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?
Anyone who believes a top transaction partner merely does paperwork, is an ill informed bumpkin. Taking my own rather humble example, the promoters of my clients rely on my rather blindly and ask me - "......bhai, karu ya nahi karu". That's it. All my knowledge and expertise is used to tell them succinctly, whether to do the deal or not. And if yes, how. They rely on me to negotiate not mere legalese, but commercials. I am quite certain it is the same for any top transaction partner. I do not blame this gentleman for his opinion since unless you are exposed to such settings, the average person would perhaps be equally blinkered and blissfully ignorant as he is. On innumerable occasions, my promoters will get the powers that be to call or meet me - since somethings may require a new policy or approach to be taken and the powers that be also know who I am and that what i say, will be the correct path to take.
For litigations, it appears our dear gentleman has been exposed to instructing attorneys who act as postmen and merely deliver a brief to the Counsel. A good litigating lawyer in a firm, is the one who actually strategises the matter and evolves the entire approach to be taken. The Counsels are frequently like horses i.e. they do need to be directed and shown the path. No one can do that except the instructing attorney since he is the one who knows the client and is the repository of all facts that are not only germane to the matter at hand, but, to the client. The most eminent Senior Counsels have sometimes complimented me and told me in as many words, that the victory was possible only due to my effort and thinking.
I thought it was rather essential that I write this to offer a counterview to our dear gentleman. I wholeheartedly agree that litigation is truly wonderful and very special - the thrill one gets in a court room during a hotly contested matter bears scarce replication. But, to distil transaction partners (not associates et al) to mere paperpushers, only displays a lack of knowledge, awareness and exposure.
I will not comment on money since it is honestly something I am least interested in, as I believe I earn far more than what my wants or needs require.
1. Why I hate law firms?
2. Advisory work is necessary [emphasis on the assumption that law firm lawyers do it]
3. 99% of the law does not end up in court
4. Law Firm (LF) is a satisfying career to many because (a) you get to help people, (b) problems are tricky to solve, (c) you get to understand business etc
5. If not made partner - (a) then you enjoy research/become counsel, (b) get into BD, (c) start your own firm - which is entrepreneurial, and gives jobs to many
6. My opinion "may" be genuinely held, but is naive
Before dealing with every single point and making a few, first, why are my comments marked trollish? Is it too difficult for you to understand what I am saying, or is it that you cannot stand it because of your [there is a reasonable assumption that you are into LFs] misguided superiority complex that LF is better than litigation?
There are two fundamental problems with LI - one, is their misguided and misinformed hype for law firms at the expense of litigation, and whatever focus on litigation is, is not even on the real issues [very rarely though, and they hardly get replies, and most of the litigation related threads get spammed with nepotism attacks or are about just a few names who these NLU people love for whatever reason], and the second, is the moderators being left leaning (which is fine, and not an issue, everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and beliefs, but these people don't let the others, especially the right leaning ones to express their opinions, which is funny, because the left is more democratic. Irony.)
In any case, to answer your points, at the risk of instigating me, and with the hope that this does not get marked trollish/contested and/or removed since you genuinely and kindly asked me reasons for my take and I am doing the same to you.
Points 1 and 6 may be answered mostly in the other points. Regardless, I shall be answering broadly on the following topics:
A. Nature of Work
B. Mental/Intellectual Reward
C. Financial Reward
D. How taxing it is
E. Nepotism
F. Career Trajectory
G. Contribution to Society
H. Contribution to Law
Pardon me for keeping it mostly short
A. Nature of Work
Law Firm work, even in disputes, is clerical, in the sense, its merely paperwork. Depending on the practice area, you'll be doing DD, drafting/vetting agreements/contracts, procuring licenses, etc. In disputes, its again drafting, and attending courts/conferences/arbitrations. Let's get it clear - as stated in one episode of Suits, where this one Investment Banker tells Louis Litt that, "you are lawyers, we call you only for the paperwork". That's true for LF. You just do paperwork. There are businesses and perhaps HNIs and you do the paperwork for them. You are just another someone as their asset manager or their advisor or secretary. Your DD is a part of various other DDs like audits, etc. In litigation, you'll be going to courts and arguing cases - where topics differ. Yes, the matters are routine mostly, like say, for bails or tender matters, or even a section 11 A&C act application - but there's far more of an application of mind. Clients really depend on you. If they are in court, they really have messed up or in such a situation. There's much more intellectual stimulation there with the strategies you formulate for litigation and how to best give the result to the client. Further, the partner of the LF in its disputes practice will anyways engage a senior advocate and their chamber juniors for the matter - who'll actually appear and argue. So there is no point in even working in disputes in a LF. It's useless and a sheer waste of talent.
