Hi I am just 18 , I am thinking of corporate law because I just have my neet which in the entrance for medical studies of mbbs , I excel in science and math but now before taking a drop year to prepare for neet i thought of taking corporate law , so is it worth it , like yes I have to admit it that I can't work 14 hours a day everyday without weekend offs and for the res of my life but what is your suggestion

Oh man!
Let me break that for you.
I work in a ministry, and not just bureaucrats, but all the officers here enjoy a high-class life. They all live in Lutyans, enjoy high-class parties, visit different countries for bilateral/multilateral negotiations, represent the ministry/country on multinational forums, etc. I am talking about clean officers who do not get involved in corrupt practices. If you factor in their salary as well as other benefits (which we have to pay for), an officer with 10 years of experience easily enjoys benefits of around 30-35 lakhs. It might not be enough for most of us, but they reach home by 6:30 on most days.

5-6 cr is peanuts. 20 years into practice, the same person if they were successful in litigation would be earning atleast twice of that. if a rainmaker, then even more. All the stuff you said which can be ONLY be accessed through alaw firm career? Rubbish. Anyone in litigation would be earning far more, with much more satsiforactory work and no clerical work like that in a firm, and afford/access the same.

You seem to be living in a delusion where you think that the work these glorified clerks who go by the misnomer corporate lawyers have any value addition to the field of law, or that you do anything that requires the application of what is called brains, but I guess such classes would not understand that, for they have already chosen or were misguided into choosing a clerical "job".

First, law is a profession and there cannot be jobs there. The fact that you glorified clerks consider it to be a job speaks volumes about you all. Second, why is law called a noble profession, and who are the most well known lawyers? The ones in litigation, of course. Even our freedom fighters, a good majority of law makers in the pre and post independence era, were lawyers who practiced law instead of doing clerical work that you all do. Someone/some people have already addressed your misunderstanding of the figures of the income of lawyers, so no point in raising that, other than asking you a very simple question - how many of the A0s, or whatever term you clerks use to describe the menial job you do, end up becoming partners? Your attrition rate is so high, its laughable. The sort of work that you do - in desks in shiny offices, are similar to any other desk job. You have no USP of your own other than the fact that you all go around telling people that you are corporate lawyers.

Y'all negotiate and draft transactions? Have global exposure? Sure - you can call it to be whatever instead of clerical work. I'll put in what you people fail to realise - you are like a coffee machine. A coffee machine, produces alot of things - coffee of various types, that is. Ofc, someone can make their own coffee without it, but they use it for the convenience. That's what you people are. Coffee machines. Just some convient bunch of clerks making coffee and doing nothing. Some clients are indeed crooks and as such litigators have to run behind fees, but overall, even if they don't realise those fees, they'd still be outearning what you clerks earn. Yes, you people have stability. But guess what? With that stability, there comes a stability in your work too - the same clerical work that you and seem to be so proud of. A clerk or a xerox machine operator in a lawyer's office/court neighbourhood contributes more than what you do.

No point in responding to the personal attacks you make because that's what you clerks are capable of doing when not doing your clerical job.

You say the difference between corp law and litigation is that of delivery? and because litigators deliver/articulate well and hence they're good at performance, which is not a proof of legal wisdom? This. The sheer lack of knowledge shows that you are in corporate law. Only stupid people who have no idea how things work can say such things. To any person, if they are to name any lawyer, who would they name? The ones in litigation. These are the same people who defend your rights and have carved jurisprudence. These are the same people who have contributed to judgements which you people sometimes apply to your clerical work. Please don't insult litigation by saying that its a performance of law. You people have zero contribution towards law, have no role in law, and just do clerical work within a set template. That's the reality.

On a side note - aside from all these fights and debates, may I offer you a genuine piece of advice? A very neutral one indeed. Please don't do corporate law. You will ruin your life there doing clerical work. If you want to do law, do real work - get into litigation.

you honestly have made the point that this person was making. On money, and on growth trajectory. Yes, corporate lawyers have a clearer growth trajectory, but let's be clear - their work is hardly intellectually stimulating and worth anything. Second, on the finance aspect, sir, with the deepest of respect, you see right there - 3-4 Cr or even 8-10cr p.a. That amount, to any other reasonable person, would be alot. But in relation to an equally successful lawyer in litigation? That's peanuts. Just peanuts. In addition, in litigation, multiple posts of honour come up - judges of HC/SC, AG, SG, etc. etc, and at the very least, a senior gown. What do you get in corporate law? Nothing. A shiny corner office with a nice view, which any other successful person in a different field would also have. Corporate law is nothing but clerical work.

