Off late I have seen law firms increasingly hire CSs to perform their corporate law work. Let's be honest, they have a better grasp (through just rote learning) of company law, securities law and tax. There must be something that law firms, lawyers specially, know and possess that is more valuable than CS firms - that's why we charge far higher fees.
I am sorry I don't agree- i am both a National Law Schoolite and a CS. Most people are simply not motivated to do CS because CS does not really have any sort of great prestige attached to it. Most dropouts are because of the aforesaid motivation issues. If you are from a National Law School, CS adds nothing to your employability. You would have got the same job if you had not done your CS. You don't seem to know much on this. The passing rates of CS are very high- CS is a very simple exam.
Also to add, there is hardly any mathematics in CS either. You don't call +- mathematics- you are making it sound as if CS students learn calculus or something. In fact, mathematics even in CA is nothing high level either
It's not about math but developing analytical skills which are clearly lacking in law graduates. And it's a fact. Their curriculum is designed that way
What rigors? You go beyond the NLUs and the top 2-3 private law schools, you will see the quality education imparted in our country. I'd say at some NLUs, even.
At many law schools you don't even need to attend the classes. Just write whatever in the exam. It's probably the easiest course to get into and graduate from. Thinking otherwise is just delusional to make yourself feel better. There is a reason why 90% of lawyers are incompetent and wouldn't be able to make a proper draft of anything even if their life dependent upon it.
Yeah and it is no surprise that the people who end up enrolling in such colleges (where attendance is minimum and you need to write whatever in exams to pass) are primarily CAs/CSs (who are well versed with the art of writing whatever to pass exams because they have already passed such an exam). So what's your point? 90% of CAs/CSs will also not be able to do basic things which they should be proficient at even if their life depended on it.
Lawyers excel with connecting the dots. But yes, once the dots are connected in novel or new situations, i.e., once it is out in the public domain, then the CS and the CAs apply it mindlessly until a new novel situation comes up where connected dots are not available in the public domain.
You are speaking from a very limited worldview. Your definition of success in the legal career is working at T1, T2. Whereas if you look at lit advocates, judges etc it's rare for them to be from Nlu's.
With pass percentages of more than 20% quite often, there is nothing meritorious about CS. Most CS are those people who could never clear CA and had to settle for an alternative
Lmao 20%? If you even think 9% is the real passing percentage, you are either naive or really bad at math. That's the percentage of people clearing one group. And this time around, the pass percentages for the professional level have come down to 7% (that's 7% of those 9% who have cleared the executive level, lol). Taking everything together, the chances of you clearing all three stages in one go, or, let's say, 3Y is much lesser that that. Don't agree? Do the math yourself.
I once advised a CS on very basic queries concerning ICSI's secretarial standards (which is something that he should have been an expert in). I even explained my CA why his way of filing my tax return was wrong and after a lengthy discussion he agreed. So personally, even I would think about quitting if I ended up working with Chaturs like you.
This reminds me - I've had to argue with two CAs myself over some very simple things only for them to agree at a later stage. One of them was doing my tax filing and would have made me pay higher tax. Like, it's your only job ffs, I don't even practice taxation law how do you know this less than I do?
To be honest, the difference lies purely in approach- take for example, something like securitisation or direct assignment in structured finance. Most professional lawyers in the field would understand that the roots of the subject lie in Transfer of Property Act- a CS would start by looking at SEBI regulations, even if the securitised instruments are unlisted. Don't want to insult CS people too much but it is neither law nor accounts and to be honest, most CS do not make employable lawyers due to lack of nous about research.
Speaking from my own experience (as a law student from T2/T3 law school as well as a CS aspirant), law school in itself is a holistic experience which develops the student holistically in terms of knowledge, networking skills, research, drafting, internships, etc. So once an individual graduates as a lawyer, he/she knows how the things go around in terms of law, in general (this opinion is based on the premise that one attends a full-time law school and not by correspondence).
On the other hand, CS provides you with core in-depth knowledge about how the general corporate and commercial law works without emphasizing much upon the holistic development of the CS student.One key area where a law student will definitely have an edge is research because in the whole syllabus of CS (2017 or 2022) there are no components for research, whereas a law student from day one is taught to work on research and finding better precedence.
A company secretary can understand everything a lawyer does but a lawyer cannot ! In fact, a company secretary does more good to the business than a lawyer who fails to understand the section's impact on the business and its operations.
Lol Spoken like a CS - "A company secretary can understand everything a lawyer does but a lawyer cannot". So umm....a lawyer cannot understand everything that a lawyer does........???
Logical inconsistency in the structuring of that sentence aside, what makes you think a lawyer cannot understand that? All you guys do is make sure your companies are complying with the law. There's nothing to understand. This job should basically be fully automated by now.
