sure troll. We both know about 90% students of the 2024 batch and 60% of the 2025 batch is scouring all methods to land a job, but aren't able to answer a simple question on the Companies Act when given the chance to interview. I spoke to a Recruiter who told me SLSP 2024 batchers are spamming her linkedin asking for jobs even offering to work for free

At your age people care too much about age. I have worked in a US law firm. At 35 years of age someone is still a senior associate, while someone else just made partner. Even back when I was in class xii, I vividly remember the age gap being three years between the youngest and the eldest in the same class. It;s fine bro, don't try to confirm to societal standards of being in a particular age group to achieve a particular milestone. Also apart from what has been pointed above, there is one more beautiful answer by another Nalsar alum on graduating at 25 from Nalsar. I am sure if you put in the right key words you will find it. Now when I am 35 I really see 25 as very young. Nothing wrong in graduating at 25 from a T1 school. Nothing wrong in graduating even at 30 from anywhere for that matter.

Not really. Most of the people who occupy that land now have come back from other countries that they were citizens of. If we are deciding national boundaries based on ancient history, then why not give America back to the native Indians? Or India to the Dravidians and Anaryas?

It measures nothing. Just like these students are also getting attendance without any of the "consistent effort or discipline". Malpractice is to force people to sit through classes if you cannot prove that students who don't attend classes don't learn. Which has to be proven through your evaluation.

Nope. No such bargain involved. Me going to the meeting is because I have taken money to go there. Nobody owes me a degree. Stop me through your evaluation, not by these illogical arguments. I claim that I am learning enough. Prove otherwise. Working hard does not mean only attending classes that don't appeal to me. I can learn on my own and beat your evaluation. Prove otherwise.

It's not what he thinks, there have been multiple examples of false 498A cases and that's a fact. It does not mean that most women do it, which is why he said that 498A should still exist. You not being able to comprehend others' arguments is nobody's fault other than your own. Everything is not debating tactic, that's true, because yours is not even that, just rant and trying to twist everything into your narrative without a shred of logic. Keep fighting, but you are not going to win anything this way, because your efforts don't deserve that.

So bad arguments! Are you equating work from home with parental leaves? If so, you need to read more and get your sense of logic reinstalled. As for the other examples, please cite a study that has been conducted in a jurisdiction where men have to take compulsory paternity leave. There is not one. How exactly does one prove that something will help before the actual condition exists? Reproduce it in the lab? Matlab kuchh bhi! And no, you don't have to shut up, just curb your practice of assuming that you speak for an entire community.

You will be too old when you will become a SC judge and UPSC promotes you with a lot of incentives. Plus UPSC is muchhhh more difficult than judiciary lol. That’s why it attracts a lot sapiosexuals even from tier-1 cities and colleges like IITs, IIMs and NLS/NLU-D.

Judiciary has a lot of/in-fact majority of candidates from tier-2 towns who couldn’t secure good placements and thus the exam’s standard isn’t that good anyway.

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/263287-should-i-take-a-partial-drop-or-not-after-nluo

There is a very beautiful response (and ofc others as well) by a graduate (current student my bad) from NALSAR. As you already know that till 20/20+ the first year is pretty much secure and normal as well. But don’t worry. There will be a couple of people who will be/who already were 21 when they entered law school. I can understand the anxiety. When I joined law school around a year back, I was 20. I had a ‘phew’ reaction because I wasn’t 21 yet- so I wouldn’t feel old. But honestly that’s quite immature. I saw a bunch of 21 year olds doing well in law school from the first year. In fact one of them is a topper already. And it won’t matter because anyway 50% of the graduates will be around the age limit of 23-25. You will be just a year older.

If you are doing well on your mocks - just focus on that and secure your career. No one will remember. Rather what will be remembered is if you get a single digit rank in clat. Right? Think like that. There are a lot of options (some uncertainties as well) in a tier-1 nlu. Don’t worry. And don’t feel old. You will be a year or a two older than the bunch. It’s not like you are pre-historic or something!

The person you're replying to is making a different point though. Just because you bothered to educate yourself at an earlier stage in life does not mean that you do not have to put in the effort to reach to the students now. You have all this knowledge, great. You know need to be a good communicator to get the students' interest and not be boring. If you're going to equate "don't be boring" with "be an entertainer", that's just you trying to cover up for your lack of effort. A teacher's job does not end with educating themselves - that's the bare minimum. It has to go further.

