CA turn advocates mostly because they want to carry their tax litigation upto the high courts, maybe even above. And in any case, only the very brilliant of CA's truly flourish as lawyers. But yes in coming days expect CA, CS people to gravitate more towards litigation as they try to escape the mundane world of compliance.

This absolutely off the point. CA here, dealing in tax laws and have worked in big 4, law firms and extensively with lawyers for more than 20 years so equally qualified to comment on this. The only reason why a CA does LLB is if you're doing tax litigations, and want to go to High Court, which is a very small minority. Else, for a CA, multiple roles are open, including business side of the things, unlike lawyers, where only litigation or advisory works largely, though definitely there are exceptions. For a CA, accounting or compliance roles are always going to be there but now the ambit is way more. Technology is another area where a lot of CAs have started to focus. Obviously there are financial sector roles, where CAs again excel because of inherent training in finance and understanding of overall business. So let's not belittle any profession or qualifications. If Big 4 pay less, the amount of people recruited in Big4 is also way more. All the big law firms taken together can't match headcount of one big 4. Also, since you compared about pay in a big 4 vs tier 1, in a year, say only 300-400 freshers will be taken in overall tier 1 firms, which is less than what a single big 4 will recruit so the depth of firms is also way more. Work life balance is also way better than tier 1. I can continue here for way longer, but I think I've made my point.

My reply was exactly on point - which was that, it is ironic for CAs to shit on lawyers when CAs themselves have recently started obtaining law degrees as well. I agree with you that practising CAs would get a law degree only because they would want to expand their litigation practice, but the only reason CAs, who are 'employed' in big 4 firms, would get a law degree is to be able to get a salary boost (whether by jumping to a law firm or by being promoted internally).

But all the other stuff that you have rambled on about CAs expanding into new fields like tech, business side of things etc etc, is the prime example of what you guys have learned from mugging up stuff and writing exams for 4 years - which is to vomit up random points which would have no relevance at all to the discussion. Even lawyers have roles in upcoming fields be it tech, finance, or business side of things. However what has this got anything to do with this thread or my reply (which was to point out the irony)?

So anyways lets come back to the main topic - should lawyers be worried that CAs are also obtaining law degrees? Well, it depends on which practice area you are focusing on. If you plan to work in the field IP, criminal, arbitration, or maritime laws, then being a CA would be irrelevant. However, if you were to focus in the area of tax, insolvency, or corporate matters (since these laws specifically allow CAs to appear for their clients before tribunals - ITAT, CESTAT, NCLT) then being a CA can be advantageous.

Wow. What a thread. looking at this response, I'm sure many persons can write a long-a** reply to this but it won't introduce you to real life. So won't reply to this completely and would wait for you to come to real life to get your answers.

And yeah, just so you know, saying this from bottom of heart, CAs don't care about being lawyer, the CA degree opens enough opportunities. The only CAs, who like to do tax litigation, are the one's who will study law and not really to join law firms.

Let's not do a contest to just piss on a profession, as many have already written.

"only CAs, who like to do tax litigation, are the one's who will study law and not really to join law firms."

Looks like you have worked neither with big 4 nor the big law firms. Go checkout the qualifications of people working in the tax teams of any big law firm in India - most would be CAs who would have joined laterally from EY, KMPG, or PWC. The primary reason for most was higher pay at law firms.

And my dude, take a look at this thread and see who started the pissing competition. I have been around on LI for a longgg time and trust me, on every thread concerning a CA+LLB topic, it is always a CA who would suddenly start shitting on lawyers. Take a look in this thread itself. I mean look at the at kind of comments people from your profession come up with.

"CAs should not pursue LLB. Why would a US green card holder apply for Bangladesh work permit?"

"LLB degrees will be worth less than toilet paper"

Absolute crass.

Have seen the market now as MBA and a lawyer and bruh you are so delusional, I am seeing CAs everywhere from IB PE VC to mutual fund managing and Equity research. The spectrum is too broad for them and pay is way hire than NLU grads (left CAM for IIM L).

I don't know about CA + LLB but can assure you of CA + MBA that this is the most deadly combo on campus , all the IB and VC shortlist are dominated by CAs followed by IITIANs and These firms pay analyst 2-3x of what Law firms would pay A1.

Also there are hardly 500-600 tier 1 associate positions paying 15L + while total CA graduating are 20000 and still grabbing 8-10lpa easily while 1st attempt guys are getting 14-20lpa

If you compare top 500 of NLU grads vs Top 500 of CA guys, CA career will mog the hell out of us lawyers.

This is simple statistics and what is this CFO glitch lol, all the CFOs I met were CAs . Like 100% of CFOs in this country are CAs.

Btw, don't we daily see the threads here about lawyers wanting a job for 25k? At least CA easily gets 50-60k on average. Just because some 200-300 people get high paying jobs at the cost of complete life, doesn't make law degree superior, especially there are so many people just desperate to get some job. Doesn't happen with CAs and no need to glorify the profession by just pointing to a small section. Both professions are strong in their respective areas so let's live together.

Hi Boss.

Non CA lawyer here. But envy the ability of CAs to read financial statements of companies.

In the long run, to be rich, one has to own equity. And CAs have an edge since they can read financial statements better than lawyers. For long term wealth creation, LLB + CA is a good combo. Ofcourse they will have to work hard and work in good encouraging environments to grow, but CAs have an edge, IMO, when it comes to managing their money.

my dad is a CA and my cousins are doing CA however I'm doing law. With due respect sir, I truly think law is a superior profession, firstly my cousins are 24 and yet to give CA final so even if they do become CA, it will be at 25/26 min and whereas I will become lawyer at 23. I already have a starting offer which is almost double of what your big 4 firms offer in hand to freshers.

Go ahead man and congrats for your offer. I won't ruin your happiness by mentioning the consulting salary outside big 4 which also CAs get. As some people mentioned above, it's a very small sample to get a nice fat tier 1 salary and a large majority struggle for even jobs to start, unlike CA. Job acceptability is way higher for CAs and there's versatility in CAs. Again, as someone mentioned above, both professions have their own place. Why to derogate a profession?

I'm not derogating at all as my father is a CA as well and he came from a poor family, I'm grateful to how rich this course has made our family. But I would like to object to your salary argument, consulting salaries at mbb have a ctc of 35-40lpa (at iim abc/fms) but the in hand is very low (1.5-1.8 per month). This is the figure my seniors who are at bain/bcg have told me they are getting and this is at consultant level POST top mba. CAs get hired at an analyst (undergrad level) at these firms which pays half of this (I have friends who are business analysts at mbb too) so the in hand is not much. I am just saying some professors are superior than others like engineering is superior than law in terms of pay and work life, I can say this without derogating any profession

How is "95% of a tax litigation being settled at the ITAT level" supposed to refute the fact that CAs cannot appear before HCs or SC? I mean do you CAs even understand the basics of how to frame an argument and refute something? At least be on point before you start blabbering petty stuff, this is not IPCC bro, extra marks nahi milenge zyda likhne ke