You see I don't know about the beef, but let's get something clear. Corporate law is correctly dismissed to be glorified clerking because of the nature of the work. The personal brand that you say, hardly exists, even after someone has really become successful. At the 20-30 PQE stage, someone who made it big in litigation would be far better known than someone in a firm. Yes, no doubt your clients will be loyal to you, whether in litigation, or in a firm. The 6 tasks you mentioned are nothing but mundane stuff that have no contribution to law. It's the same as drafting a Sale Deed, or a Scheme of Amalgamation. There is no application of mind, and its honestly clerical in nature.

Everything you’ve written is utter rubbish. It is a mix of lazy generalisations, cherry-picked statistics, and personal digs masquerading as “analysis.” Your post reads less like reasoned argument and more like a desperate attempt to defend corporate law by tearing down litigation. Let’s go point by point and put the record straight.

You keep harping on Salve, Rohatgi, and “top 0.01%” as if they’re irrelevant. Absolute rubbish. Even outside the top tier, an established designated senior or a counsel with 15–20 years’ experience earns significantly more than most law firm partners. Consider this: even a non-superstar HC litigator can charge ₹50,000–1,00,000 per appearance, handle 3–4 matters a day, plus outstation briefs, opinions, and arbitration matters. That’s ₹1.5–2.5 lakh/day, ₹7–10 lakh/week, and ₹30–40 lakh/month, easily surpassing a mid-to-senior equity partner’s annual take-home. This is average, minimum baseline, not Salve-level billing. Calling it “outlier” is pure deflection. By the same logic, equity partners in law firms are also “0.01%” since most associates never make it there. Yes, the first few years are tough — litigation has a steep entry barrier. But dismissing the entire profession because juniors struggle is intellectually lazy. That’s like dismissing corporate law because first-year associates review NDAs all day. Career trajectory matters. By year 10–15, a competent HC litigator is comfortably billing ₹2–5 crore/year, sometimes more, without the ceiling of law firms, which cap at ₹3–4 crore for the vast majority.

Also, stop romanticizing. Drafting repetitive contracts, compliance filings, and standard SEBI/FEMA submissions is exactly what clerical work is: minimal application of mind, replicable, and largely formulaic. Rare complex deals aside, a junior associate could do it tomorrow. In litigation, no one can replace a skilled counsel; every argument, strategy, and outcome depends on independent thinking and adaptation. Corporate lawyers operate within the law; they do not formulate it. They structure deals around statutes, regulations, and precedents. Litigators regularly shape the law itself — through novel arguments, constitutional challenges, and judgments that set binding precedent. That is why history remembers litigators, not corporate associates. No amount of “billable hours” or contracts equates to the intellectual weight of courtroom advocacy that changes law. You say global exposure? Most Indian corporate lawyers are passengers; foreign firms do the strategic heavy lifting. Intellectual complexity? Drafting a SHA does not match arguing a high-stakes constitutional case. Stability? Fine, corporate law gives predictable salaries. But predictability is not success — it is safety with a capped upside. Litigation is high-risk, but the upside is exponential.

The worst of all, you claim “performance isn’t law.” Wrong. Courtroom advocacy is law in action. Persuasion, argument, and strategy determine whether law or contract holds in practice. Your neat drafts and filings are meaningless if challenged; litigation requires intellect and delivery where it matters. Corporate “performance” is largely invisible, bureaucratic, and replaceable. Because of this do we have the Basic Structure Doctrine, and so many other jurisprudence. What have you corporate lawyers contributed to the field of law? Nothing but mere contracts and documents. Litigation, once you establish credibility, is merit-based — clients decide your income, not the management committee. And even successful law firm partners don’t get their names on the wall. They remain bound to the firm’s hierarchy or start their own firm only to repeat the same grind.