I was going through the website of the school of law of NFSU yesterday, because one of my relatives asked me for advice whether to consider it as one of the options in case her daughter fails to crack CLAT, AILET etc. next year. I had honestly thought it could be an ok enough option if nothing great, considering the funds and attention it has been getting from the central government lately. I had also seen several posts on this forum itself praising the place, though they had mostly been about the forensic sciences department I guess. I know of the law school Dean, who was the director of Nirma University I think. I was going through the faculty profiles of the law school. From what I could see, there are one Associate Professor and five Assistant Professors of Law (there are two more Assistant Professors from Science background and one from English). I did not look into the details of the ad-hoc lecturers and researchers. However, all these six profiles seemed to be distinctly underwhelming to be honest. Three of the Assistant Professors did not seem to be having a single quality publication to their credit, not even a Google Scholar page of their own. These are people with PhD degrees, so they should have had at least a few basic publications as per UGC norms, if nothing else. One of them has got a Google Scholar page, listing a solitary publication from almost a decade back. The last one, though not having an Google Scholar page, has got a publication in an Indian journal that's indexed on Heinonline, so I would think that is of an acceptable quality. However, even then, this is really abysmal reflection of the department, especially when these people do not appear to be having degrees or earlier teaching experiences from very reputed places either to offset this shortcoming. Even the Associate Professor's Google Scholar page reflects only two publications. The question is, with what the university is supposed to be paying by way of salary (I am guessing it is providing 7th CPC scale at least like the NLUs if not more), why are they not being able to attract better quality faculty? There are scores of people with better qualifications and CV who apply to any standard NLU faculty recruitment drive, even Jindal, Symbi and DU. Then why this sorry state of recruitment? The Dean is supposed to know better, she's an experienced admin by now. It was very disappointing TBH. My relative stays in Rajasthan, so she would have preferred Gujarat over other states for location proximity had her daughter failed to make it to the NLUs. However, I think that with this kind of faculty profile, I would recommend her not to opt for this place at this stage at least.

1) Primarily, you will be staffed on very mind numbing due diligences - the kind which you cannot even prepare for since it will revolve around clearing the comments of the bankers/underwriters on the draft offer document. Start studying drafts from now itself, if you have the time.

2) Creating dockets and backup security options for the BRLMs to the issue; it involves bearing the grunt of understanding the issue process and underlying risks which may arise accring to default; owing to which you create security and backup options - involves a lot of back and forth (on calls) with IBs, most of which is too gibberish to understand as an AO. Thus, reading intricacies of ECM is very very very important.

3) Understanding CIBIL searches, Watchout Investor Searches and Requistion CList Formulations since the due diligence report will have an aspect of the same (discretionary as per the firm's call).

4) Creating key difference tables when master circulars pop in: this shall include the "old circular number, new circular number, previous position of precedent and new material changes, if any" in that order - this is kind of tricky since you have to know how to read one circular as against the other and figure out what has been changed in a MC which has a lotttt of circulars mentioned. You get one thing wrong and you fuck up the transaction and the nature of disclosures involved.

5) Comprehensive PPTs on investor decks, KPIs, risk analysis and business overview - mostly done by foreign counsels but being well versed with the same helps a lot during negotiations.

6) Understanding the nuances of each chapter on the ECM offer document; therefore, a firm grasp of the latest amendments to the ICDR and LODR will be your bread and butter.

7) Knowing shortcuts on Word and Excel is a must because you will be working with IBs and allied finance tycoons which operate solely on Excel and not knowing anything here or there will leave a bad impression on behalf of you & the firm. Do not act as if you know it all or else you'll get fucked.

8) Lastly, please let it sink that after choosing this menace of practice - long hours are common, bonuses are slightly stagnated as against your M&A/B&F peers & chances of switching to GC/M&A is very sleek. Best part is that the work is cyclical and you will have days when you can go and tailor your suit, get that bag/watch for your next listing ceremony that will make headlines.

9) Word of caution - know what you are getting into since that life is not easy. You might glorify folks like Manan Lahoty, Yash Ashar, Sandip Bhagat etc; but trust me it will take years to reach that kind of level. So take one step at a time, seek redress if needed and learn to find joy in discomfort.