B. Mental/Intellectual Reward
Basis the above, the mental reward for doing clerical work in a LF is the fact that you have worked on a deal, ipo, whatever etc. You are just a part of many. Litigation - you perhaps saved a client or sent them to jail - either way, more rewarding - knowing you contributed to the law
C. Financial Reward
Comparison, like my earlier comments have said, are to be made between equals. You cannot compare a sub-divisional court lawyer to someone who is working at a LF in Lower Parel. The reason for this is, these LFs, atleast the top notch ones are in the T1 cities, and its only reasonable to compare them with litigators there. Otherwise, yes, you have some "LEX ABLALALA" law firm in every other nook and corner of the country promoting themselves on social media, and you'd compare them with a district court lawyer. For this comparison, I won't even consider juniors who are called associates and are getting a 'salary' from their chamber senior - that's not how its done in litigation - you are a professional, you earn a fee, and do so from the instructing client/solicitor - getting salary from your chamber senior is a practice that should be banned. It turns the profession into a job. Going back to the question of financial rewards, yes a T1 LF, or even a T4 LF "job" will pay much more in the intial years, by which I mean the first 10-15, and max to max, 20. Anyone in litigation would be earning peanuts. However, after those 10-20 years, as a litigator gets more seasoned and better and successful, they'll be charging much more than before and it would only increase as they age. LF partners or their equivalents wont. Look at the top litigators - all earn in excess of 100cr a year. Can any top law firm partner earn the same? Yes, perhaps a few, not as many as those in litigation, and definitely those whose names are on the wall. Not some CHINKY PINKY who made partner. I was given alotta shit for comparing the earnings of only the top 1% in some other thread, well for every illiterate person who commented so, I also had mentioned the same is true for any mid or low tier lawyer in the same circumstances. A recently designated Senior would be earning say 50k per appearance with maybe minimum 4 apperances a day. With opinions, conference fees, etc, assuming 5 days a week and 4 weeks a month, that's 2.5L a day, 12.5L a week, 50L a month, and assuming 9-10 working months, its 4.5cr plus. For any mid or lower level successful litigator in their early 40s and some maybe in late 30s. How many of these partners make the same?
Add to it : those running behind money right after law school have the most sickest of mentality. This is a profession where one does not chase money. That;s the difference betweeen a trader and professional. A professional chases work, and money follows. This is why litigation has a gestation period and even today, those in litigation who are even with 5-10 PQE, say the same, to not chase money and chase work, as money will chase you, and in big numbers. Those barking about not earning and only learning skills need to get their mentality right - this profession is not for that. If you want money right after law school - go become a glorified clerk in a LF. About those who take loans and genuinely want to litigation , etc - answer is a little later.
D. How taxing it is
Honestly, cannot comment. I believe both are taxing due to long working hours, but LF has no application of mind.
E. Nepotism
yes, it exists in the legal profession like everywhere else. go whine about it. Yes, those who are 2nd or higher gen litigators have an advantage - but man, they only get a headstart - they get a chamber, an ipad, car, home, etc, but most importantly - briefs and clients. But what good are they when you cannot work or don't know how to? Its the same as business - just because daddy is a successful businessman, does not mean his children are too - they need to learn the tricks of the trade, else all those advantages are nothing. Further, it exists in LFs too - after all, a majority of them are family owned - and why no partner will get their name on the wall. As regards someone who is 1st gen and from a poor background not making it because of nepotism? Well, don't blame nepotism for giving work which you weren't gonna get if not for nepotism. There are many, many examples of rags to riches stories of 1st gen lawyers - NA Palkhiwala, R. Jethmalani (subject to correction), then one AG from West Bengal who was there when Mamata Banerjee came to power, and one renowned criminal lawyer from Cal HC who in an interview said that his wife sold off jewelery to sustain themselves. (He was a 2nd gen btw) All the 1st gens - don't blame you not being successful to nepotism - you most likely weren't getting those chambers or briefs anyway if it weren't for nepotism.
