Hello :) I'm a penultimate-year law student specializing in tax law, I am planning to apply for a long-term internship under Senior Advocate Rohan Shah during my final year, with the goal of securing a PPO. However, I have two major concerns:

1. 1. I’ve heard that candidates who join via a PPO after interning are sometimes still treated like interns compared to external fresh recruits.
2. 2. Financial stability is a top priority for me. I am unsure about the compensation structure in his chambers, as well as how chamber practice compares to law firm practice in terms of pay scale and career trajectory for tax law. I'm more inclined towards chambers since I wanna practice litigation however the payscale is stopping me from doing so.

Work is awesome (got assigned on a tax evasion matter, abac DD and a POSH case when i was there), but you need to know the facts and applicable law relevant to your case . Can’t rely blindly on ai tools since the work you submit is actually checked and assessed

Team is dynamic and young and they spend time explaining stuff (which is better than most toxic places that I’ve interned before this).

Office is a little far (in Noida) but rest all’s quite nice. i dont think applying after a break is a problem as long as you have a compelling cover letter and a good enough reason for the break.

Hi. Im a non NLU student and have started wondering about whether or not I will ever be able to secure an internship at a Tier 1 law firm without a referral ever. I have done 3 internships so far and my GPA is 7+/10. I started my CS Executive prep recently out of sheer desperation, Ive also probably sent 100s of emails with a cover letter and what not. Im in my fourth year now and I want advice on where and how to apply to places that might not outright reject me bc of my college. Any advice is more than welcome. Thank you.

So I am from a Top Tier National University, currently in my 3rd year out of 5.

So I was looking forward to attempt CSE 2029, but now that the Supreme Court has reduced the minimum years litigation practice requirement for attempting Judiciary exam from 3 years to just 1 year.

So which exam should I attempt first? Judiciary or CSE?

Should I give CSE an attempt first and then switch to Judiciary if things don’t work out, or attempt Judiciary first only. ( My main aim is UPSC CSE only and I will attempt it even if I am in Judiciary)

(Just to add some context, I am financially secure, and don’t have any burden to provide for family, but would love to become financially independent asap and also I got no interest in a corporate law firm job and also my reason for attempting CSE is quite different from others and is something I can’t reveal rn)

Tldr:- I'm a 3rd-year student at a top-tier NLU, primarily aiming for UPSC CSE 2029. Since the minimum practice requirement for Judiciary has reportedly been reduced from 3 years to 1 year, I'm considering Judiciary as an alternative/backup. Should I attempt CSE first and then Judiciary, or Judiciary first and attempt CSE while in service?

It pays a lot more than T2/T3 law firm if you are any good at it.

On average, recruiter / recruitment firm gets candidate's 1 month retainer (or 8.33% of CTC) for successful placement and candidate working in the org for 6-12 months. If you manage to place say two candidates per month and let's assume average retainer is 2LPM, that's 4L per month you've made.

Recruitment fee is higher for more senior level roles (15% to 30% of annual CTC). If CTC is say 1cr, you've made 15L - 30L.

Of course, there are plenty of recruiters who are very bad their job and don't make any money.

Hi, just wanted to get an understanding of whether it is wise to switch from a decent tier 2 firm to Lex Consult. Please also include details like their pay at the A2 level, the nature of work and transactions typically seen by the firm and what is the general culture of the place like. Is it worth going here or would it make further switches difficult?

Hi, your practice area is unclear from the query but assuming this is for M&A / PE work, look into whether Shishir V's team is hiring in Bombay - there will be workload yes, but it would be a great place to learn and grow; low amount of toxicity and not so moody partners. Mithun V Thanks team in SAM Mumbai can be considered as well. Can suggest more if you specify practice area and PQE.

A man can stay partner at a tier-1 firm even after facing a being involved in a very public motor accident caused by apparent negligence where multiple casualties were reported (iykyk). They can use the firms resources to blame it on a car malfunction and to then wipe clean any digital footprint of said incident. The firm is happy to keep them on payroll. Idk. Kuch bhi chal raha hai.

LI mods himmat hai toh hone do isse publish.

Most law firm work environments are abusive, and the pay structure is incidental to that. Large firms pay well above what most graduates could earn elsewhere, and they do it early, before anyone has the judgment or the savings to think clearly about it. The salary is not just compensation. It is a lock. Once you have adjusted your life to that number, taken on the rent, the EMI, the family expectations, the exit becomes expensive in a way that has nothing to do with how much you are suffering. The firm knows this. The dependence is the point, and the model runs on extracting the maximum from people who cannot afford to walk.

