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?
What the post is saying is very simple: there are certain objective, proven, ingredients that make up a good legal education (whether in India, or outside). These are aspects that help to build the foundations of a good lawyer - and reading Dworkin or using Lexis/Westlaw is among them, Dworkin being one of the common law world's foremost legal philosophers and Westlaw/Lexis being some of the foremost legal databases of the world. I am really sorry, but I don't know how we are even having an argument over this. Even other old men consider the learning of tech properly at an early stage to be essential. I attended - that is to say, physically attended - a lecture that Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, gave at an event conducted a few years ago by the Legal Services Board, which is the oversight regulator holding the SRA and BSB (the regulators for solicitors and barristers) to account. You would imagine that such a one as he would advocate for getting dusty in libraries or old archives to find law reports, etc. No. Instead, he warned that not being up to scratch with developing technologies would mean that lawyers weren't useful. In Sir Geoffrey's worldview, anyone whose acquaintance with legal tech is confined to good usage of Lexis and Westlaw would be what the British tend to call a luddite (i.e., one opposed to change). (And BTW, Vos is older than B.R. Gavai.) Is agreeing with luddites really the school of thought you want to be associated with? Is going in the opposite direction to the (sensible and perfectly valid) advice of one who has responsibility for one of the world's most highly regarded systems of commercial dispute resolution what you are arguing for?
Of course the post is expressed in a childish way. It assumes that Gavai is incapable in this regard. For all you know, he can use Lexis and Westlaw better than the post author. He may even be better at using Chatgpt or Perplexity than most of us are. We cannot tell without further enquiry. But considering Gavai's really disappointing remarks, the post raises valid concerns.