Quite a few of the legal legends have at some point worked at one of the old school law firms like Mulla & Mulla, Wadia Ghandy, Crawford, Little, Kanga, Solomon etc. What is the status of these firms and should one work there given an opportunity? Would also like to know the salaries they offer.
It all comes down to the partner and the practice area. There are some partners and practice areas in each firm which are at par with, and in some cases better than, the more known firms in terms of the complexity of work, career progression and opportunities, and remuneration. The money can take 2-5 years to equalise with what you would earn at the known name firms: which isn't as crazy as you may think it is, if you take a long view of things.
The known name firms are, on average, better at corporate / non-disputes work and are catching up on disputes and real estate practices. The known name firms also typically pay better than the solicitor firms. All else being equal, I would join a known name firm unless I know who exactly I will be working with in a solicitor firm.
You choice should naturally not be determined by statistical / anecdotal averages but by your specific situation. But these are my two cents.
Agree on the part about real estate. Old school private and non corporate clients still prefer sols for real estate work.
As someone who wishes to pursue the Bar, do sol firms argue themselves or largely depend on counsel? Would it be worth it for someone who wishes to pursue advocacy, to first join the Bombay solicitor firms in order to avoid starving yet still gaining advocacy experience?
If you do end up joining the sol firm with a view to transition ultimately to counsel practice, try and stick around in the firm for 3-4 years: you will (a) get wider exposure to matters and become familiar with a number of seniors; and (b) the firm will also consider you for briefing as junior counsel when you do leave.
I may / may not be working in one of these old school firms (there are many others whose names you haven't mentioned).
Its awful and some of these partners can really get on your nerves. And, No. It doesn't mean they are teaching you or that's their method of mentoring you. That's simply who they are. They need to evolve.
Just moved out from a solicitor firm that I had been working in for the past 1.5 years. In terms of work and the mandates, I do not think there is any difference. The manner in which litigation strategy is prepared and handled is similar to, if not better than most Tier1s and their disputes practice. However, what such Solicitor firms are also susceptible to is absolute lack of management and effective response to change. As pointed out above, partners / proprietors at such firms have their own fixed way of working and approaching situations which are often unyielding, even in the face of a pandemic. As a result, and specifically during the pandemic, the culture of the firm resembled a lawless swamp with no instructions or clarity from the top management about pay cuts, salary structures and general strategy regarding matters at hand. Pay cuts were instituted without notice, were reinstituted again without notice and would probably be brought back again should the second wave transcend into a third wave. Promotions and increments haven't been made in the longest time and the bonuses that were handed out this year effectively amounted to the salary reductions made over the past 6 months.
So go for the work. Go for learning the ropes. And definitely go if money is not a concern.
"old school" is nothing but a pseudonym for "glorification of the past". that past may be out of sync with the present socio economic realities. hence in the context of the legal profession old school may mean entitlement of seniors, disconnect between pay and economic necessities and idiosyncratic whims and fancies. now go figure
Worked at CB a while ago. Partner and team is very important - had a (reasonably) good partner and team, on a comparative basis to the other partners in CB, all things considered. My plan always was to get additional qualifications and move to Tier 1, which I did. You should decide based on your circumstances - I took it as a stepping stone. I did not face money issues as was compensated well, as the partner concerned was doing well and had the ability to override the firm management and pay well.
It all comes down to the partner and the practice area. There are some partners and practice areas in each firm which are at par with, and in some cases better than, the more known firms in terms of the complexity of work, career progression and opportunities, and remuneration. The money can take 2-5 years to equalise with what you would earn at the known name firms: which isn't as crazy as you may think it is, if you take a long view of things.
The known name firms are, on average, better at corporate / non-disputes work and are catching up on disputes and real estate practices. The known name firms also typically pay better than the solicitor firms. All else being equal, I would join a known name firm unless I know who exactly I will be working with in a solicitor firm.
You choice should naturally not be determined by statistical / anecdotal averages but by your specific situation. But these are my two cents.
Best of luck!
As someone who wishes to pursue the Bar, do sol firms argue themselves or largely depend on counsel? Would it be worth it for someone who wishes to pursue advocacy, to first join the Bombay solicitor firms in order to avoid starving yet still gaining advocacy experience?
Its awful and some of these partners can really get on your nerves. And, No. It doesn't mean they are teaching you or that's their method of mentoring you. That's simply who they are. They need to evolve.
Many other options available out there.
So go for the work. Go for learning the ropes. And definitely go if money is not a concern.