The structural driver is leverage. A large firm makes money by billing many junior hours against few partner hours, so the incentive runs toward long hours, high targets, and a churn rate the firm treats as a cost of doing business rather than a failure. Individual partners may be decent people. The system still produces the same outcome, because nobody is rewarded for producing it differently.

If you want better teams, look at smaller or boutique firms. Some boutiques are equally treacherous, and a bad boutique can be worse because there is nowhere to hide and no HR function that even pretends to exist. But many boutiques with sensible leadership run a far more balanced environment, and the economics explain why. They pay less, so they cannot squeeze people the same way. Push too hard and the associate simply leaves, because the pay gap no longer justifies the misery. The lower salary buys you bargaining power. That is an uncomfortable thing to say to someone weighing offers, but it is true.

I would avoid boutiques with tier I aspirations. These are the worst of both worlds. They import the hours, the face time, and the hierarchy of a large firm without the pay, the infrastructure, the support staff, or the deal flow that might make the trade defensible. Watch for the signs: obsessive talk about rankings and directory submissions, aggressive lateral hiring to build headcount, non sense linked posts churned on repeat, self-glamourisation, a founder who talks constantly about where the firm will be in five years, and a website that describes the firm as full service when eight people work there.

The diligence that actually helps is talking to people who left, not people who stayed. Anyone still there has reasons to sell you the place. Ask about the last two years of associate departures and see how the answer lands.

And if you are lucky, a spot will open up in one of the decent tier I teams. They do exist. Within firms that are otherwise brutal, you will find the occasional team where the partner protects their people, pushes back on unreasonable timelines, and treats the associates as something more than billing units. That team gets you the pay, the mandates, and the brand, without the extraction.

The problem is that these seats almost never come free. In my experience people simply do not quit those teams. Once someone lands there, they stay, and the vacancy only appears when somebody makes partner, moves in-house on their own terms, or leaves the country. That is a slow clock. You cannot plan a career around it, and you certainly cannot wait for it while stuck somewhere that is grinding you down.

So treat it as opportunism rather than strategy. Keep the network warm, stay on speaking terms with juniors and seniors across firms, and make sure a few people know the kind of team you are looking for, because these roles usually fill through a quiet word before anything reaches a job board. Know which partners you would actually want to work under, not just which firms, since the team is what determines your life and the letterhead does not. Then get on with building a good practice wherever you are. If the seat opens, you want to be someone the partner already has a reason to call.

Hey, ill be giving alot of interviews for the post of assistant professor. I do not have any prior experience for the same. People who gave such interviews in past, or are currently ap, please share your experience on what questions do they generally ask, any tips how to get through. I would be really grateful.

thanks!

the clat consortium made an error when they inducted this private uni, finally the reckoning has come, if there is an investigation the people who had allowed it to happen will finally be taken to task, they may have retired but their footprints are still all over the place, perhaps this would reduce their influence and allow new thought process to come in

Today law firms seem like a toxic shit hole. With Partners only wanting to fill their pockets, and their toys being the toys they like. You dream, you crack CLAT, you work sleeplessly through law school, get a T1 law firm job, to just come across these shit heads. Practising fellatio would have worked better to suck up to them.

Was it always like this? Law schools seem to have been extremely healthy places 20 years back… how did they produce people so weak, or lacking almost any character?

Worst thing one can do in law is to open a shop and run it like a dukandar from your chair/position. These people do just that. Client and service quality gayi bhaad mai.

Need some help from the LI community.

Over the past few months, I have seen several posts from fresh graduates struggling with team dynamics, work structure, compensation, and other challenges at their respective law firms.

While this may be another post on a similar subject, I would be grateful if the moderators could feature this post.

I have a few questions below, not just about how to make a lateral move, but also about how to survive and navigate the initial months at our current firms and how prospective recruiters may perceive an early switch.

I would genuinely appreciate responses, especially from those who have already gone through this phase and made a lateral move during their first year. I have tried to frame the questions generally so that they are relevant across practice areas.

1. When should freshers start applying to Tier 1/2 firms?

Most of us who joined in May or June are now in our 4th or 5th month of practice, as the firm asked us to join as soon as college ends.

A lot of us had hoped to reach Tier 1/2 firms during law school itself, but things do not always go according to plan.

