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?
I request my seniors, herein to please, please advise me according to my situation as stated:
- I want to practise, nothing else (in the longer run)
- I want to become a designated Senior counsel, want to start early.
- I want to go to a firm only because of money for 3-4 years, and then join a senior counsel. The problem is, till when I would follow money? After 3-4 years, I might be a senior associate, might make double. Would it be possible for me to leave that and get back to a chamber again for far less than what I could make at a law firm? I doubt.
- I can negotiate with chambers for 40-50k.
- I don't need to look after my family at its entirety. A slight contribution will suffice. However, I need money to lead a dignified life in a metro city, not mere animal existence.
Thank you in anticipation!
Finding myself in the web whether to join sr chambers or go have a law firm lol ps already done 3-4 tier 1 internship.
Eventually I wanted to litigate but scared whether when leaving the sr chambers will I get my own clientele. Whether I will be able to sustain a family and cope up with all the materialistic things that one buys : luxary cars watch’s high end purses
Symbi Pune
DU
The rest will come to you as you grow. Be ambitious by all means. Be patient too.
A friend of mine who has a son in the final year of college sent me a link to this thread saying that this reflects the doubts that many young people have about starting in the profession, and that maybe I should pen my thoughts down. While I have a more modest claim than others to weigh in, my little bit may help some lost soul. I didn't find a platform more apposite than this one, so here goes.
FIRST, the SENIOR DESIRE:
Many of the queries here are of those who want to join a senior and at some point become a designated senior advocate. Maybe its relevant to consider that there are several thousand senior advocates across the country and the large majority of them are not really considered brilliant - they just got to a stage when they were given the designation for one reason or another, but they are not in a position to command a great quantity of high level work or have an output that would justify a higher fee or even have the respect of the Court or their peers. As a consequence, nearly 90% of the designated crew do outstation and tribunal work far removed from the courts that designated them. Many are unscrupulous and do distasteful things, including directly approaching clients, soliciting work and paying commissions, not to mention choosing political affiliations to get some prominence. And yes, many of the so-called "successful" ones do all this as well, but each to her/his own.
Note that all of this is just those who DID make it to seniors.
Now look at someone who enrolled in the 80s or 90s with the light in their eyes of being a Fali or Soli or KKV. That young man or woman makes it 25 years into the profession while watching a few of his peers (less than 0.15%) becoming seniors while his/her own recognition has not come. But this individual is far from discontent. You know why?
It is because he/she didn't make the destination of a flapped gown the priority. They choose to have a balanced life with books and friends and fruitful relationships and kindness. Of course they worked - honestly and industriously and sometimes with great imagination. If the recognition is to come with all of that, it will. If it does not, at least you did not waste the most important years of your life yearning for a goal in which a large part is played by lady luck.
This illustration is not just fictional - three of my peers - Haripriya Padmanabhan (1998 NLS), Gaurav Agrawal (1999 NLS) and Aman Ahluwalia (2002 NLS) are the finest advocates I know. Whenever I have doubts in commercial law, in practise and procedure or in private law, I turn to each of these respectively. They all have everything that I believe a senior needs - integrity, intelligence, imagination, rigour, tenacity, wisdom, honesty and goodwill. I rate them higher in their disciplines than ANYONE in the country. Note the words I used - ANY ONE. I am in the blessed position where I can pick up the phone to literally any lawyer in this country to get advice or counsel, but I am not picking up the phone to ANY ONE else. The reason is that in my assessment, the senior gown is not a guarantee of the best advice - most times it is only a measure of indemnity for a solicitor besieged by an anxious client. And for some things like decency and culture, there is no senior gown. These three wonderful lawyers best demonstrate the fundamental flaws underlying many of the posts here which require correction: (1) Do not keep the senior gown as your goal, but allow it to be a happy marker on the road well travelled. (2) Do not believe that only working with a senior will be some sort of magical passport in your career - just look for an office which is not toxic and where there is a learning curve.
SECOND, the IDEAL PATH.