The “<1% outlier” argument is misleading because it cherry-picks only the entry-level struggle of litigation while ignoring what the career curve actually looks like. Nobody denies that the first few years in litigation are financially brutal — but that’s a filtering stage. The point is: once you survive that stage and build a practice, the earning potential dwarfs law firm salaries.

Even leaving aside the Harish Salves and Rohatgis, an established litigator with 15–20 years of experience — not a superstar, just a competent, recognized counsel — routinely charges ₹50,000–₹1,00,000 per appearance. With 3–4 matters a day, you’re already at ₹1–2 lakh/day. That translates into ₹20–30 lakh/month, i.e., ₹2–3 crore/year, just from appearances. This is before adding retainers, arbitrations, written opinions, and outstation briefs, which often double those numbers.

Compare this with law firms: the oft-quoted “₹8–10 crore equity partner” is itself the top 1%. The more common reality is ₹3–4 crore at the upper partner level, and even then after 20+ years of grinding within the firm’s pyramid. So if you’re going to dismiss litigation earnings by saying “only the top make it big,” then by the same logic, most associates in firms never reach equity partnership either. The fair comparison is average successful litigator vs. average salaried partner — and on that metric, litigation is at least on par, if not higher.

The Mukesh Ambani analogy doesn’t work here. Ambani is a one-man billionaire story. In litigation, there isn’t just one “Salve” — there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of counsels in Delhi and Bombay quietly billing ₹2–5 crore annually. That’s not “once in a generation.” It’s a tier of the profession that is very much real and accessible to those who survive the early years.

On nepotism — yes, it exists in litigation. But pretending firms are free of it is naive. Partner tracks in law firms are riddled with favoritism, rainmaking politics, and gatekeeping. At least in litigation, once you’re in, clients decide your value. Your courtroom performance and results can break the glass ceiling in a way firm hierarchies often don’t allow.

So the real picture is this: law firms give predictability and early salaries, but with a capped upside. Litigation is high-risk, high-reward — but the reward side is not mythical. It is demonstrably true that mid-tier seniors earn at levels most partners will never touch. Ignoring that reality to claim only the “top 1%” make it is simply statistical sleight of hand.

Your comment makes several assertions which deserve to be addressed in order.

Let me outline them first, before responding:

1. Corporate law work is not “clerical,” it involves complex regulatory strategy.
2. Litigation is less lucrative and only a handful make it; corporate lawyers earn more on average.
3. Senior advocates thrive only because law firms brief them; clients come through firms.
4. Corporate law offers a clear, stable trajectory whereas litigation is risky.

First, on the clerical nature of corporate law

Yes, your work is clerical. The fact that you recite acronyms like FEMA, SEBI, and FC-GPR does not transform the nature of the work. These tasks are largely compliance-based, bound by prescriptive regulation, and executed within pre-existing templates. There is little scope for genuine application of mind—your discretion is curtailed by statute, circulars, and pre-set deal mechanics. The real commercial decisions are taken by promoters and bankers; you are the scrivener who reduces them to writing. That is precisely why senior corporate lawyers are replaceable by younger, cheaper partners, whereas litigators’ experience cannot be substituted by juniors.

Second, on financial comparisons

Your financial argument is selective. Yes, lawyers at the district level often earn less than Tier-1 associates. But that is not the relevant comparison. When comparing litigation with corporate law, the fair benchmark is the High Court and Supreme Court, because that is where the same class of clients operate—and where corporate lawyers and litigators intersect. At that level, the disparity is stark. The absolute top seniors may charge ₹20 lakhs a hearing, but even an average designated senior, or a counsel with 15–20 years’ standing, would be charging at least ₹50,000 per appearance, with 3–4 matters a day. That alone amounts to a minimum of ₹1 lakh a day, ₹5 lakhs a week, and roughly ₹20 lakhs a month—translating to around ₹2 crores annually. And this is a conservative baseline, not counting outstation matters, arbitrations, opinions, or conferences. Law firm partners at the same stage, even salaried or junior equity, very rarely match those figures.