Given that many Tier 1/2 firms have recently completed their fresher inductions (around July/August), does it make sense to start applying now, or would it be better to wait?

If waiting is advisable, which months are generally more suitable for applications?

We understand that larger firms may come with their own challenges, including WLB, but We would still like to try.

2. Should freshers apply directly or approach recruitment agencies?

If we decide to apply, is it better to approach law firms directly or go through recruitment agencies?

Many recruitment agencies do not explicitly do fresher hiring opportunities, so should we still send them our CVs?

Also, if anyone has had a good experience with particular recruitment agencies, please do share them.

In general, which route tends to work better, the firm's HR/recruitment team or recruitment agencies?

3. How should we explain an early switch during an interview?

Most people considering a switch this early may be doing so because of team issues, structural concerns, nature of work, learning opportunities, or compensation.

If asked, "Why do you want to leave your current organisation so early?", what would be the best way to approach this question without sounding negative about the present organisation?

4. How should we address a location change?

There may also be situations where someone is working in one city but receives an opportunity in another.

For example, if someone is working in Mumbai and wants to move to Delhi, how should they address this question during an interview?

Would recruiters generally consider this a concern, and how can one present the move positively?

5. Does it make sense to email law-firm partners directly?

Is cold-emailing partners a worthwhile strategy for freshers?

If yes, what kind of partners should one target? I feel that the approach should be strategic rather than simply emailing the most senior or well-known partners, but I may be wrong.

Also, how should we position ourselves when writing to partners or preparing a cover letter? I understand this is subjective, but any general principles or factors that have worked for others would be extremely helpful.

6. What about an experience cut?

If a firm asks us to accept an experience cut while making a lateral move, is there any reasonable way to negotiate or protect the experience we have already gained?

I understand that an experience cut may sometimes be unavoidable, but it would be helpful to know how others have handled this.

7. If now is not the right time, when should we apply?

If the general consensus is that the 4th–6th month is not the ideal time to apply to Tier 1/2 firms, when would be a better period?

I understand vacancies can arise at any point, but are there certain months when lateral movements or hiring generally increase?

8. Which HR/recruitment teams should we target?

I have noticed that Tier 1 firms often have multiple HR/recruitment professionals, some handling internships, some experienced-hire recruitment, and others fresher hiring.

How do we identify the right person to approach when reaching out to a firm?

I know this has turned into a long post, but I believe this is something many fresh graduates are currently navigating.

If the experienced professionals in this community could share even a small part of their experience, it could genuinely help those of us trying to navigate our first few months in the profession.

Lastly, I have one suggestion for the moderators/community: could we create a shared Google Sheet covering hiring updates not just for freshers, but also for experienced professionals? If the community could update it regularly, it could become a useful resource for everyone.

We all want to build a long-term career in this profession. At this stage, many of us are simply trying to understand how to navigate the early phase, make the right decisions, and survive long enough to grow.

Would genuinely appreciate any honest advice, particularly from those who have been through this phase themselves.

What about investment funds or corporate practice? I see a lot of job openings for investment funds lawyer in London. I practice the same in India and want to move to UK. Is it possible to do this? If yes, then how? Can anyone please shed some light or help in any manner. Would be very grateful.

it was choice to learn about western culture - not a mandate even if you were rich and elite. Of course, access varied. Internet made western music movies and books available once we had broadband - say by 2005

After that it was not about elite access, it was about having a curious mind to learn about a different culture

The issue is also the weird trimester system at NLS. We all know that firms are moving towards PPO route of hiring. This means less people from NLS have chances of conversion simply because it's hard for one to build rapport with the team in 1 month and NLS students sometimes get somewhere around 3 weeks of time to intern if the end terms are shifted to first week of the month of internship.

▮▮▮ has mastered the art of LAUDED in-competence. He is now “technically” on campus. Try to get him to do ANYthing.

“Where is the rule that requires me to help?”
“Who am I to help?”
“Let me ask my Deans?”

▮▮▮ (elder brother), (imagine a hand gently placed on the shoulder, with due respect) you ARE the VC???

▮▮▮'s English was horrible. but He DID things. BAD things, Good things, but did things. Oh why did he not speak the Queen's, oops, the King's English!

Where are our saviours????
(Clue: drafting emails. After emails. After emails. After emails...)