Man so many stupid CAs/CSs commenting over here, thinking they are better than lawyers, and that they have achieved some huge feat because they passed exams which literally only forced them to memorize word-to-word what is printed in their course books (only to make it is easier/faster for examiners to check answers instead of checking if the student actually understands what they wrote).
An extract of Balance Sheet of Airrath Aviation Ltd., comprises of : Equity Share Capital 12% Preference Share Capital 14% Debenture capital (i) 30,00,000 of 50 each 5,00,000 of 500 each 15,00,000 of 500 each Ascertain the maximum equity share capital and the number of equity shares that can be bought back in the present case. (ii) What is meant by buy-back through tender offer under SEBI (Buy-Back of Securities) Regulations, 2018.
This is a question asked this year.
70 percent of the "corporate lawyers" in this thread wont be able to solve it without any help.
Arey rattu popat! In the real world we can refer to the relevant provisions readily, instead of relying on memory, to figure out the answer. Even if someone would be unaware about the conditions that are required to be satisfied for a buy-back, as long as they are smart enough to figure out where to look up for the most updated version of the SEBI regulations, they will figure out the answer to it.
Instead, let me ask you some practical questions which wouldn't have been taught to you in your CS textbooks or prep material.
Q1. What is the reasoning behind adding the phrase "based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount." to regulation 4(i) of the buy-back regulations?
Q2. In the explanation to regulation 4(i), the phrase "based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount." is absent. Would it mean that when computing the maximum limit for equity shares, I can disregard the said phrase?
Q3. If you would refer the footnotes to the phrase " based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount.", it states that the amendment is w.e.f 9th March 2023. But what about cases where a buy back has already been made public before this date? In such a case will the proviso to regulation 4(iv)(b) be applicable?
I am sure that 100% of company secretaries wouldn't even get close to answering these questions satisfactorily.
You'll find at least a thousand of lawyers standing outside any of district courts who will get you divorced for a petty amount even if you don't need a divorce.
Okay lemme tell you something. People who don’t make it into a tier-1 nlu , makes noise and say CS is better to lessen their insecurities. I don’t blame them but I hate their guts to even clat when they couldn’t crack it in the first place.
cracking an aptitude test is your greatest achievement. then a good chunk of yall comfortably slip into generic meaningless activism, human rights, liberal arts yada yada yada.
sure none of yall have an as comprehensive knowledge of subjects as a CS exe student.
What is it?
one knows why and how things happen, the other just knows what
0 analytical skills and they dont know math.
At many law schools you don't even need to attend the classes. Just write whatever in the exam. It's probably the easiest course to get into and graduate from. Thinking otherwise is just delusional to make yourself feel better. There is a reason why 90% of lawyers are incompetent and wouldn't be able to make a proper draft of anything even if their life dependent upon it.
Can you please prove that statement with numbers ???And also mention the sources of those numbers
CS is a professional qualification.
Comparison should be fair enough.
But Law schools(even nlu's) on the other hand have various kinds of reservations
On the other hand, CS provides you with core in-depth knowledge about how the general corporate and commercial law works without emphasizing much upon the holistic development of the CS student.One key area where a law student will definitely have an edge is research because in the whole syllabus of CS (2017 or 2022) there are no components for research, whereas a law student from day one is taught to work on research and finding better precedence.
A company secretary can understand everything a lawyer does but a lawyer cannot ! In fact, a company secretary does more good to the business than a lawyer who fails to understand the section's impact on the business and its operations.
This is a question asked this year.
70 percent of the "corporate lawyers" in this thread wont be able to solve it without any help.
Instead, let me ask you some practical questions which wouldn't have been taught to you in your CS textbooks or prep material.
Q1. What is the reasoning behind adding the phrase "based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount." to regulation 4(i) of the buy-back regulations?
Q2. In the explanation to regulation 4(i), the phrase "based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount." is absent. Would it mean that when computing the maximum limit for equity shares, I can disregard the said phrase?
Q3. If you would refer the footnotes to the phrase " based on the standalone or consolidated financial statements of the company, whichever sets out a lower amount.", it states that the amendment is w.e.f 9th March 2023. But what about cases where a buy back has already been made public before this date? In such a case will the proviso to regulation 4(iv)(b) be applicable?
I am sure that 100% of company secretaries wouldn't even get close to answering these questions satisfactorily.
It is very very difficult to fail in LLB exam.
cracking an aptitude test is your greatest achievement. then a good chunk of yall comfortably slip into generic meaningless activism, human rights, liberal arts yada yada yada.
sure none of yall have an as comprehensive knowledge of subjects as a CS exe student.