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?
It's no surprise that 2nd and 3rd lawyers have it easier in litigation because of the connections and clientele built over generations, along with the prestige of past generations. But what about 1st gen lawyers? Do they really not make it big in litigation?
Guide me a little here, because from what I see, corporate is arguably a safer option for someone looking for job security and decent pay, something not guaranteed to you as a 1st gen lawyer in litigation...You come across tons and tons of posts and instances with people barely surviving on 10-15k a month in tier 1 cities. But is that all one can hope for? Personally, looking at the working conditions of corporate life has never been lucrative to me. Is entering litigation as a first gen not worth it?
What I'm really asking is, what makes a difference? What can make a 1st generation lawyer stand out in litigation, and is it even possible to get to the level of other advocates and their prestige? If so, how?
Regarding the extent to which 1st generation lawyers can leave their mark on the Bar, I know many such lawyers who have established a lucrative practice (though perhaps not as lucrative as could be), some years after joining the Bar. A good reputation cannot be gained overnight and takes a few years to develop. Of course, there will always be exceptions. Thomas Erskine famously went from an impoverished lawyer known by nobody to the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. His skill was such that he immediately made a name for himself at the Bar. Is this likely to happen to you, presumably then a bright and hardworking greenhorn, a few years down the line? Such a meteoric rise cannot be ruled out in India, as is shown by Palkhivala, but the chances of this happening are slim to none unless you have extraordinary talent or get tremendously lucky. You can expect to become a well-known name with a lot of hard work, time, and some luck. However, reaching the greatest heights of the profession is difficult in India for a 1st generational lawyer due to structural reasons (this chapter should be enlightening: https://luminosoa.org/chapters/m/10.1525/luminos.110.f).
I would say take the gamble. You are more likely to win than lose if you are truly committed to the Bar. It will definitely not be easy but most good things in life are not easy to get.