Well, is it NOW not irritating?? 🙃

(if anyone picks up on the GOT ref, thank you)

If any decent and independent advocate reading this message (and all other messages in this conversation) has the time and energy, please send a letter to BCI pointing out how:

– ELP has been and continues to be a partnership of lawyers and CAs;

– ELP hires law students meant to be studying full-time, expecting them to bunk classes and work in ELP’s office;

– ELP employs CAs and involves them in the ‘practice of law’ as defined by the Supreme Court in A.K. Balaji.

– ELP’s Tax and Trade Team will soon be functioning as an independent law firm, but in reality owned and controlled by Dhruva Advisors, a CA firm, which is funded by Ryan LLC, a US accounting firm.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do this myself.

In Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji (2018) 5 SCC 379, the Supreme Court of India held that foreign law firms and lawyers cannot practise law in India, whether in litigation or in non-litigious work such as advice, drafting or conferences, unless they comply with the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, because only advocates enrolled under the Act may practise the profession of law. The Court treated “practice of law” as covering both courtroom and transactional work and therefore barred foreign firms from opening offices or liaison offices in India. It allowed a limited exception for genuinely casual “fly in and fly out” visits to advise clients on foreign or international law, provided those visits do not become regular practice, and it permitted foreign counsel to appear in India-seated international commercial arbitrations subject to Indian ethical standards and any applicable institutional or statutory rules. The Court left it open to the Bar Council of India or the Union Government to frame detailed regulations.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in A.K. Balaji continues to be in force. It remains the leading authority on:

- - the meaning of “practise the profession of law” under the Advocates Act, 1961 (covering both litigation and non-litigious work such as opinions, drafting and conferences);
- - the rule that, unless another law provides otherwise, only advocates enrolled under the Act may practise law in India; and
- - the position that foreign lawyers and foreign law firms cannot practise Indian law, litigious or non-litigious, without complying with the Act and BCI Rules.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) permits practising CAs to form multi-disciplinary partnerships with members of certain other professional bodies, including advocates who are members of the Bar Council of India, under Regulation 53B of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988 (read with Clause 4 of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949). ICAI even updated Form 18 in 2021 to facilitate such multi-disciplinary firms.

However, Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 (Rule 2 of Chapter III of Part IV, “Conditions for Right to Practice”) prohibit an advocate from entering into a partnership or any other arrangement for sharing remuneration with any person who is not an advocate. ICAI has itself advised its members not to take BCI-enrolled advocates as partners unless and until the BCI rules are amended. That restriction remains in force; In May 2026 the Sales Tax Bar Association made a representation to the Law Ministry and BCI requesting for a change in these regulations, but there has been no progress on that front.

Advocates may practise as sole proprietors or in partnerships/LLPs consisting only of other enrolled advocates. CAs and advocates can collaborate through referrals, consultancy arrangements, or (in some cases) fee-sharing that does not constitute a partnership under BCI rules, but they cannot operate as partners of one firm offering combined legal and accountancy services. Any such structure would expose the advocate to professional misconduct proceedings under the Advocates Act and BCI Rules.

I concede that it is not automatically illegal for a law firm to employ a chartered accountant as staff in a Trade Law practice if the CA does not appear before any court or tribunal. However:

A. if the CA holds a Certificate of Practice, full-time (or even part-time) employment with a law firm is not covered by the general permission in Appendix 9 to the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1988. That general permission covers only employment under a practising CA or a CA firm. Employment in any other organisation (including a law firm) requires the Council’s specific prior permission under Regulation 190A read with Clause (11) of Part I of the First Schedule to the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. Taking up such employment without that permission is professional misconduct. If the CA surrenders the COP (or never held one) and works only as a member in service, Regulation 190A does not apply.

2. B. As per the Supreme Court’s ruling in A.K. Balaji (2018), “practice of law” includes non-litigious work such as opinions, drafting and conferences, not only court appearances. A salaried employment relationship, with the CA doing technical or analytical support (for example dumping-margin calculations, customs valuation analysis, trade-data work) and not holding out as a lawyer or appearing, is generally treated as support staff rather than a prohibited partnership or unauthorised practice of law. The arrangement becomes problematic if, in pith and substance, the CA is giving legal advice on Indian trade law, drafting legal submissions, or the firm presents the CA as part of a joint legal-and-accountancy practice. That could engage Sections 29/33/45 of the Advocates Act and the Balaji principle.

Trust this clarifies.