10) Breakup of Indian ECM firms in my honest opinion:

T1 Firms - CAM, IndusLaw, S&R, SAM, KCO

T2 Firms - JSA, AZB, Trilegal, Saraf, L&L

T3 Firms - CrawfordB, Bharucha, Rajani, SNG, Juris Corp

My sincere apologies for this long message but I hope this helps.

Hi there is already a thread which has discussed this wonderful achievement roughly around two weeks back. The link is given below 👇

https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/288175-nalsar-grad-kirkland-partner

Ample stuides exist to show that you migrate from the left to the right in your mid years and after you've experienced the world and what it has to offer.

Maybe there's some sense in it and maybe here's why:

1. Almost everyone on the left, is atheistic or agnostic. Why? It reflects a certain type of mindset. I am not suggesting that not believing in an entity such as god, is in any manner wrong. Simply that it reflects a certain type of mindset. Also, explains why you you are left in your younger years, when you don't "need" god. As responsibility grows, and you need help from an external entity, you start believing in God. To me non-belief in God is the core of political ideology. Because, for e.g., a religious God believing person is likely to believe that the horrors of poverty (as is wealth etc) is not a function of what you do, but rather your karma. And when you view poverty from that lens,one does not see the need to alleviate it, simply because it is somebody's elses karma or gods will for thag person. This is de-hors the fact that the stated position of the left is non belief.

2. The nature of man, as you grow, is to accumulate and leave Something behind for your progeny. Leftists are against accumulation. At the core. It's easy to be on the left when you are 16-30. Not when you have a family, work hard to accumulate something for your progeny and when the left in it's core, seeks to take it all or much of it away.

3. Happiness is a relative concept. Almost everybody gets happy because they have more than somebody else. In your younger years, when you are not driven by such primal emotions, again it's easy to be left. Also because it's not your resource. It's somebody else's (in most cases your parents)- so easy for you to be against accumulation. But by the the time you are on your own, your own self worth in some senses can only be showcased by what you have (more of, than others). Regardless, its indeed ugly to experience happiness on such relativity principles and You could in a sense argue that being left is perhaps then being more close to god. This is indeed one of the greatest dichotomies that exist. Maybe, not too. Since in religion, it is the individual who gives up all. And doesn't expect others to. He lives amongst others who have abundance and still chooses not to make his happiness relative.

P.S: I am probably as right as it gets. Just trying to . And apologies I have no suggestions to give you on how not to feel listless.

Hey folks, I need some advice for this. I am currently in a no-ranked law school and have completed the first year.

I gave clat in June 2022, got an abysmal rank due to preparing for 2-3 weeks (original plan was to do CA but I felt law was more in-sync with what I wanted to study), was getting a tier 3 nlu but settled for a college near ncr in desperation.

At that time I thought that I could do anything, was pretty excited for college so thought that I'd face all odds and land a good job despite being in a local college.

But man I was wrong.

The job prospects are really weak here. I have a good rank but even people in top 3 don't get a well paying job after hustling for 5 years.

It was at that time I thought that just maybe I can give clat again, looked into it and the consortium changed the date to December.

I tried to cope. But realised maybe studying for a year won't be so bad.

In January I started my preparation. I was really enthusiastic about it too, studied for clat while also doing college work.

But a week back, when I was about to fill my registration form someone told me that students start college from June/July and man.

The despair I hadn't felt for a long time came back again.

I will be 21 next year in May. Most who join an NLU are within 18-20, with 20 being on the slightly older side. I am scared I'd be too old.

On one hand my mock scores are amazing, have been consistently scoring in 100s, and if I do manage to get in, in a T1 then my job prospects would increase drastically, not to mention the extracurricular opportunities and the network.

On the other, I'd be older than most people who get in. I have already paid for the second year fees so I'll be letting that go too.

I have read a few threads on this site saying that graduating at 26 will be too late, part of me feels that too but part of me also wants to study in an environment with opportunities.

I'm extremely conflicted at this point and don't know who to turn to. Can't talk to parents since they don't know I have been preparing, friends aren't in the same boat so I'm posting this here.

Pls tell me, should I go ahead with clat? or should I stay here and give up on those dreams due to the age factor?

Tldr: Second year law student in a no-ranked college scared of giving clat again due to being old, need advice.

