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?
170 is a big number https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/Law-School/recruitment-tracker/rectracker-how-indian-law-firms-are-hiring-from-the-batch-of-2025-across-law-schools
Economy is not exactly growing at a decent pace. What is CAM doing?
Mods, please publish this comment. I genuinely want to know how someone who wants to work in a firm can even accept this. This is true for most of the big shot law firms.
Law firms offer a much better ratio tbh. Almost everyone who start out at a T1 manage to become a partner in 10-12years if they stick to the law firm life. After that, ofc, the positions are too less so it becomes much more difficult. However, even a salaried partner would earn around a crore per year which is one of the best in India.
1. What would those who can't make it past SA/PA do? Leave firms, then what?
2. How is one even satisfied being a salaried partner and not bringing in business?
3. Sure, a salaried partner in a T1 would be earning 1cr a year [assuming everything in today's money]. An equally successful person in litigation would be earning perhaps 50-70% of it at that stage, and definitely much more than what that salaried partner, irrespective of whether he/she becomes a EP or not, would earn in 5-10 years. How can a salaried partner be happy with this? Any successful person in litigation at the same level would be outearning you.
4. How are people even satisfied in doing such clerical work for years at a stretch?
5. Even assuming that they are satisfied since it paid off their loans, or they actually like such clerical work, or they like the stability, or whatever, knowing that they are in a profession, and have become an EP, how are they even happy that their name is not on the wall?
6. Yes, correct - you become a partner, perhaps almost always a Salaried one in 10-12 years - wonderful. But sir, what after that? The road ends? Sure, one can become EP, become the head of the firm (like people head firms like EY) without having their name on the wall [only if its a family run firm, which is the case for most law firms in india, leading or not], but then what? You can't become a government counsel/AG/SG/Senior Advocate/Judge?
7. What are you even contributing? How are you even satisfied? Yes, you may close deals in M&A, but you are just a part of a larger DD. Yes, you may procure a license or advise them on some business deal. In disputes, perhaps yiu drafted something - but that got vetted by a Senior Advocate and their juniors, and definitely argued by someone else. Yes, you are contribuing to the society at large - but what contributions do you have towards law? afaik only a few certain heads of firms have become parts of govt set up committees, but that's it? In litigation atleast - your names are there in judgements and records - and your name goes down in law reports - for eternity to remember.
I genuinely want to know the answers. How are people even wanting to get into such T1 or in general such firms? Why? When you cannot have mental satisfaction and nobody would know you. Let it not be marked trollish, i seriously want to know why people want to choose clerical sectors like law firms which have all of these drawbacks.
2-3. What do you mean by an equally successful litigator? An average first gen lawyer will not even come close to a salaried partner after 10 years of practice. Majority of first gen lawyers in litigation will still work under a senior or will just start their independent practice. Once you become a salaried partner, you slowly move towards building a book, it is tough and takes time. Unfortunately, not everyone can do it, similar to how it is for litigation as well.
4-5. Job satisfaction means different things for different people. It can come in the form of managing a team, ensuring that the deal you negotiated makes the client happy, or the contract you drafted, holds up in contract. I don't see why litigators glorify their work while diminishing the work of transaction lawyers. The work of a commercial litigator only comes in when a transaction lawyer has fucked up.
6-7. People have their own realities. Majority of the Senior Advocate positions are built on generational wealth. People who dont come from such background have no place in litigation. As you said, I can earn around a crore per annum without bringing in any business in law firms but I can't say the same about litigation. Clients don't come to you because you have done a superb job in some xyz case, they come to you because someone else has recommended you and that comes from generational connections which many of us lack. For us, earning over a crore per year, fulfilling all the childhood dreams and going on a foreign trip per year takes care of all the other negatives that you had just mentioned.
Now, you would say that we are dreaming too small. The answer is no. We are dreaming and targeting as per our realities. If you ask an IITian what he wants to do in future, he will probably say a job in Google and settling abroad is the main goal of his life. While for the Bill Gates' daughter, that is a reality that has been passed down by her father.
1. Join another firm - well, if someone is in a T1, and they can't grow, they'll have to move. They won't necessarily join another T1 again. So most would go to a lower tier firm, may become partner sooner. But money? Lesser. Again, no point doing it. Perhaps yes, you may get your name on the wall.
2-3. Your argument is incorrect. You are comparing a successful person in a law firm (otherwise everyone would become a salaried partner in 10-12 years) v. an average first gen litigator. In that comparison, yes, a law firm glorified clerk would win. But, we are comparing on equal footing - on people who are sucessful. Any litigator, regardless of whether first gen or not, if successful, in 10-12 years would not only be independent but also have juniors under them. And yes, maybe 1cr a year would be difficult, but surely it would be 50-70% of that. However, with 15 PQE, where a salaried partner may still remain one, the litigator would be outearning the partner. As for building a book, a litigator does it from day 1 (not counting the delhi based associate-junior system which is a mockery). So it ages like fine wine for a litigator. Not for a clerk who was only doing paperwork and now has to suddenly bring in corporate houses.
4-5. Fine, yes, I'll take it - job satisfaction means different to different people. To the glorified clerks in law firms, its surely a job in the legal profession. Their view and horizon are narrow. Second, as regards the work of a commercial litigator coming up only where a transactional lawyer fails - thats incorrect. Even if the transaction was airtight - if the parties violate it, a dispute arises which in most cases go to a litiagator- whether in arbitration or in courts.
6-7. Very, very incorrect. You think senior advocates are only those who come from generational wealth? They get cases because they got recommended? Right, so any tom, dick, or harry, irrespective of how good or bad they are, just because they are well connected, a MNC would entrust a billion dollar litigation to them
Why? Because they have generational wealth. Your point here unfortunately has no facts. Its utter conjecture. The controversies about senior designation aside (or being both opaque and rewarding undeserving people) it has rewarded many many 1st gen advocates who came from nothing. And those seniors are earning much more than their equivalent ▮▮▮ in a law firm who are salaried or equity partners with no identity.
No, you aren't dreaming small, or dreaming according to your reality. Your dreams are incorrect. There is every possibility for an IITian to have been a son/daughter of IITians. Your comparison does not make sense at all. To even say that no 1st generation would succeed in litigation is also a generic statement ▮▮▮.