ELP’s website shows that its International Trade Practice has 3 Partners and 3 Associate Partners. Of these 6, 5 are pure lawyers/advocates. One Associate Partner is a CA and a lawyer.

I’m posting this anonymously because I am still employed here and don't want to jeopardise my future employment prospects.

I work(ed) at ▮▮▮, and today we were informed that the Managing Partner has decided to wind up the business and close the ▮▮▮ group companies.

According to the communication circulated to employees, the stated reasons are an ongoing dispute concerning the office premises, which apparently had a significant impact on the business, coupled with continuous business losses.

The problem is not simply that the firm is shutting down. Businesses fail. Firms have financial difficulties. That's unfortunate but understandable.

The problem is how the employees have been left to deal with the consequences.

We have been told that 30 September 2026 will be the last working day. We were also told that if we find another opportunity before then, we are free to leave earlier. August salary itself has apparently been delayed and is expected to be paid by 10 September.

Think about what this means for people who joined the firm expecting to build their careers here.

Some of us joined recently. Some left other opportunities to join. Some were in the middle of building specialised practices and developing experience. People made career decisions based on the assumption that the organisation they were joining would continue to exist.

And now we essentially have a few weeks to find new jobs and restart our careers.

What is particularly frustrating is the complete lack of meaningful support from the partners/management during this situation, at least from what employees have experienced.

There has been no meaningful career-transition assistance, no structured placement support, no apparent effort to connect affected employees with other firms, and very little guidance about what employees are supposed to do next.

The communication essentially boils down to:

The firm is shutting down.

30 September is your last day.

Keep working until then.

Your documents will be provided later.

That's incredibly difficult to digest when your livelihood and career trajectory are involved.

And I want to be clear: I am not saying that the firm was obligated to somehow guarantee everyone's future employment. Obviously not.

But there is a huge difference between "we cannot save the firm" and "we cannot do anything to help the people whose careers were affected by its collapse."

If management knew that the business was in such serious difficulty, I genuinely wish employees had been given more transparency and earlier warning. Perhaps people could have started looking for opportunities months earlier instead of finding out now and scrambling simultaneously.

What makes this particularly frustrating is that the employees are the ones who are now expected to maintain professionalism, finish ongoing work and ensure a "smooth transition" while simultaneously figuring out how they're going to pay their bills and where they're going to work next month.

I don't know whether the reasons stated in the communication tell the entire story, and I'm not going to pretend I know everything happening behind the scenes.

But I do know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of this decision.

People aren't just entries on a payroll.

There are associates who were trying to establish themselves, juniors trying to build a practice, people who relocated or turned down other opportunities, and employees who genuinely believed they were building something here.

Whatever went wrong at the management/business level, the employees are now paying the price for it.

I'm sharing this because prospective employees should know what happened, and because I hope other people in the legal industry understand that when a firm collapses, the consequences aren't limited to the partners or the balance sheet.

They fall heavily on the juniors and associates who have the least control over the situation.

Finally, much to our relief, we get an email late last evening outlining plans for ELP’s 25th anniversary celebrations. On Monday, Sept 7th, we will have a pooja in every ELP office (including the NOIDA office) at 11 am and High Tea, also at every ELP office (including the NOIDA office) at 4 pm. The actual anniversary falls on Sept 6th, which is a Sunday.

SAN, we expect you will make a speech outlining what the future holds for those not in Tax and Trade - including the support staff. Please broadcast your speech to all ELP offices (including the NOIDA office) through a VC.

The text of the Instagram post by NLSIU SBA, as extracted through Gemini, is enclosed below.

SBA

STATEMENT OF CONDEMNATION

We, the students of the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, unequivocally condemn the demonstrations organised at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi on 21–22 August, 2026 under the banner of ‘Reservation Hatao Andolan’ against affirmative action policies guaranteed to members of marginalised caste backgrounds. The demonstration, as well as the actions of the attendees, contained numerous violations of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and we call for appropriate action against the organisers and the errant participants who made casteist remarks.

The reservation system is an express constitutional mandate. Articles 15(4) and 15(5) permit the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, and for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in matters of admission to educational institutions.

Articles 16(4), 16(4A), and 16(4B) extend the same principle to public employment, recognising that formal equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) is insufficient where entire communities have been historically excluded from access to education, employment, and dignity. Moreover, the Supreme Court has time and again upheld the constitutional validity of reservation schemes.

