I used to think litigation work is easy seeing the number of advocates roaming in the civil courts and the kind of fees they generally charge. And I had an impression in my mind that this is the reason law firms do not generally pay the litigation associates at par with their corporate peers.

However, I have been handling a personal matter before a few forums and I would like to accept that I was wrong. There are so many things to lear. Every forum has its own procedural quirks. Every judge has their biases and mannerisms. Knowing which judge runs with their cases and you need to be at the court at what time. The disappointment when you have prepared everything and on the date of the hearing the judge is on leave. The physical effort you need to put going from your fancy offices to those old shabby buildings with no air circulation wearing that thick blazer. Running for photocopies and for filings at the eleventh hour.

I seriously think they should be paid at par with the corporate folks. If you are a corporate associate and think otherwise, I would highly recommend handling at least one matter on your own.

The worst part about litigation is that opposing counsel are always baying for your blood and looking at your work with a magnifying glass. They are actively delaying matters which you want to get done.

In transactions, the opposing counsel still wants to get the deal done and slight mistakes (like wrong execution pages) are generally brushed under the carpet.

That's bad but the "worst" part is the emotions. Transaction teams are in a sport / race. Litigation teams are in a battle. The defeats lead to real time consequences...

Also, every hearing / order feels personal for the client. They suddenly become know it all and have an opinion on everything. Hindsight 20/20 happens instantly after every hearing. "We should have made this argument - the judge was not happy", "You should have gone with that senior counsel - my relative told me he is very good" "you should have framed the cross question differently... We could have caught him"

You need a really thick skin to be in litigation.

Moderator, your decision-making process is completely lacking in any kind of reasonableness or consistency. You have previously marked other elitist and exclusionary comments like 'NLU students are the cream of the cream', for example, as 'trollish'. And you leave this untouched? How was this allowed to pass through your so-called filtration process without any tagging? It has all the hallmarks of a statement which is a legitimate view, but one deserving of certain caveats on high levels: the desire to keep certain branches of the legal profession closed off to people from certain backgrounds. Your moderation rules also claim that the content you publish is supposed to help lawyers become more thoughtful and mature! How on earth does this tripe do that?

I believe you are under an obligation to every hard-working law student from economically disadvantaged or other marginalised backgrounds with meaningful aspirations towards a litigation career who is a member of the LI community and who may have been negatively impacted by this statement. Even if it was a joke, I think the 'trollish' tag is broad enough to encompass a recognition that it is a politically incorrect joke. Now please do the honourable thing and provide that explanation. Alternatively, publicly apologise and resign from your position as an LI moderator.

OP here.

I seriously need help/guidance on the personal matter i am handling. I think i have already f'ed up a couple of times. It would be great if someone handling civil matters in Mumbai can connect with me on - lawconnect2025@gmail.com