Friends, if I knew the answer to this one, I would have cashed in on it. There are broadly two routes that young lawyers take - they either start at the trial courts and then over the years move on to the High Court or Supreme Court OR they start directly at the court they want to make their final destination. As a Bangalore boy who started directly at the Supreme Court, I chose the latter. Over the last 20 years, I am happy to say I have found many young people (including all 6 of my current chamber juniors) starting directly at the Supreme Court and acquitting themselves well. Of course, we may not know the high skills of cross examination or the intricacies of a home food memo, but the system at the Supreme Court makes huge allowances for territorial peculiarities and permits some good reading to bridge the gap. However, as a High Court or Trial Lawyer, you get to spend so much more time on building a case from scratch, in making sure all the necessary grounds are taken at the outset and in poking holes in the opponent's case. Coupled with Tribunal work, these breeding grounds are second to none for a seasoned litigator. I dont knock either avenue, but I shed light on them only to the exclusion of a third.
My views on mentorship you can glean from this interview a few years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caRV65oSAzE&t=2s
[See from 23:57 till about 31:00]
THIRD, the OFFICE
If there are no financial burdens on hand, I would suggest starting off in litigation right away. But be careful in looking for an office.
The ideal mentor's office should have the following:
a. A busy boss - who has reason to go into court at least 4 days a week;
b. A colleague or two - for the company;
c. A decent pay - which does not require you to borrow
d. Freedom to do your own work - without any compulsion of routing it through the office or the boss
e. Reasonable free time when there are no pressing matters on hand
f. A boss who will try to clear doubts and not be dismissive of contra view points
g. Reasonable vacation spells
h. Sprinkings of Pro-Bono work, to show that the boss has a heart
The ideal mentor's office should NOT have:
a. A toxic atmosphere where one lawyer is played off against another to foster insecurities
b. Abuse of any sort - that is a complete non-starter
c. Associates being policed - being told not to go into courtrooms or canteens or meet friends, etc
d. Chauvinism, casteism or prejudice of any sort
e. Too many associates - this would appear to be only decorative and not really as a means to guide or educate
THE BONUSES (not necessary dealbreakers if absent)
a. If the office goes to multiple courts or tribunals
b. If the office covers a large swathe of areas - civil, criminal, corporate, etc
c. If the office has a coffee machine, cafeteria, gym, etc
Most important, below is what DOES NOT matter to most litigation offices that you apply to:
YOUR GRADES. Sorry, but thats a fact. Your excellence in cracking an exam does not necessarily mean you can process and research propositions or be innovative when a jurisprudential problem presents itself. Hardened litigators know the "Topper's Fallacy" well, and would be impressed only with good internships or written work that shows your ability to analyze and grasp complex issues. There is a reasonably well-rooted belief that a law graduate knows nothing useful until he starts the practise, and so the expectation of him or her is not a prior knowledge of the law, but an aptitude for court work. The evaluation parameters of the latter are entirely different.
Remember, this is not a competition - dont bother what anyone else is doing. When you are 40 or 50, you will regret having thought of it as a race when you were in your 20s. Each person has a distinct personal and professional journey ahead - tread sensibly and it should all work out decently.
I hope that in some small way these thoughts help all of you on your journeys.
All the very best.
Gopal
P.S. My reference to 3 NLS peers is not to judge or exclude any college - it is only to identify my own milieu. Each of you will have stories of a similar nature wherever you come from.
Neither "law firms nor Chambers", ended up in SC Clerkship – lol. Destiny takes its own course.
I am a graduate from 2020 Batch. I did 3 years L.LB, and I am not in a metropolitan T-1 Cities. I am litigating under a senior (by experience) advocate in District Court.
I wish to become the best and work in best matters in best forums amongst and with best people.
My plan of action is to get into Law Firm and work for a decade to save enough money to be able to rent a room and office and litigate in Delhi HC or SC. BUT I have been utterly unsuccessful in getting a position in Law Firm , approaching sr adv chamber has also been unsuccessful. Hence Lawyers from non-nlu and non branded law colleges/universities have nowhere to go.
Can you help and/or guide us as to how to make our lives meaningful and how to slingshot from District court to High Court or Supreme Court ?
Your experience as a trial advocate will always serve you well, you can handle your own cases too, and those will feed into your senior's high court practice.
Firms don't pay too well and don't do enough quality litigation work to be able to slingshot you into the future you dream of. Avoid them.
My Regional HC (Ranchi) dont have good corporate and commercial litigation !
Do reply !!!