F. Career Trajectory
Lit wins hands down - offices like AG, SG, etc, becoming a Senior Advocate, judgeship, etc. - far more respected in society, and far far more glamarous. LFs don't even come close. Nothing to say about LFs also - someone will make partner in their late 30s and that's it.
G/H. Contribution to Society and Law
Every kind of work you do contributes somehow to society. A BPO does, a CA does, an IT firm employee does, so does a LF Glorified Clerk and a Litigator. However, the contributions in LF are limited to businesses, and second, there is no contribution to the law by LFs other than their founding partners in some committees and their disputes team briefing litigators. Otherwise, LFs have no contribution to law. They have lesser contribution than even professors. Litigation- of course, there is both.
About those who take loans and want to do litigation but cannot afford - well, its sad, and true. Its because of 1 reason - our law colleges are bad. There is no practical training or provison for the same, the NLU model failed, and the mushrooming of pvt law colleges charging high fees only adds to it. If there were proper practical training or provison for the same, someone could have learned drafting etc better - allowing them to command better fees. Second, the NLU model was made to provide better litigators and not glorified clerks - which has again failed, barring very few, mostly from NLS because they are the oldest. Other old NLUs established in the 90s or pre 2005 are only catching up now/will do in 5 years. That, and the mushrooming of law colleges - charging high fees (even NLUs do) - leading to people having taking loans, and since no practical training - can't charge high fees, and as such, resort to glorified clerkship. Further, the trend of people believing that LFs are better solely because they pay alot - and rarely for the nature of the work they do.
Now I'll answer the points you made.
Points 1 and 6 are, I believe, answered. It isn't naive, and I genuinely hold this opinion.
Point 2: Yes, advisory work is there, even a litigator would give opinions, but see Point A and B for the same. I also agree LFs are needed for advisory work.
Point 3: 99%? You don't have any basis to say that. This is what you would call in your own words, trollish. No point answering it.
Point 4: Law Firm (LF) is a satisfying career to many because (a) you get to help people, (b) problems are tricky to solve, (c) you get to understand business etc
Yes, it may be satisfying - but not as much as Litigation - which is far more. See Points A-C. As regards point 4(a) - no, you help businesses (as much of a centre-right i may be, i don't hate businesses), and not people. 4(b) - some of them are, yes, but not all. The moment something goes south - and to court - you go to litigators. On 4(c) - Yes, agreed, you do. But the same happens in litigation too when you are briefed by clients. But yes, LFs win here, since its more prevalent there.
Point 5: If not made partner - (a) then you enjoy research/become counsel, (b) get into BD, (c) start your own firm - which is entrepreneurial, and gives jobs to many
Sir, why would someone join a LF and be a glorified clerk other than to make money? To make partner - but even taking the exceptions - as not everyone would become a partner - idk what to say about 5(a) - that just seems like sheer failure, on 5(b) - i don't know what BD means, so cannot answer, and on 5(c) - yes, right alot of people do that. You say its entrepreneurial- litigation is the best example of that. You may open your own firm - but then that repeats the cycle itself - your name on the wall - and then another generation of glorified clerks joining you, etc. Second, this, since this is so prevalent - there are so many firms that come up with such horrendous names - even those bygood partners who were succcessful. You are perpetrating the same glorified clerkship culture. On giving jobs?Again, there are no jobs in the profession, but yes, a glorified clerk is indeed a person having a job there. So are the ones in the pantry.
Hope this answers and sheds some light on why litigation is and will always be far better than LFs. You have all well to do successful litigators say that one should not join LFs - for precisely these reasons - you also saw that article about younger partners having a growth crises - that is exactly what I meant when I said that there is no future in LF - even the rags to riches lawyers/1st gen ones consider litigation better for it being independent, and you not doing a job. People say they struggle today with money, and so being a glorified clerk in a LF is better - did these successful peopme not do the same?
