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?
Of course, the guy I am talking about may have worked very hard in his firm, but I can't imagine him doing work that is very cerebral in nature. So I think the "glorified clerk" stereotype is true. In fact, I don't think the fuss about caste/NRI reservation in law schools, or Jindal/GLC students grabbing jobs through jugaad, really matters. Merit and intelligence may play an important role in science and medicine, but I don't think someone with low intelligence and academic ability will necessarily do badly at a firm. If you can do basic clerical tasks and speak English well, that should be enough.
Happy to hear counter-arguments.