There isn't a good counter to this but imo it really doesn't matter. The simplest solution is for the court to say "Look, we will strike the SMA unless you amend it to include homosexual marriages". This flows from Article 13: laws infringing fundamental rights are void. If denial of same sex marriage infringes art 14 and it's an underinclusiveness problem where the right to same sex marriage can't be read in, the textual answer is to strike down the statute (Of course, the court can invoke art 142 to give the government time to amend the statue if it is so agreeable). The whole "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" line is bullshit. It essentially means that the court can't anything about underinclusiveness claims under art 14 which would make comparative review under art 14 a dead letter. The SC needs to grow a pair of balls (like the SCOTUS).

They are not taking third years, know of a few NUJS guys who got rejected with the HR stating that they do not take third year applications. Any insights following the same would be appreciated. Anyways, they do not give work to interns and fail to provide the internship certificate on time.

2021-23 Official Placement Report (School of Cybersecurity and Digital Forensics)
https://beta.nfsu.ac.in/Uploads/Placement-Report-of-SCSDF_NFSU.pdf

Very similar comments were also made in a thread about Jindal teachers. Yes, teachers are not entertainers. But that's a strawman.

Lawyers too are supposed to grab attention and interest of judges to get a favourable order. If they can't hold the attention, they lose. Especially post-lunch. Does this mean lawyers who put in the effort are clowns - or, as you put it, having the production values of Netflix?

Of course not. They have soft skills beyond raw knowledge of law. Anyone can have the raw knowledge. Teaching is more than that. As someone else here also pointed out, you can teach easily to the bright students. That's bland. It takes extra effort to get to the ones who don't see much point in why you're speaking - the tough students. (Of course, this is not to mean that inability to get to every last student is a failure of the teacher - no, there are some students who are just not serious at all.) But to say that merely because someone is finding the teacher to be dull, but is otherwise able to grasp everything through other sources is a bad learner.

You brought up Jindal too. Personally, I don't see how they are doing any worse than the students from any other decent law school. If the unemployability point is from a law firm POV, then surely you too must agree that being employed at a law firm is not the only possible end goal for a student (or the intended outcome of legal education).

Besides all of this, you appear to be missing another point that the OP appears to be making - according to the metrics available to them, they are doing just fine. If your argument is that by paying attention in class they learn something, but those aspects do not reflect accordingly in the grades, why so? Does this not mean your assessment is skewed then?

Lastly, your point that if the classes are dull then it is upon the students to elevate it is just wrong. Students are not running the show. The best they can do is try to participate. But if your classes are just bland monologues, there's not much the students can do. Again, no, no one is asking you to become Netflix or make your lectures into InstagramReels-sized bits. But do something!

There are two things a teacher NEEDS to do in such a situation:

1. Communicate in an effective way to the students WHY it is important to pay attention. Not just by saying the words, but possibly be demonstrating to them. Make them want to learn the subject. Evoke in them the passion to learn your subject.

2. Communicate the lecture effectively, so as to not cause them to fall asleep. Of course, this is not possible for ALL the topics, but if 80% of your lectures are interesting, the students will follow you for the 20% bit.

PS: I'm a faculty myself. I know the problems of a class consisting of disrespectful students who are there just to spend their parents' money. But that does not mean the fault always is entirely with the students.

PPS: Typed in a hurry, excuse any typos.

Also, he is one of the youngest Partners ever. Further cementing NLS-NALSAR hold in global law firms. https://www.barandbench.com/news/corporate/kirkland-ellis-elevates-nalsar-grad-sandipan-de-to-partnership

You understand that the jewish people are the natives of that land? That they have been occupied and driven out of that land for centuries by romans and christians and muslims? If were gonna talk about occupiers we need to have a clear understanding of where we start reading history from.

Oh boy if only hamas would get behind no wars and armies. If only the palestinians had not rejected a two state solution five times in modern american history. Your argument is so juvenile it doesnt understand there are actual religious extremists in the world who in their charter want to drive a religious group into the sea.

Would no wars be a good thing during the second world war? Should america have left european jews to die in the camps? Should they have sued for peace with hitler? Is that really moral?

This is so ignorant! When was the balfour declaration? Wasnt it before the holocaust? Its not western guilt that gives jews a claim over that land. its that they are literally the natives of that land who have over centuries been displaced because of religious intolerance. If israel goes into gaza- youll complain- because you want self determination for palestinians, if they dont go into gaza and treat it like a war- youll complain cause hamas will lose the war. Theres no winning with you guys except for israel to commit suicide.