Third, on Seniors relying on law firms for briefs

This point collapses on itself. If corporate lawyers are as “strategic” and “competent” as you claim, why must they brief outside counsel at all? Why not argue their own matters? The answer is obvious: because at the highest level, it is courtroom credibility, reputation, and advocacy skills that matter—not your mastery of FC-GPR filings. Firms brief seniors precisely because the counsel’s face, not the firm’s drafting, wins the case. To say that seniors survive on law firms is to misunderstand the dynamic; in reality, law firms rely on the stature of counsel to lend weight to their matters.

On risk and stability

Litigation certainly has a longer gestation period. But risk is inseparable from growth. The “stability” you cite in corporate law is in reality a treadmill—PQE raises tied to billable hours, culminating in partnership where even equity comes without true ownership. That is your stability - a delusion. Doing nothing intellectually stimulating. Its your mind which is stable. A litigator, by contrast, builds a personal brand, a body of judgments, and eventually a practice independent of any firm. The trajectory is steeper, but the rewards—both financial and intellectual—are higher.

Litigators and corporate lawyers do inhabit different ecosystems, but the distinction is existential. Corporate lawyers may bill hours and accumulate salaries, but litigators build names that command respect across the Bar and the Bench. History remembers the advocates who argued precedent-setting cases, not the associates who drafted a flawless compounding application. That is why the most celebrated names in Indian law—past and present—are litigators, not corporate partners.

So before you accuse others of “ego validation,” reflect on why you need to defend corporate law with such hostility. Because the louder your protest, the clearer it becomes that even you are not convinced by the supposed “fulfilment” of being a glorified compliance clerk.

Indeed with your observations main problem with all corp lawyers is hating everyone, living lonely life with full of health problems including bad mental health coupled with obnoxious personallity with full of ego maniac energy viz a viz they are only center of attraction of whole world. People here assume that no one is better than anyone else as they are only individuals supposedly doing meaningful work in their life. Treating everyone ( including other profession workers) with condescension is their best ability

There was a comparison made even for lawyers who aren't HN Salve. Perhaps if you had some grey matter, you'd have read it.

Next, paid leave? Sir/Ma'am, in litigation, people are their own bosses. We don't work for someone. Its a profession, not a job that you clerks are making it one.

Next, what is performance in courtroom? Are you hearing yourself? You clerks don't contribute anything to law. Your work is clerical. Get out of that delusion.

Do you know how to read? The comparison was made only at the HC level. Take district court and lower courts, and yes, corp lawyers earn more. Why? Because they are so less in number and concentrated in a few places.

Now, at any HC, even an average 15-20 year's experienced lawyer would be outearning their corp law counterparts. That argument has been made before with proof, no point showcasing it again to someone who cannot read.

I don't have any longstanding beef, or any beef, otherwise, with corporate law. I do have beef with people who lack common sense. I see you have barked about a few topics, lemme point them out and reply to them:

1. Sort of work you corporate lawyers do

2. If litigation is better than corp law, why am I dragging corp law down

3. The earning aspect

4. Taking examples of only the top 1% of the 1%.

First, its sad that corporate lawyers are called lawyers, or even considered as so. Sure, you have gotten a law degree, so you are a lawyer. In fact, a CA who has a law degree would also be a lawyer. So would an engineer/IAS who has a law degeee.

Now, to answer your points:

1. Drafting is mostly a litigation centric-solicitor work. Falls under the domain of litigation. The rest of the works you mentioned, what you call strategising and whatever misnomers you used, its still clerical. Being a lawyer, you're sitting at a desk and doing nothing. Just bs work. That's all bs. You have no contribution to law. Just pure contribution to society.

3. On earnings, no doubt, for the first 10-15 years, someone in litigation will earn much lesser than their law firm counterpart. True. But after that, the graph of your income in litigation grows like anything. That does not happen in law firms. Further, all the money you make are for yourself. Not a firm or whatever where you don't even have a name. Tell me, for any firm that would be hiring in 100s a year, as we have seen before (i don't remember which firms it were), how many of those associates will make it big? Will make partner? Maybe 1 or 2. Or 10 max. Not all? Where will they go? Also, yes, firms brief seniors. If firms were so good, why would they not argue themselves? A few rare exceptions do exist, but why engage a senior otherwise? Lmao. Its not hating on law firms, its just pointing out truth.

2. Why bringing down corp law? Well, its facts. Not bringing something down. If you love to sit on a desk and do clerical work for 18 hours a day and make partner at top tier place with no name of yours on the wall? Who's stopping you. Go ahead. Not everyone has common sense.

