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?
As per me Sanad should be granted to those also, who have done court job for 7 years with any of advocates.
While everyone should have access to "study" the law, 2ith stringent mechanisms regulating the education, not everyone should have the right to "practice" the law.
Like in the US, the bar exams must be made tougher and actually be a screening exam rather than a "is my exam today or next month" exam
Simultaneously, we must also allow for foreign firms to come in ASAP and allow for cross-recognition in the top legal markets elsewhere and move away from the self-important codes that disallow marketing entirely and also on the fees and the like - do I want every Tom, Dick and Harry to advertise themselves as giving guaranteed results? No! But completely capping it is not the point - already, legal marketing professionals are coming up to serve law firms bypassing the BCI guidelines, half of which I believe were set out of 'moral superiority' and not seeing any systemic changes.
Maybe the T1s get more pressure, but it could also be that firms like NDA and BTG thrive in this environment. Our legal market, by a source is about 372X smaller than the one in USA; while the market size is not the best metric for measuring how well a legal system performs, it does tend to be a metric of how well a lot of its lawyers are paid.
Increased competition can only mean good things - TCS still exists while FAANG exists. Existence of one does not mean removal of another.
By ensuring stringent qualification norms that are inexpensive to obtain, we increase access and quality - we need to also match it with a boom in the industry for the 'supply'. There will always be a space for litigators.
Comment down