No. The purpose of assessment is to help people understand how good you're. Getting the work done by any means is a strategy that the associates can try out, not an intern. Even if you get AI to come up with a first cut, go through the judgements carefully and that cut to ensure that everything makes sense and no hallucination or lack of logic is evident.

As long as the final product is as good or better than what you could do by yourself, then I see no reason any law firm would avoid AI. Do keep confidentiality in mind though; this particular task is okay, but anything with any confidential information can't be fed to a LLM (unless you host it yourself).

1. If you receive your legal education in India, then it does define a lot of things. Saying otherwise is total nonsense. Businesspeople in India have become more confident about the quality of their lawyers since the NLU system was implemented. Finally, thanks to the NLU system, a respectable number of Indian lawyers, like Indian economists, Indian scientists, Indian engineers, Indian IT people, have been able to make their mark on the world and to aspire for, and take up, positions in globally ranked places. If you receive your legal education outside India, of course, then it's a different matter.

2. Granted, law school doesn't teach some at least of what it should. However, it teaches basic skills. Reading and being able to write a summary of a case!! If you didn't learn that from your law school, then your choice of law school was wrong. Simples.

3. As far as it goes, that statement is correct: "Failing CLAT is not the end of the world and anyone’s career." Then have you passed AILET, the other major entry test for good legal education in India? Very well, then: have you been able to prove yourself in systems that are arguably better than the Indian one? Have you gotten yourself a good degree in a non-law subject and past the LSAT (U.S.) and been able to get into a T14 law school or good Canadian uni? Have you been able to have a combo of good LNAT score + top-of-the-range school marks + (depending on the circumstances) a good IELTs score to get into a good UK uni (Oxbridge/some of the UoL unis/Warwick etc)? No? If all the answers are no, then I am sorry, de facto it is the end of the career for many people. You are actively causing harm, by propagating a false picture, if you don't admit this to be the unvarnished truth.

Tell me honestly, pakka tu wahi na ho NLU ko apni personality bana leta hai and instagram bio main < NLU 'batch > likhta hai, because it seems so! I get it because that would be the only achievement of your life.

It's okay, it'll get better! I hope you heal from whatever you're going through!

Just tell me this! Why do your NLU Graduated elite lawyers working in disputes team at a are still looked down as glorified solicitors and clerks and still briefing advocates graduating from so called state unis!

Thanking the mods for featuring his and further fuelling the disparity between the elites and common folks! Kian would be proud!

Haha. Have you forgotten that there is such a thing as anonymity on here? If my job prospects would be messed up by a simple comment expressing perfectly reasonable and legitimate views, then your career is over for bullying and threatening me - for kicking down and misusing a senior-to-junior power differential.

Ah, the irony. You’re trying to argue that “failing CLAT isn’t the end of the world”, but only if one manages to crack something far more elite than CLAT itself.

So let me get this straight: if someone didn’t make it to an NLU at 17, their only salvation is to ace the LSAT, LNAT, IELTS, or get into a T14 law school or Oxbridge otherwise, their legal career is “de facto” over? Really?

You’re essentially saying that failing CLAT is only excusable if someone then cracks exams that are arguably ten times harder or gains access to international opportunities that are financially out of reach for most Indians. That’s like saying, “Didn’t win gold at the Olympics? No worries, just discover a cure for cancer.” Or “Oh, you failed Jee? Koi nahi, go build a rocket and apply to NASA.” Make it make sense.

And of course, you conveniently gloss over the tiny, insignificant matter of accessibility. While organisations like IDIA are fighting to make CLAT more inclusive and equitable, it’s mindsets like yours that keep this profession exclusionary and classist. Because clearly, everyone has the funds to apply to multiple foreign universities and pay crores in tuition, right? Your entire worldview is built on the fantasy of a hyper-privileged few madking as a universal truth.

That’s not logic. That’s delusion dressed up as elitism. And it's definitely coming from someone whose only life achievement is having cracked CLAT.

Now let’s talk about the foreign institutions you so confidently talked about, the T14s in the US, Oxbridge, top Canadian law schools. Their graduates do dominate global legal rankings and help shape international jurisprudence. The comparison is laughable because most NLU grads wouldn’t even make it past the personal statement stage at those institutions.

Here’s a reality check for you junior failing CLAT is not a moral failing, nor is it a career death sentence. It just means someone didn’t perform well on a deeply flawed test often while still a teenager. And yet, people recover. They go to lesser-known universities, work twice as hard, intern widely, outperform many NLU grads, and actually build meaningful legal careers. Not because someone handed them Oxford, but because they had resilience a quality glaringly absent from your post.

In short, if you genuinely think that one needs to pass the LSAT or go to Oxbridge to justify not cracking CLAT, then maybe it’s time to reflect on what exactly you’re defending, an entrance exam, or your own inflated ego.

Warm regards,

Yours, A3 from a State University you’ve never heard of now working at a Tier 1 firm you probably applied to for an internship.

Now mods, you need to be marking this comment I am replying to, for sure, as 'featured'. If you marked the comment that started off this argument as 'featured', then this is the best articulation of the opposing point of view, and therefore, deserves the same tag. Even if there are elements of ad hominem, it is still very good.