4. A law firm, even a tier 4, if such a category exists, would have offices at places which have a HC? Compare the earnings of any litigation lawyer of 15-20 years experience and someone in a firm with the same. The litigation guy would be earning the same if not more. Guess what? In 5-10 years thereafter, the litigation lawyer would be outearning the law firm counterpart by a huge margin, maybe double or triple. That's how it is.

I have no issues w a first year associate outearning me, they can't, cuz i earn practically nothing. I won't make in 5-10 years what they're making today. But i'll be happy knowing that i haven't traded my soul for some bs clerical work at a place where i can be fired and have no independence, and will be a nobody. I'm also happy that i'll outearn that associate in 20 years, and that associate will come with briefs to me.

Corporate lawyers do earn, on average, more. Agreed. That's because there are so less corp lawyers, mainly concentrated in cities. This comparision also includes district and lower court lawyers who earn less. But why would anyone educated in a good place go there? We're talking at atleast the HC level. There, at your 40s, andfor sure in and after your 50s, corp lawyers earn peanuts compared to litigation lawyers.

Litigator here guys I am in my pqe 7 good standing still not able to match a good associate earnings, clients negotiate on the bill heavenly per appearance ill charge but they cut it down a lot not able to charge much knowingly they might jump to another advocate

Once you step in court you may feel that you will win and argue good matter but in initial years you will just come to the point that a small panel may be given, you will take small clients so that you keep food on the table

To the person(s) who has/ have written in great detail about the workings of corporate law:

Thank you.

With all of my heart.

All that you've said, about earnings, work conditions, survival, growth, and all that lies in between, in litigation or corp, NEEDED to be said out loud.

I am a litigator. Per my peers and seniors, not a bad one, in fact, I have earned a few verbal accolades from judges and seniors on a few ocassions. I, however, am a litigator. Not by choice or anything like that; I am bereft of the liberty/ privilege to join corp, being a regular university law college graduate.

I am, like so many of my peers, too junior to matter on most days. Even to the judges/ seniors who might have said a few good words about those like me, just a few serial numbers ago. (Yes, that is a bit weird of a unit for time, but eh, not all of us measure time in billable hours.) Yes, undoubtedly this phase also exists in a corporate lawyer's initial years, I guess, but the amount credited to your bank account is worth it. I sincerely so hope.

Like a good chunk of the population, I am not a person high on lofty ideals. I work to earn a living for myself.

However, as you rightly pointed out, it is more often than not, only nepo babies who whimper on and on about the supposed 'clerical' corporate work. No, not all of them, before anyone says so. A good deal of them are mindful of their privilege, and do put in the hardwork. These aren't mutually exclusive components.

For those belonging to my category (working for livelihood, no real attachment), we begrudgingly stagger along in these dismal conditions. Again, we are unhappy because the fuel which keeps the truly dedicated, or talented folks running, whether it be the fact that they have that optimistic approach, or if it is the sense of the deep responsibility in realising that we litigators are the only ones between the client and an unfavourable outcome- a sense of justice or whatever, is lacking in us. May be, it was all burnt down, depleted, or what nots.

This pitting of professionals in a gladiator-esque fashion has to stop. Let people live with their choices (or the absence thereof) in peace.

Coming back to the original question on this thread, all I can say is, my friend, you can choose to step back, retire once having made enough money. If you as a person, love life and believe it has something to offer to you, please consider squeezing out time to take care of your health and well-being.

Godspeed✌️

You are speaking from a point of extreme privilege and selective bias. You are cherry-picking the top <1% of litigation lawyers and projecting their once-in-a-generation success stories as if they are the rule. They are exceptions, not benchmarks. Multiple surveys and reports have consistently shown that a vast majority of young litigation lawyers in India earn between ₹5,000–₹15,000 a month for their first several years. Many remain financially dependent on their families well into their 30s. In Delhi HC and SC especially, litigation is an entrenched club. Clientele is largely loyal to established legal families, where work is passed down generation to generation. A “non-nepo” litigator breaking through to high-value briefs is not impossible, but it’s the exception rather than the norm. For every Salve, there are thousands of non-nepos stuck at ₹50,000–₹60,000 a month even after 15–20 years, struggling to make ends meet. That’s the statistical reality.