When terrorists hide behind children and women, when they hide in hospitals, they are the ones committing war crimes. Not the country that is defending itself after a genocidal terrorist attack.

Ah yes, the wonderful way in which he told everyone he thought women lied as a societal trend about domestic violence and cruelty- and then decided so benevolently to let us keep the laws we fought tooth and nail for. How stupid of me to not buy right into that nonsense and notice a pattern of misogyny evident in that argument!

Its not a pithy phrase you idiot- its referring to a very material reality of what women go through. Rape kits dont contain argumentative props- they contain very real evidence of the oppression that women go through. Not everything is a debating tactic. You are just going ad hominem because you do not have the truth on your side and nor do you have any argument on your side. So all you can do is say that im ranting and crazy and mad and hateful and all this other nonsense. I dare you to point out where Ive engaged in ad hominem. No one here represents anyone else but themselves. You don't represent women either. Women are more than capable of speaking for themselves- and this particular woman is. You dont seem to understand that marginalisation should be based in material reality and not in imagined word magic.

You think you know what progress is and what positive change is. Progress has never been made by the people who deny material realities and never been made by people who prioritise "positivity" and feelings over facts. I will keep fighting. Thanks!

I'm sure there are men who know the reality of what women go through in this country today. I like and admire many individual men and feminism is incredibly optimistic because it assumes that we can teach our sons to be better than our oppressors. I'm not actually a misandrist- I just think that societal trends are what they are and we cannot let exceptions make the rule no matter how much we might want to believe in the goodness of people.

Sure. Please go and look on google scholar to see unpaid work done by women in household, and gendered division of child care, and while youre at it look at what happened to trends in division of household labour during the pandemic- hint- it got worse for women not better when the men were "working from home".

Aside from that- a generally good principle of debate is that the person making the assertion needs to prove it- if you make the assertion that gender-neutral parental leave would help women- you need to provide convincing proof of the same.

No one has made anyone the spokesperson here. Who made you spokesperson for women? Should we all shut up until official spokespersons are elected? Its up to people to generally support the point of view that aligns with their interests.

This assumes hormone riddled 17 year olds are capable of understanding what a rational decision if it slapped them in the face. Its not just disrespectful to the prof- its disrespectful to other students. Its disrespectful to the common endeavor we all take part in in the classroom. Would you go to a meeting at work and sleep through it? No? Why is that behavior then acceptable in the classroom?

Honestly if I were this teacher I would kick all of those kids out.
You are assuming that students are consumers at an ala carte educational system. They can take and leave whatever bit of it they want. Attend the classes they want and sleep through the ones they dont if they dont find it suits their particular taste. Students are not consumers, they are not owed a degree. They are not even owed knowledge. Students pay for the opportunity to learn. that is all. They are members of an academic community. When one person disrupts the class- they steal an opportunity to learn from other students. Classrooms are supposed to be spaces where all students and teachers come together to learn from each other. When students come in and sleep- they are doing a disservice to their fellow students and their teachers. They are failing to hold up their end of the bargain- its the same thing as if a teacher came in unprepared and disinterested. The educational project is not one where knowledge is deposited from one person to another- Its a collaborative project where two people work together to produce something there was not before. When students dont put in the work- they ensure the project fails.

Mandatory attendance is as much about the BCI and standards for legal education. Most teachers I know would rather not have uninterested people in the classroom. Its incredibly dispiriting to keep trying to teach kids who have turned their ears and brains off. If you want a law degree- the BCI wants to make sure you have worked this hard at your legal education- thats fair considering the work that lawyers do.

They dont just have knowledge in their head- they know it because they bothered to educate themselves. This is the real world. No one can teach you contract law through video games and no one can incept you with constitutional law. As long as the teacher is showing up, behaving professionally, covering the syllabus, and allowing for questions and answers- the teacher is doing their job. No teaching contract in the world mandates that the teacher meet every individual students taste for entertaining. They ARE doing their job. You are not doing yours. expectations from you- really the only expectations from you as a student- is to show up, ready to learn, behave professionally, and do your work.

This is so ridiculous. If the university could not affirm that you had attended 75% of their classes at least- the degrees the university hands out would not be accredited by the BCI which would make you ineligible to write the bar exam. If you or anyone else is not acting within the letter and spirit of that policy- then I'm afraid its academic malpractice.