However, we are very clear that Constitutional provisions will hardly suffice to explain the relevance of reservations for marginalised groups in the country since these protests, at their core, are anti-constitutional. It is, however, still pertinent to point out that these protests often seek to paint reservation as one of the primary hindrances to the ‘nation's development,’ the logic being that they somehow temper this country’s meritocracy. We do not seek to counter this flawed and casteist understanding of ‘merit’ through this statement. Scholarship on the same is quite accessible, and those who have convinced themselves otherwise are hardly going to change their minds after reading this statement.

​Nevertheless, the complete lack of introspection bordering on hypocrisy on the part of groups and individuals who level such allegations against provisions reflect the hegemony of upper caste savarna individuals over almost all political, bureaucratic, academic, economic, and cultural spaces in this country and still having the short-sightedness to pin the blame of all of this on reservations which empirically affect only about five percent of educational and job opportunities in this country. This is the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the Reservation Hatao Andolan. It treats reservation as though it were an aberration imposed on an otherwise level playing field, rather than a modest and partial correction to a playing field that remains tilted in ways its beneficiaries have simply stopped noticing because the tilt has always worked in their favour.

There is no introspection here, no willingness to ask why sectors with zero reservation, chiefly the private sector, continue to reproduce the same caste concentrations at the top that reservation was designed to address in the public sphere. The silence on this point is not an oversight. It is the entire strategy. Hence, we do not condone demands for dismantling reservations that refuse to reckon with the caste inequalities that necessitated such measures in the first place.

Students of law crying to punish anyone who disagrees with them‽ Supreme irony and supremely tragic. This behaviour of NLSIU SBA calling for pre-emptive prosecutions is on par with those so-called bar associations who routinely declare their boycott of prospective clients on basis of what they are merely accused of: both are a disgrace to the profession.

You're simply an insecured ▮▮▮, who's afraid of competition and don't know the law. Joining a law firm as employee and practicing law are two very different things. And just to expand your knowledge, a CA can do everything which tax and trade team does, as permitted by all the relevant legislations. Only Courts are exclusive domain of lawyers. And despite your last para to CYA, it's pretty obvious that it's a personal comment and you're simply afraid of competent persons which you're trying to hide under a noble intent of trying to protect the legal profession, without even knowing what work can actually be termed as practice of law exclusively permissible to lawyers.

And re your point about CA firms, unlike your comments, number of CA firms have maintained a best friend relationship with law firms and vice versa. Look up other instances, by actually doing some work, instead making such comments which expose your lack of knowledge and understanding. Minds far more knowledgeable and experienced than you are would structure the deal so that the final structure is compliant with all regulations.

change of parties doesnt change workflow magically. Cant see and havent heard anything realistic of any firm stepping in their foot soon. On the contrary, firms which had more work share here are losing it recently to Delhi and Mumbai offices of other firms because of their now severed political ties

I’ve worked in ELP for over 4 years and did not know that Trade has non-lawyer CAs.

Let me repeat. Bar Council of India rules do not allow lawyers to partner with any non-lawyer, including CAs, just as Indian advocates are not allowed to partner with foreign attorneys or solicitors.

The two Co-Founders of ELP are prominent members of SILF which lobbies against the entry of law firms. ELP has been regularly contributing to SILF’s coffers so that SILF can resist the entry of foreign law firms. At the same time, ELP has been merrily hiring CAs, and not just in its Tax practice, but also in Trade.

By the way, we could use CAs in Corporate and Banking too, d’ya know?

I’m all for modifying BCI rules so that Indian advocates can partner with CAs and other professionals and also with foreign lawyers.
However, until the rules change, I would like to follow the law.

Come Diwali, once the 60% withheld bonus is in my bank account, I will leave ELP (God willing).

I assume the new law firm to be formed by the TnT partners, which will be controlled by Dhruva Advisors (in violation of BCI Rules) will also become a member of SILF and resist the entry of foreign law firms?

They turn into parasites. You ever notice those “jack of all trades”-esque profiles of lawyers? Claiming to be an expert in over 5-6 verticals, usually they are seen in the dispute resolution teams- carefully look at their profiles, not many marquee clients, prominent matters, any notable works. But they continue to remain partners, somewhere on the sidelines, they learn to survive by mooching off of other partners.

Aquilaw has done a 180 degree turn and gone full bhakt. Debanjan getting there. KCO is getting cases. So no room for a new player, really. Not that Cyril cares about Bengal, but if he did he could rightfully ask why the BJP is bedding its former enemies and not creating new opportunities for its loyal friend.