Saying that someone charges ₹20 lakh a hearing proves nothing about the profession at large. By the same logic, should we say that since Mukesh Ambani makes billions, every businessman will too? It’s a fallacy of extrapolating from the top outliers.

Law firm partners, even if not in the top 0.1% of lawyers in India, have a more predictable, transparent growth trajectory as opposed to a covert career growth of a non-nepo litigation lawyer. At the equity partner level in M&A/GenCorp practice, ₹3–4 crore per annum is very realistic (and at the upper end, 8–10 crore+ in top firms). That’s more than 99% of litigators will ever make, even after decades.

In litigation, nepotism is structural as you inherit chambers, clients, and networks. In law firms, nepotism exists but is far weaker: most entry-level associates and laterals are recruited through exams, internships, and merit filters. That makes the playing field significantly more level.

It’s almost impressive how confidently you spout half-baked nonsense masquerading as fact. You throw around names like HN Salve and Mukul Rohatgi as if that somehow proves your point. Do you even understand how statistics work? You are citing the absolute 0.01% and then pretending that’s representative of litigation as a whole. Salve’s income is about as relevant to the average litigator as Mukesh Ambani’s is to your neighborhood shopkeeper. But sure, keep deluding yourself that one senior counsel’s tax filings from 2011 somehow form a credible basis for career advice in 2025.

The funniest part is how desperately you try to flex with these overblown billing figures. You are so eager to sound like you’re in the know that you didn’t stop to ask whether the average litigator in any High Court is even remotely close to that income bracket. Spoiler: they aren’t. For every designated senior arguing in Court 1, there are hundreds slogging through 10,000-rupee adjournment matters with no guarantee of payment, no insurance, no paid leave, and no career stability. But let me guess you don’t see those people. Or you pretend they don’t exist, because acknowledging them would shatter your little illusion that litigation is the one true path to glory.

Your contempt for corporate law is laughable, especially coming from someone who clearly has zero understanding of what the job entails. No, corporate lawyers aren’t “glorified clerks.” They’re the ones drafting, negotiating, and structuring billion-dollar transactions that keep entire industries running. They don’t spend their days chasing clients for appearance fees or praying that a junior gets thrown a few briefs at the end of the month. They have global exposure, intellectual complexity, and yes—far more financial stability than the average litigator can dream of until year 10, if ever. But you wouldn’t know, because your idea of comparison is built entirely on billing myths and anecdotal bragging rights.

And then there’s the rich irony of you calling yourself a nepo kid who’s joining a senior’s chamber—while lecturing others about grit and success. Do you hear yourself? You are the very product of the privilege you're pretending doesn’t matter. Of course you can afford to wait it out in litigation for five years, you have the safety net. That doesn’t make you a warrior. It makes you sheltered. You're standing on a platform someone else built and yelling at people who took the elevator because they didn’t have the time or money to wait on your slow-moving staircase.

Your whole rant reeks of insecurity, not insight. You are not defending litigation you’re trying to justify your own path by tearing down everyone else’s. You know why? Because deep down, you’re unsure. If you were really convinced of your choices, you wouldn’t need to screech about how corporate lawyers are clerks and how you’re destined to “make it big.” You’d let your work speak. But you can’t. So you compensate with hollow bravado, exaggerated billing numbers, and a tired superiority complex.

At the end of the day, the only real difference between a litigator and a corporate lawyer is delivery - one argues it out loud, the other writes it down. That’s it. Don’t confuse articulation with superior intellect. Just because a litigator knows how to sound convincing in a courtroom doesn’t mean they understand the law better than someone who structures billion-dollar transactions, navigates regulatory minefields, or drafts airtight agreements that hold up in international arbitration. A voice in court doesn’t make you the custodian of legal wisdom. it just means you are good at performance. And performance isn’t law.

So here's the truth: litigation is not better than corporate, and corporate is not better than litigation. They are different paths, suited to different skill sets, personalities, and goals. Your problem is that you think your choice is the only one that matters. That level of arrogance doesn’t make you a serious professional, it makes you a cautionary tale. Keep pretending you’re better than everyone else. The rest of us will keep building careers without having to scream into the void to feel validated.