If I had a heart problem- I would not go to a doctor who could not attend 75% of his classes. And If I had a serious legal problem- I would not go to a lawyers who could not attend 75% of his classes.

Attendance is a poor measure- but the answer to that is not to throw it all away- it does measure something. It measures consistent effort and discipline. You retain stuff youve learned better if you learn it over four months as opposed to if you memorise it in one day. This is true for every discipline. Attendance records stand in for that measure of effort and discipline and thoroughness.

I mean Ive been in higher education for something like ten years now. Things have gone beyond the pale. There used to be a sense of propriety in how one behaved at the university, a certain maturity in college students, and some focus. All of that is gone and we have become completely consumerist. It is not enough for law professors to know the law, work hard, and communicate the information. They now have to be entertaining and no one I know is more entertaining than netflix/ insta reels. The constant talk about "mental health" the accomodation for which is always extensions and free grades rather than actually improving capability- is at this unprecedented level. Largely students today do not think they belong to an academic community where they have to do their best. They think in purely consumerist terms where the university exists to cater to them and they dont owe anyone anything.

Why exacty should t2/t3 nlus be deprived from opportunities? Because they had a bad day while writing an arbitrary exam?

Btw, what's the nexus between 50 out of 200 marks for current affairs at CLAT and Law? How does 25% of the grade disrupt going to current affairs my efficiency as a lawyer?

nothing at all. It is expected that you know nothing and you will be required to pick everything up when you start working. When I joined the transactions team at a T1 I had read a few books on private equity and M&A, but all of that is essentially very superficial knowledge. The work of a lawyer is in the minute details of documents, while most things you read online will tell you about things like structuring, tax considerations, negotiations etc, all of which happen at a senior level. To know about the work is one thing, but to actually do the work is something else, and reading will not prepare you for it; only doing the work will. So just listen to the instructions and put in the work.

How do people manage or even come across same sex relationships in law firm life, which is very time consuming and ppl dont get much time to mingle. I have heard some partners in these law firms are openly gay/lesbian. How do you manage social perception against such relations.

A good teacher accepts the challenge and evolves accordingly. Gurukul's methodology did not work for them when they had been students, so why should they expect that the methodology that had been used to teach them would work for their students? I speak as a faculty member who does try to adapt to meet these new challenges. Teaching excellent and attentive students is a pleasure no doubt, but helping students learn when they are not even sure that they want to is far more satisfactory.

Hello, many people advise that it is better to choose an area like capital markets or gen corp where hiring is constant rather than something niche like competition law. I was wondering if this is actually true because competition law is something I am actually interested in but if there aren't vacancies in a firm it would be a problem. Thoughts?

Would it be okay for me to contact my internship mentor from my last internship asking for any referrals and to suggest me any places where I could apply for an assessment internship? He was quite impressed with my work during my internship and i believe I made a good impression on him, but I am unsure whether this would be a right move or not.

Fellow law student here .. i feel you brother.. even i feel like this has been a big mistake I'm doing okay .. doing an assessment internship at a T2 right now.. highly likely of getting ppo too but anyway who cares at the end I'll be getting 6-8 LPA only that too after soo much struggle and long working ours while my engg. friends are already making double of me while working less hours than me.. some have even gone abroad, being a lawyer I can't do that also so it sucks .. I'm trying to find a way out to be honest because I'm not satisfied with what this field is offering.

I have been reading about NFSU in several LI threads for the last month, about how government is funding the place and prioritizing it. However, I met a student from their MTech Cyber Security course yesterday, who told me candidly that the campus placement scene there is quite bad. Only 10 students in their entire batch got any job offer of any kind. The placement data and potential that they had been shown during admission were according to him mere tall claims without any substance. They were told during placement that they should not depend on the institution but instead do further study from elsewhere or try to get industry jobs that have nothing to do with their specialisation. If this is true, then it is a pretty sad thing, with the government talking the place up but the students being misled eventually.

You gotta have a niche. If you work at a place that has a variety of work then thats a good place for a lawyer at the start for a year or two. However, to bring value to the table, you need to have in depth knowledge about a field, which you cant gain unless you have worked almost exclusively on that subject for some long time.

They are not doing this revenue only from legal. For instance, they acquired a data science edtech https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/skillarbitrage-acquires-dataisgood-for-3-million-17752851.htm

Also Skill Arbitrage is another vertical thats not law

I guess not more than 50% of the revenue comes from just legal education