If you see the original post, it's clearly about litigation and not "firms". Getting vakalatnamas and all. Most chambers pay less than minimum wage - this shouldn't be a surprise to you.
How do you know how the faculty in all law universities are? Have you studied at more than one place? Quit parroting random stuff and making your own ignorance starkly visible.
Sir, the starting salary at many law firms is much more than "sustainable". Doctors after MBBS and residency and super specialisation do not make as much as a new associate in a firm. What are you even talking? It is truly amusing how ppl like you feel your lot in life is hard. You seem terribly sheltered - open your eyes and see the struggles of those around and what drive and gumption it takes to succeed.
You do not want to help because you guys dont know anything about the law.Yoi believe its yr right to shout orders and that's yr only job.Knowing law, grounds etc is not your capability after you become partners.
Why not start your own practice, build reputation and have clients to pay well? Build all this instead of a salary mindset. This is a profession, not a factory to ▮▮▮ for wage increases. Join firms, they are labour factories and hence pay salaries.
Why is this the response to any demand asking for basic human rights, living conditions and sustainable wages? This profession is doomed. The reasoning skills of people in this profession more so.
Really the situation is so bad, I have no option dude, mostly all law universities/ colleges have worsening faculties except maybe 1 or 2 where the fees is exponentially higher. Believe me none of the seniors in the law are "professional" in how they are suppose to aid juniors (like it used to be in the past)
As expected, the comments reflect an attitude of complete and woeful delusion. What’s sad is most of these ppl don’t even realise how ignorant and out of touch with reality they are.
3.1 - before writing half baked thoughts, pls think. If a junior is competent, he will be appropriately remunerated. Many times even if he is competent, he is put through the wringer. The profession is a test match - work hard and consistent and prove yourself for at least a decade. Need I remind you how in litigation especially, counsels hit their stride and really take off in their mid 40s.
3.2 - do you know the sensitive and important matters some advocates handle? Ranging from PMLA to PCA to commercial matters of all sorts? Why will any advocate with a brain trust a junior off the bat and make them handle important matters and expose them to sensitive info? My steno of 30 years can draft a petition far better than a junior of 2 years. That’s the reality. At this early stage - pick the right senior and do whatever work is given thoroughly. If you expect seniors to blindly trust an unproven rube, you are even stupider than your comment (and that’s saying much).
3.3 - it’s not. But do try and understand the reality of my comment objectively. Truth is incapable of hurting.
3.4 - nope. That firm is not strong in my practice area.
3.5 - actually, no. You seem quite ignorant of demand and supply. And also of how there are many skilled competent juniors who work hard and want to succeed. You could learn a thing or two from them. Instead of whining on this forum.
If all your teachers have been incompetent, then that makes you an incompetent lawyer yourself, so you should blame your choice of institution and not professionals who treat you like the incompetent that you apparently are.
So law students must spend 10-15 lakhs for a failed and outdated legal curriculum with incompetent teachers, then face the tragedy of reality of practise of the law in courts with no-one to help, and then expect shity behaviour from seniors that care to let them enter their "chambers" and then also pay them until they make money themselves, which they won't usually considering they have no skills and noone is ready to help them, and they have no uncles or grandfathers in the profession to get them client exposure, but also banning advocate advertising their credentials so already established lawyers flourished more
and then cry and criticise these students when they choose not to enter litigation ever?
Just because there is a greater demand for advocates among juniors than the supply does not mean (i) the behaviour of the seniors is right; (ii) the juniors are not entitled to better work; (iii) the juniors are not entitled to respect; (iv) the juniors are not entitled to sustainable stipends.
"do the job the best you can" - if you notice, the concern of the OP is not getting any good work other than buying vakalatnamas, etc. How about you spend some time learning some comprehension than just enjoying the life from your high horse?
Going by your logic, you should be okay if your employer pays you only half your salary, because there will be others who will be happy to get that salary and do your job. Exploitation is exploitation regardless of the number of potential exploited available.
U seem to think you are doing a favour by showing up for your senior. He will have a 100 ppl to replace you at a moment's notice. While you will be hard pressed to find any decent mentor who is willing to give you the time of day of even a minute. A piece of advice - rid yourself of this shitty attitude and focus on your job and do it the best you can.
We do not want to help you because you want everything on a plate ready to eat. You need to learn the ropes and most of all--- get over your sense of entitlement.
Ive seen this standard in multiple offices and chambers, seniors not willing to help us in difficult situations, speaking rudely in front of clients, merely making us follow them everywhere holding files, or purchasing CA or vakalat forms from the counter, other times telling us this is a terrible profession and nobody is paid well, not giving enough rich work but expecting newer joinees and interns to have them on the CV?!
Competent being the keyword.
Believe me none of the seniors in the law are "professional" in how they are suppose to aid juniors (like it used to be in the past)
3.1 - before writing half baked thoughts, pls think. If a junior is competent, he will be appropriately remunerated. Many times even if he is competent, he is put through the wringer. The profession is a test match - work hard and consistent and prove yourself for at least a decade. Need I remind you how in litigation especially, counsels hit their stride and really take off in their mid 40s.
3.2 - do you know the sensitive and important matters some advocates handle? Ranging from PMLA to PCA to commercial matters of all sorts? Why will any advocate with a brain trust a junior off the bat and make them handle important matters and expose them to sensitive info? My steno of 30 years can draft a petition far better than a junior of 2 years. That’s the reality. At this early stage - pick the right senior and do whatever work is given thoroughly. If you expect seniors to blindly trust an unproven rube, you are even stupider than your comment (and that’s saying much).
3.3 - it’s not. But do try and understand the reality of my comment objectively. Truth is incapable of hurting.
3.4 - nope. That firm is not strong in my practice area.
3.5 - actually, no. You seem quite ignorant of demand and supply. And also of how there are many skilled competent juniors who work hard and want to succeed. You could learn a thing or two from them. Instead of whining on this forum.
and then cry and criticise these students when they choose not to enter litigation ever?
"do the job the best you can" - if you notice, the concern of the OP is not getting any good work other than buying vakalatnamas, etc. How about you spend some time learning some comprehension than just enjoying the life from your high horse?
Hardwork talks. Everything else .... walks!