You clearly have some long-standing beef with corporate law. it shows up in almost every post you make.

First, yes, corporate law isn’t perfect. The hours are tough. Early-stage work can feel repetitive. You don’t build personal brand equity as fast as a litigator might.

And fulfillment may lag in the first few years. So fair criticism? Sure.

But calling corporate lawyers “clerks” just shows how little you actually understand the depth of what they do. You tell me can you handle this?

1. Draft a shareholders' agreement that balances drag, tag, ROFR, and anti-dilution all within SEBI and FEMA constraints?

2. File an FC-GPR on the FIRMS portal within the RBI’s Master Direction on Reporting under FEMA 395?

3. Advise on the upstream and downstream investment rules under FEMA 20(R) and explain when pricing guidelines apply and when they don’t?

4. Structure a transaction that complies with Schedule I (foreign investment), Schedule IX (convertible notes), or Schedule VI (rights issues)?

5. Navigate the SEBI (PIT) Regulations, handle insider trading risk assessments, and balance it with the SAST takeover norms?

6. Or even draft a compounding application under FEMA, citing the correct AP (DIR Series) Circulars and RBI compounding manual?

Because this is daily work for corporate lawyers.
This is not “clerical.” It’s real legal strategy involving risk, regulation, and millions of dollars on the line.

Second why are you so obsessed with corporate law?

If litigation is so fulfilling and lucrative, why do you keep dragging corporate lawyers into every rant?

You sound less like a confident litigator and more like someone who’s still trying to convince himself he made the right choice. Secure litigators, real ones, who are doing well,don’t spend their time putting down other practice areas. They’re too busy working and winning.

Third whether you like it or not, corporate lawyers earn more on average.

7–10 PQE corporate lawyers at Tier-1 firms: ₹70L to ₹1.2Cr.
Salaried partners: ₹1Cr to ₹2.5Cr.
Equity partners: ₹4Cr to ₹10Cr+.
In-house GCs: ₹80L to ₹2Cr+ with stock options, ESOPs, and weekends off.

Compare that with litigators: Most spend the first 5–7 years earning less than a first-year law firm associate.
A few make it big. Most don't. And even designated seniors get their clients through — surprise — corporate law firms. You think your Senior is flooded with SC briefs because of random walk-ins? No. It’s the same firms and corporate clients you are mocking that bring them the matters in the first place.

My friend, litigators and corporate lawyers exist in different ecosystems. Both are difficult. Both require brains, grit, and consistency. But if you need to drag down another profession just to validate your own it says more about your self-doubt than about the field you are attacking. Maybe you are just bitter that you are a nepo kid watching a first-year law firm associate out-earn you. Keep obsessing over Salve and Rohatgi with this attitude — you are never getting anywhere close.

You have any proof of the same? Well, I do. Some law reports of HN Salve show he was earning close to 100cr a year in 2011 or so. By law reports i mean he challenged it before the income tax tribunal or something. That's 15 years ago. Mukul Rohatgi, and a few other seniors like Sibal charge 16.5L to 20L a hearing. A retired Madras HC judge who practices in the SC - I've seen his billing too, 3cr a month. For the first two, aram se it would be over 100cr a year. The latter? 30cr a year. atleast.

Sure, these are the top tier A-grade lawyers. Now, tell me, which of the top tier A grade law firm partners, even the ones who have their names on the wall, earn so much? They'll be earning no more than 50% of it.

Sure, you'd say these are the cream of the cream. But go, see any lawyer who's doing well in any HC[that's my criteria, since at the principal seat of most HCs, most mid-top tier law firms would be there], who's say, 15-20 years in practice. The worst of them would be charging what? 15-20k an appearance? Desginated would be charging say 40-80k an appearance? With even 4 appearances a day, which is reasonable, that'd be 50k-2L a day, not including conference fees/opinions/outstation matters/arbitration etc. 5 days a week, that's 2.5L a week to 10L. A month? That's 10L to 40L a month. Given 10 months, its 1Cr to 4cr. How much would their equivalents in a law firm earn at that stage? 1cr? Perhaps, but hardly, and very rare. Add to that - the partners won't have their names on the wall, and their fee growth trajectory won't be as high as that of a litigation lawyer. There you go. Real facts.