Which brings me to a broader point: for the first few years, the real difference between a chamber junior and a law firm associate often comes down to appearances and even that may be limited to procedural appearances. On everything else — research, drafting, strategizing — the work can be equally demanding, if not more structured and rigorous in a firm setup. The idea that law firm associates “learn nothing” is, frankly, a bit naive.
Also worth noting is that many people actually enjoy the law firm life. It may not be everyone’s dream, but for some, it’s fulfilling, intellectually and professionally. You get to work with sharp colleagues, solve real-world problems, help clients navigate disputes, and sometimes even structure large, sensitive matters with national impact. If you stick around, you can go into BD, become counsel, make partner, or even set up your own boutique, which is pretty entrepreneurial in itself. Your shining senior advocates aren’t the only white knights in armour in this profession. A lot of good lawyering happens outside the courtroom too, quietly, effectively, and with integrity.
If litigation is your chosen path, that’s great, its a vital part of the profession. But constantly invalidating others’ choices doesn’t elevate yours. It just reinforces the impression that your argument depends on tearing other people down. There’s room in the profession for multiple paths. And most of us are just trying to do good work wherever we are.
That said, your response was completely unrelated to the original post, which asked a very real and relatable question about when things get better. To OP - know that many associates go through tough phases balancing demands and stress. It does get better with experience, time management, and sometimes finding the right fit within the profession. Hang in there, you are not alone.
and for many it's a satisfying career. you get to help people, sometimes problems are tricky to solve intellectually or in terms of EQ, you might be getting to understand various businesses and their problems from the inside, bw involved in structuring, etc.
and even if you don't make partner, you might enjoy research or become counsel where the money is decent and hours might be good, or get into BD which some people enjoy, or you can start your own firm, which is pretty entrepreneurial, where you provide jobs to dozens or maybe hundreds of others, etc.
it's fine to prefer litigation, but to repeatedly discount an entire necessary part of the profession as paperwork, might be your genuinely held opinion, but it seems naive.
And the longer you wait to get out, the more unlikely it is that you ever will.
1. Newly joined associate to PA - do the paperwork for seniors above you, work and butter seniors for promotion, and treat your juniors poorly - repeating the cycle. no real work done. even if you are in a non-clerical sector like disputes - you are doing nothing but drafting something that a senior advocate would throw in the dustbin - and while you may have your appearance "marked" in court - you wouldn't have argued - and have learned nothing.
2. Salary Partner/Equity Partner - well, well - promotion time, did accomplish something - partner at where? The name of the wall is not yours. You perhaps aren't bringing in business. To bring back Re. 1 in profit, you'd have to contribute Rs. 2-4 for the same - what's the use man? By this time the successful lads in litigation would have been outearning you while contributing to the law and enjoying their lives because instead of them chasing money like you did - they chased learning and work - and are now their own bosses - enjoying 100% of what they earn (I'll come to paying "associates" later).
In any case - as much as I hate corporate law firms and as much as Legally India Mods would not publish it (I hope you do - for a change I'm gonna write good stuff now) its a far easier career trajectory, along with easy money with benefits like having an office space which is proper and infrastructure etc - which suffers fundamentally from two things - lack of independence (you are no one, you are someone in a firm not having your name), and lack of intellectual work - its routine paperwork.
Second, on being an "associate" in litigation - its a stupid term put in place by primarily Delhi lawyers and very unfortunately followed by other cities as well taking a cue from Delhi. Let's be clear - law is a profession, and litigation is the example of that. You have advocates and in their chambers, chamber juniors. The traditional system as it came from the Britishers and followed by the Indians thereafter - required that these chamber seniors don't pay the juniors any money and these juniors would quote their fee from the instructing solicitors in the original side and from the clients in the appellate side - a practice thankfully still seen in the old chartered high courts. While I have nothing against the Delhi bar - its one of the best, their system of paying the juniors and calling them an associate is a mockery to the profession - it makes them a paid research assisstant who does nothing and has the same work description as an associate in disputes in law firms.
Now, does it get any better? Well, yes, in terms of money if you are in law firm, that too soon. Perhaps you are already being paid well. But in terms of mental satisfaction? never, in a law firm - you'll end up doing clerical work and wasting your talent - in litigation? yes, before it gets even worse and you manage to get out of it with sheer hardwork.