Law can't have mathematical precision, it's interpretational and facts specific. Even given the same facts, different people may interpret provisions differently. Hence, there are dissenting opinions on judgements (including the most famous Supreme Court of India verdict). Therefore "it depends" is a legit legal response, as it does depend (on specifics)! If you're unable to grasp this, are you sure that you're the right person to be interacting with lawyers/ handling legal or regulatory issues for your organization?

Just the breaking down the above pretentious law jargon for you:

"device complex structures" = tax bachane ke liye 4 alag companies incorporate kar diya

"developing market leading products" = mortgage ko bracket mein Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) bol diya

"test the boundaries of law" = the rules are confusing, case law nahi mila

"fin tech lawyer" = I understand neither finance nor technology par naya RBI circular aaya hai ispe

"cutting edge work" = client ne email mein 'blockchain' likha hai

Hi my dude - please dont. You've studied maths so please dont think of getting degrees as some sabzi mandi where you just go pick something out. Try data science instead or algotrading - way more money and way less time to put in to make the money.

Also to the guy that said we do complex work - bees make beehives (Complex) - ants coordinate amongst themselves through senses of smell and pheromones (complex work). Complex is all very subjective really.

...... We dont do anything complex. We dont advice on complex structures. RBI and SEBI have a few rules - we simply tell our clients that we can do this and we can do that. Im sorry but STFU. dont even pretend for a second that we come even remotely close to splitting the atom or even designing extended bridges (even this has more value add that all fee earners at SAM combined)

The "world" of litigation is quite different from what you may have seen in films/ movies (assuming you'd be a first generation lawyer and have no real life exposure to this "world" yet). At least in the world of finance you'd get hygienic working conditions, proper offices to work from, regular decent salary and the opportunity to become a tax paying productive member of the society. In litigation, none of those would happen for the forseeable future, so tread carefully, and learn more about this world before taking a plunge. And in my view, the world needs more mathematicians than lawyers.

Seriously! This is not a troll comment so kindly pay attention.

The above comment is one of the most idiotic and uninformed comments on LI.

Generally speaking, in most professions law/finance/mgmt consulting/etc etc. 90%+ professionals dont do cutting edge work and are employed for run off the mill tasks that dont really test their proff. competence. In fact, in most corp. jobs an overwhelming majority is engaged in copy paste type work.

Now, clerical/low end/compliance work related comments etc. alluding that work of a corp lawyer is not valued. It depends on the lawyer, practice area and expertise. Corp lawyers - anti-trust, fin tech, IP, debt, complex M&A work are valued in the market a lot. They get complex matters/deals done which are untested, device complex structures and assist in developing market leading products that test the boundaries of law.

Furthermore, a lot of corp lawyers also play a big role in corp law policy making which is really an invaluable contribution.

So if you are not one of those, try and do some cutting edge work and then see the diff. in how you are treated and valued.

Also, the above is true for litigation too. Not every litigation lawyer who appears in routine matters and drafts petitions, plaints etc. is doing a great job. Doing cutting edge work like the lawyers who argued the cryto case in SC is what is valued.

Hope this response makes sense to all those who agree with the above comment and the comment from Good Morning Dear who only seem to know the PE lawyer drafting universe.

Yes, they do. Lord Denning, regarded as probably the greatest English judge of the 20th century, had in fact studied mathematics at Oxford before taking up law. And before becoming a judge he was King's Counsel.

To facilitate entry of people from fields other than law, in England there is a bridging exam to enable non-law graduates to practise law. (Probable reason: they bring a different perspective).

Trust me, anyone can become a lawyer - the work people do at law firms can be done by 12th pass outs. You don't really need 5 years of "legal education and training" to do the clerical work that law firms do. Whatever little you need to know can be learned on the job.

It's just that we lawyers have just created for ourselves a make-believe exclusive club where we pretend to know things - the entry barriers being a 5 year degree and bar council registration. Once AI comes in cheaper, this will be destroyed too.

Tbh, it's same for management consultancies too.

If you've done your bsc in mathematics and wish to pursue a commercial career instead of an academic/scientific one, why would you want to confine yourself to law? lawyers can only advise on regulatory aspects, do compliance work, etc. (from a transactional standpoint) which make them worthless in synergy/ management, finance, public policy, etc. (basically anything other than law) With a degree in maths dream bigger, try to be the next big thing in decentralized finance like Flori Marquez of Block fi (the decentralized crypto lender) whose series E funding include participation by Tiger Global and Bain Capital. To put things in perspective- lawyers only vet contracts for Tiger Global/ Bain Capital etc. Employ a lawyer to do the basic paper work, but do something grander.