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?
2. Virtually no legal framework for gaming/gambling or betting laws except the typical 'ban game of chance laws' which do not have any nuance to create opportunities for legal analysis and interpretation.
3. Copyright law is largely settled. It also does not have controversial provisions to begin with. Most of the interpretation lie around subjective analyses (of course based on objective criteria) - and so mostly high stake matters see court as others simply move on to their next project.
4. Relationship based industry - so most of the disputes are settled relationally by business people. Lawyers are largely needed for accurate recordation, a task that can be handled by someone with less than 5 PQE.
5. There is some level of complexity in structuring deals - but those types of complex deal structures are few and far in between as most businesses prefer complete control and ownership of assets. Synergy based partnering (also more complex) for production is not the preferred way for Indian firms to do business.
6. Trademark looks exciting from the outside, but the actual work and complexity involved is not worthy of someone with more than 2 PQE.
7. Patent drafting and applications are largely handled by engineers, who are smart enough to even handle oppositions. Sometimes they do need lawyers but then most of the drafting and analyses is supported by engineers anyway.
8. Software licensing contracts are terribly settled. After first few years of learning, there isn't much to learn unless you have been slow and tardy in your first few years. Most of the work is merely customizing templates, or finding the related purchase orders for business queries.
With the above being said, the opportunities continue to only increase. It's not seeing a reversal. It's on an upswing, merely starting from a lower base. This is because India is a content power house and as businesses grow, they are capable of having a budget for legal costs. On a related note, many businesses do not realize the value that a tech and IP lawyer can provide. So while the opportunities are less, it's only because of lack of business' awareness. Secondly, the statutory legal framework covering tech and IP laws are quite broad and do not deal with subject matter in a nuanced manner. That's also one of the reasons why demand for legal analysis is less.