You corporate people do nothing but clerical job. You guys are glorified clerks who do nothing but document reviews and a desk job. Now let's talk about nepo. Yes, i am one. But guess what? I'm joining a first gen's chamber, who made it big. Guess what? All his batchmates made it big in litigation, all non-nepos. Not even a rich family background. I'm joining him. And guess what these poeple have in common? The same opinion as me.

Get it thru your head - corporate work is useless in terms of satisfaction, and much later, in terms of money. You wanna be a glorified clerk, go ahead. No one's stopping you. Anyone, in law, who has some family background, and can afford to have their family sustain themselves for 3-5 years, should get into litigation. They'll make it big surely. Please don't go around misinforming people.

The life is dry but 20 years into practice, you can easily earn 5-6 crores a year. If you're a rainmaker, then double that figure. Despite the work being mind numbing, it gives you money for doing a job which is easier than other similar high paying professions. Luxury cars, vacations, living in 2-3L a month rented apartments in Bombay, designer clothes, fancy restaurants are some of the things that can be accessed only through a lawfirm career.

Yes. Idea is to not think of work as your entire life - even if it’s taking up major part of it. Work is not the sole priority nor your sole purpose in life. If you’re happy (read: okay) spending the hours etc. to actually use your brain for other things (be it philosophy, skills, etc.)

I’m good at drafting and negotiating. There’s no extraordinary mind jumping I need to do to excel at work - I am instead using it to pursue things which challenge me.

Who is this ▮▮▮ coming here on every one of these threads and spreading this utter nonsense about litigation? All these pro-litigation comments are clearly written by the same person. Sentence structure, same/similar points made over and over again, being a salesperson for litigation. What does this cruel and heartless attempt to mislead potentially gullible kids give you? Ego validation, or what!? Or is this merely another one of those stories involving an AI bot which is clever enough to sound genuine??

Alright: Law firm life is certainly not the most fantastic way to be spending your time, I can happily grant that argument, because it isn't. It is, however, a good way to earn lots of money. But to say that litigation is, has to be utter rubbish. Without being a nepobaby, in India, the kind of thing this fantasist is talking about is impossible - utterly impossible - to do. Moderators, please do the responsible thing and mark this comment 'contested trollish'.

You are correct. I'll add to it. In 10-20 years of you passing out, you'd have become a partner. An equity partner perhaps. At a firm where you are just a partner, and your name isn't on the wall. You may bring in 10-20cr a year, but you'll have to bring in atleast 2-3x the revenue to take away that. Next, you may bill your clients heavily, but as you age, for the same work, you'll charge more and more. The same work can be done by some junior partner for a lesser fee. There goes a few clients (though you'll retain a majority of them). Picture this: you are in your 40s/50s. Your kids are settled. You earn decently (10-20cr) in tosay's money. But, your counterparts in litigation - who do all sorts of works and go to court and argue, and don't do clerical work like you- the ones who have become successful - would be earning atleast twice of what you are. And as they grow, they'll earn even more. Compare the earnings of the top litigators and the top law firm partners. You'll see the former outearns the latter in a ratio of anywhere between 6:1 to 3:1. And its the same for mid and C- level top lawyers.

I've been a corporate lawyer for 4 years now (TMT). And that's a mix of tier 1 (debatable) and in-house. Are y'all actually happy? My work is just mindless doc reivew and negotiations everyday. Don't even get me started about tier 1; 10-12 hours of mindless doc review, ON A GOOD DAY?!

I mean I like the work, I like the pay and I like that I work on interesting matters. But I don't really love it. Do people actually love this? I mean, wake up in the morning and have a passion for doc review? Does that actually exist? I've been talking to other corporate lawyers about this and the general gist I get is, people are used to it. Like a routine and they are used to the lifestyle, of money.

Guess what is else is a corporate lawyer thing: (1) a general hatred for life; (2) an unintentional (debatable) but very obvious contempt for rest of the general population; and (3) dark f_cking circles and bags under the eyes.

Isnt' it quite Kafkaesque to let such dry work keep you occupied for the major part of a day, for the rest of your life (till your heart attack at 33)? So my question is thus, do we truly choose this life, or art we but too weary to imagine anything else?