Hi folks! I hereby seek to explore the possible solutions to the captioned subject. Please hop on with your view. The canvas of the discussion in aimed at having more independent litigation lawyers in India- both in terms of money as well as briefs/cases. Even if you do not have a solution instantly, feel free to engage with a few solutions I can think of. 1. Quality Building amongst litigation aspirants: Bar Council of India should induct a mandatory 1-2 year full-fledged litigation juniorship program where law students in their 4th-5th year of the law school (who intend to obtain license to practice eventually) be engaged in the office of a litigation lawyer having minimum practice of 10 years. Further, the license should be contingent on obtaining a satisfactory grade from the assessor- senior. I suggest this as better quality candidates would be in a default position to charge better and shall partly address the issue of non-paying seniors. 2. Impetus on financial training of lawyers: Fresh litigation lawyers need to learn invoicing, how to charge and quote fees for your services, best principles for handling clients, professional tax implications/ filings- all of this, I believe are indispensible part of becoming an independent litigation lawyer. 3. A fast-track mechanism for recovery of legal fees: Recovery of monies from your client is often the most difficult trick in the trade. There has to be a way to deal with this expeditiously for litigation scene in this country to thrive. This adresses the 2nd leg of non-paying seniors. A senior who is able to recover monies for his office will certainly not have an economic constraint to pay his/her retainer. 4. A sound ethical and moral watchdog: This is a must for legal profession in India to be more professional and litigation lawyers to be more disciplined and justice oriented. However, I believe the constraints on advertising should either be strictly implemented or be done away with. As having them in the current form is doing more harm than good.
What's in it for the senior who provides traineeship? They have to be compensated one way or the other. Also, how would you ensure they simply don't sign the certificates.
A very pertinent issue. However I think this won't be as big a menace as it is now- considering the following:
A. Not all students should be forced to undergo this traineeship- only students who opt for and wish to actually obtain a license to practice should be subjected to this. In-turn this will decrease the in-flux and ensure serious candidates come into litigation. Also not a unwarranted burden for a senior as he/ she gets already motivated candidates to mentor.
B. Another consideration for a senior is to pay his/her junior. Here, since the candidate is already motivated and still in law school- a token payment of 5-15k won't bother either side whereas hiring a motivated junior and paying them a stipend over 15k is bit difficult for a senior as of now. Also, if recoveries are faster- Senior is already happier than before.
C. Thirdly and finally, the issue of fake signing. Ideally, these seniors have to be those who have themselves sponsored their offices for the programme considering the aforesaid benefits of obtaining motivated juniors with minimum stipend obligations. I believe a senior paying some money to a junior will certainly not allow the junior to simply not attend the office or works assigned to them and also sign the certificate/ recommendation nonetheless.
I hereby seek to explore the possible solutions to the captioned subject. Please hop on with your view. The canvas of the discussion in aimed at having more independent litigation lawyers in India- both in terms of money as well as briefs/cases.
Even if you do not have a solution instantly, feel free to engage with a few solutions I can think of.
1. Quality Building amongst litigation aspirants: Bar Council of India should induct a mandatory 1-2 year full-fledged litigation juniorship program where law students in their 4th-5th year of the law school (who intend to obtain license to practice eventually) be engaged in the office of a litigation lawyer having minimum practice of 10 years. Further, the license should be contingent on obtaining a satisfactory grade from the assessor- senior. I suggest this as better quality candidates would be in a default position to charge better and shall partly address the issue of non-paying seniors.
2. Impetus on financial training of lawyers: Fresh litigation lawyers need to learn invoicing, how to charge and quote fees for your services, best principles for handling clients, professional tax implications/ filings- all of this, I believe are indispensible part of becoming an independent litigation lawyer.
3. A fast-track mechanism for recovery of legal fees: Recovery of monies from your client is often the most difficult trick in the trade. There has to be a way to deal with this expeditiously for litigation scene in this country to thrive. This adresses the 2nd leg of non-paying seniors. A senior who is able to recover monies for his office will certainly not have an economic constraint to pay his/her retainer.
4. A sound ethical and moral watchdog: This is a must for legal profession in India to be more professional and litigation lawyers to be more disciplined and justice oriented. However, I believe the constraints on advertising should either be strictly implemented or be done away with. As having them in the current form is doing more harm than good.
That's all from my side. Shoot your opinions now!
A. Not all students should be forced to undergo this traineeship- only students who opt for and wish to actually obtain a license to practice should be subjected to this. In-turn this will decrease the in-flux and ensure serious candidates come into litigation. Also not a unwarranted burden for a senior as he/ she gets already motivated candidates to mentor.
B. Another consideration for a senior is to pay his/her junior. Here, since the candidate is already motivated and still in law school- a token payment of 5-15k won't bother either side whereas hiring a motivated junior and paying them a stipend over 15k is bit difficult for a senior as of now. Also, if recoveries are faster- Senior is already happier than before.
C. Thirdly and finally, the issue of fake signing. Ideally, these seniors have to be those who have themselves sponsored their offices for the programme considering the aforesaid benefits of obtaining motivated juniors with minimum stipend obligations. I believe a senior paying some money to a junior will certainly not allow the junior to simply not attend the office or works assigned to them and also sign the certificate/ recommendation nonetheless.