Hi, I am seeing so many lawyers pivot to recruiting and similar functions lately.

How? Why?

I understand if this is a passion for some of them (HR-styled roles), but most I know are looking for better work-life-balances, and just generally want to leave law.

My question is: does legal recruiting pay anything remotely close to what a T2/T3 law firm in India pays?

Have I been living under a rock of some kind?

Please avoid VS (and other sub-teams under her - AM, SV) like the plague. Some of the worst teams (in terms of quality of work, politics (oh god), and sheer, needless toxicity, and fear-based operating model). VS herself seems to be a nice person (sic), but you will rarely ever work directly with her, and its anyway a pool system, so most probably you will end up working on AM or SV deals. Even SV is a decent person, but the overall team atmosphere does shadow over him. And please, I pray to god that you don't frequently have to go to the fourth floor to M's infamous cabin.

I work at a tier 1 law firm and we previously had access to Harvey for a few months before switching to Legora. Honestly, our experience with Harvey wasn’t very satisfactory. now a large part of the firm is using Legora which is def better although I still find it a bit complex to use at times.

Hey lovely people of LI,

I have escaped from a horrible team at CAM, ▮▮▮ (insane work pressure, weirdly toxic politics, and super moody partners) and am looking for new gigs. But all the recruiters in the market seem to be staffed to get hires for the most toxic teams in the market that hire all year long (understandable due to high attrition). And when I come to the lovely people of LI, I see that almost all of the teams and their partners have horrible reviews going for them.

I understand anonymity of LI might make people meaner and more critical, but more and more, it seems like finding a nice, sane team is a very utopian idea as either they don't exist, or are never hiring.

Would love to take your read on this!

(free beverages at Gokul {sorry utna hee budget hai} for actually referring or providing some nice leads).

Thanks :)

I interned at an Indian tech giant's subsidiary and this is really not true. My GC was earning close to 2cr exclusive of stock options etc etc. He came in at 11 and left at 4, and also made the entire team leave by 5 max. A few good and bad (subjective, ofc) things I'd like to say:

1) I learnt the business side of things, which was very refreshing. My Legal Head encouraged me to talk with the business team before beginning to draft any contract/agreement.2) The exposure was immense. Legal teams in companies tend to be small. I attended a few meetings with the CEO and CFO. This was also due to the fact that the company I was interning at was a Mahindra subsidiary, and hence every team was small in general. But generally too, legal teams in-house work directly and constantly with the business heads.

3) However, the quality of people who I worked with was...bad. To say the least. Apart from the GC, the Assistant GC, and the Legal Head, the legal managers in the team were subpar at best. They did not have any working knowledge of law, in general. Some of them were put there by their campus recruiters and some had absolutely no experience apart from in-house jobs in their lives which stunts a person's growth. Many a times, the GC would directly assign drafting to me. But this in no way is to say they were bad people, no one had better knowledge of the business than them. My GC told me this is the exact reason why he needed people like the legal managers in his team so that they help him with "business legal" and he does the "contractual legal" stuff. Which is a pattern I have seen in most companies apart from some tier-1s. I personally found no intellectual stimulation there.

4) The starting salary was dehumanising. The place I interned at paid 3.4LPA to freshers. That threw me off. Tech Mahindra pays some 6-9LPA for freshers, Wipro pays 10LPA, my point being, it does not go beyond 10LPA unless you're in ICICI Bank.

That being said, I was the happiest in those months when I interned. After coming from a brutal tier-1 internship where 1am and 2am was the norm, learning about the business, having team lunches, doing impactful work and being involved in substantial stuff was refreshing to say the least. AND I GOT STIPEND MORE THAN ANY LAW FIRM EVER PAID ME!!??? It made me consider whether I should actually fcuk money and live in peace. Yes, it is an average life (compared to a law firm - money wise), but it's not bad!!!! If you stick by the right people and know your stuff, you could get promoted pretty fast. My GC told me that the trick was to jump ships fast and efficiently early in your career and build and expertise slowly. For eg, if you start out at Tech M, you could move on to Infosys and then on and so forth, basically in the IT/Service/Software legal industry.

I believe, the choice is between money and sanity. Choose wisely and never feel inferior for doing in-house. You're doing a job at the end of day ffs, you're employed. what does one even need in this economy?