shootings, and increasing unrest because of racial and sexual discrimination and violence.” I agree that those things are all bad for human development, but Odgers’ theory cannot explain why rates of anxiety and depression were generally flat in the 2000s and then suddenly shot upward roughly four years after the start of the Global Financial Crisis. Did life in America suddenly get that much worse during President Obama’s 2nd term, as the economy was steadily improving? Her theory also cannot explain why adolescent mental health collapsed in similar ways around the same time in Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, as Zach and I have shown: https://afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-part-one… Nor can she explain why it also happened in the Nordic countries, which lack most of the social pathologies on Odgers’ list: https://afterbabel.com/p/international-mental-illness-part-two… Nor why it also happened in much of Western Europe: https://afterbabel.com/p/international-crisis-europe… Nor why suicide rates for Gen Z girls (but not alway boys) are at record levels across the Anglosphere: https://afterbabel.com/p/anglo-teen-suicide… I just can’t see a causal path by which America’s school shootings, lockdown drills, inequality, or racism caused girls in Australia to suddenly start self-harming or dying by suicide at the same time as American girls. In short: There is a great deal of evidence for my claims that something terrible is happening to teens in many countries, and that a major contributing factor is the sudden international arrival of the phone-based childhood. I lay out this evidence––with hundreds of footnotes––in chapters 1, 5, 6, and 7 of The Anxious Generation. I have also laid it out in many posts at http://AfterBabel.com. All along, Zach and I have “shown our work” in public Google Docs and Substack posts, and we have invited others to critique it. Zach has made supplemental files for every chapter in The Anxious Generation, which give links to the datasets and data points that he used to create the graphs in the book. We invite you to check our work: https://anxiousgeneration.com/resources/supplements-for-each-chapter… Our work has benefited from cordial, normal, academic debates with the skeptics. We will continue to welcome their critiques. But please, everyone, stop saying that the evidence is “just correlational."
Link:https://x.com/JonHaidt/status/1774571680511508601
We have summarised and re-articulated our community guidelines here and hope to update these regularly based on your feedback in the comments below.
If you have any suggestions, we'd love to hear from you.
Much love,
LI
1. Commenting guidelines
We want LI to be a friendly place 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.
There are a few simple principles and rules that you must agree to follow in using this site:
Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
Assume the best intention of other persons.
Particularly, this means but is not limited to the following:
1.1. Report any comments to moderators that do you think do not meet these commenting and moderation policies with the '⚠ / report' button next to each comment. Reports will get looked at and processed within 24 hours (and we try to do so faster). In your report, please specify why a comment should be unpublished and/or redacted.
1.2. Don't defame or be malicious towards others. E.g. calling someone 'toxic' is not actually helpful or verifiable.
1.3. Don't sensationalise (such as in headlines by using CAPITAL LETTERS, known as shouting).
1.4. If your news item or argument can be backed up by evidence, please include a link to the original source or a screenshot (pasting into the comments box usually works).
1.5. Don't attack or question the moderators' decisions or motives. It is rude and off-topic, they have a lot to do and try their best. If you disagree with a moderation decision, use the 'file appeal' or 'report' button next to each comment.
1.6. Don't hold ideological or political battles on LI, including battles about another issue that you are really making to hold a proxy battle about something else.
2. Moderator guidelines
To those community members who are also moderators: it might feel frustrating not being able to publish everything. But do bear in mind: moderation is the only thing that stands in the way of LI being a cesspit of misinformation, untruths and trolling, versus a helpful resource that encourages intelligent and helpful debate.
Here are some general guidelines that may be helpful.
2.1 Do publish:
2.1.1. Thoughtful comments that engage intelligently on a subject matter that lawyers might find interesting
2.1.2. Interesting comments that cast new light on a problem or situation and that might make lawyers think
2.1.3. Comments that are helpful and aim to assist someone with advice.
2.2 Don't publish:
2.2.1. Comments attacking a person, not their argument, or insinuating that someone anonymous is actually someone else (ad hominem).
2.2.2. Comments where someone, who is not a public figure, is named or fundamentally identifiable because it includes a description that leaves the pool of eligible people very small, and something is said about them you don't know or is impossible to know potentially defames them, such as by questioning their legal accumen or skills.
2.2.2. Comments where in all likelihood you don't know what something means (e.g. in-jokes, slang, a language you don't understand).
2.2.3. Comments that are NOT in English (alas, it's the Indian legal profession's main lingua franca).
2.2.4. Comments making fun of someone else's level of English spelling or grammar (it is exclusionary: not everyone will have had the same educational or language background, and dyslexia is real).
2.2.5. Comments where there's even a small risk that the comment is cyber bullying or trolling or doxxing someone by making personal details public: especially keep an eye out for likely intra-law-school rivalries.
2.2.6. Comments about the physical appearance or other physical characteristics of someone else, even if complimentary and not negative.
And remember, if in doubt, don't publish a comment. You can call for help or opinions from other mods and more senior mods anytime by clicking the 'SOS' button to report a comment.
@mods pleaseee publish fastttt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69-UbdqOblI
The obvious answer for me would be that all firms are setup as a Partnership, but that doesn't seem to fit the way these firms work. Partly because, seemingly "partners" are added and removed on the drop of a hat (I understand salaried partners would be one only in name, drawing a set retainer.).
If the firms were LLP's that would make sense, but it's a pretty recent development in India so I don't believe many firms exist as a LLP.
In any case I'm slightly befuddled by this question and ask any in the know-how to answer it.
What is the organizational setup of a BIG law firm and the corresponding compliance requirements?
IT Companies
https://www.facebook.com/NUJSKolkata
https://x.com/ashish_nujs/status/1825173408918679989
With respect to the ppt and interview, just be well researched on the subject you're presenting and thorough with everything in your CV. PPOs can be through RCC or if you go through a contact as well, you just gotta do good work. No idea if they take individual applications.
So that CM Kindness does not become next Hasina? To stall domino effect in other states?