Lmaoo bud thinks just because the commenter is stoned it dismisses the entire premise and point raised by him. An eye opener for you bro...most of the Partners and associates at firms, for which you think "serious thought" is to be given, aren't the ones really high at times but the ones who abuse it through their everyday lives.

Initial days are bad, yes, but thats till year 5. Thereafter you go independent and by year 10, become successful enough to outearn your law firm counterparts - post which you-'ll only be outearning them.

An average successful senior advocate earns faf far far more than their equally successful law firm counterpart

Why should advocates pay their juniors? Do the juniors bring in any skills? The issue is not about advocates not paying juniors, its the issue of law schools or the state of legal education not allowing practical training. Once the graduates have such training, they can charge clients on their own, need not rely on chamber senior for payment. That delhi systwm of seniors paying their chamber jinior is awful and wrong

Lmao. Even a non designated advocate who is equally successful as a law firm clerk makes more money than theirlaw fifm counterpart. Compare the earning of any level of lawyer, from litigation v law firm, after 10-15PQE at the same level of success - your liti lawyer outearns the partner. The cream of SC lawyers earn in excess of 100cr a year. Few top firm partners make that much. Even the average senior advocate at around 40-50 would ve earning in excess of 4-5cd a year if not 10cr. Your law firm partner? Meh. Add to that, you get senior designation, chances of being elevated, people know you more, than being a partner at a firm where no one knows you and thats the only achievement you'll ever have - a partner at a law firm which is not your own.

Buddy look at the data on the per capita income and quality of life of the average lit bro, compared with the average tier 1 or tier 2 lawyer, you'll understand why people prefer firms. Not everyone can survive on a pay of 10 bucks + a packet of biscuit. None of these lit arguments have anything but emotions or vibes, since anything that doesn't make sense economically, requires extra economic justification.

you're right in your conclusion, but grossly wrong in your reasoning. Markets have been showing a downward trend post 2023, which was the peak. It just gets worse every year. And no, it is not only about demand and supply. Law firms have billed more in 2025 than in 2022, yet the hirings post these years have been very different. Why? Because of the evolving nature of operationality of law firms. No one wants to be bottom heavy anymore. And with the AI scare and fears of poor economic growth this year, it has only worsened. Supply and demand might have played a role, but quite a small one. Rest is just terrible luck for all of us.

2026 had a much worse placement scene, especially compared to 2025. 2025 was worse than 2024, which was worse than 2023, which was a great year but worse than 2022, which had the most firmwide placements because of the covid economic boom. Its a downward curve from here because in each successive year, retained (experienced) associates aren't moving as much, diminishing the need for new hires, because of a stagnant market.

We Indians hate to speak frankly about important things and trends because we prefer silence and connivance, but it is a known fact that the Indian corporate legal market is over saturated at the mid and high levels and renenue has stagnated too. More partners mean higher cost cutting with clients, and Claude AI is helping new gen partners match in quality without requiring juniors who would've handled the grunt work.

2027 onwards will be exponentially worse because its a vicious cycle as explained above. Firms like to say "Oh we will be shifting to the PPO model!" so they are able to employ free fresh monthly talent without promising in hired numbers. Its a classic strategy.

You wouldnt believe me when I say that in 2022, people were handed out PPOs based on single online internships, even compromising on quality because the markets were defiantly successful and required more labour, (tech/ infra/ lawyers etc). 5 years since, companies are making up excuses to layoff entire teams.

If you are in the 2027+ batches, you must learn to market yourself, as skills and legal knowledge dont suffice anymore. You must market yourself in providing faster product (using latest AI models), efficiently and most importantly better that the others.

(PS Please excuse the grammar, im high rn)

While hiring numbers in general are on the lower side this year, I would wait and watch till Day 0 happens (usually in the second half of the year for most colleges) to assess the final number of PPOs and comment on the same.

In any case, hiring trends seem to be on a downturn irrespective.

LAWYERS BEWARE!

First, there are no jobs in the legal profession - what you are talking about, is sitting desk work at a place called law firm where you don't do real work. Now, the issue that haw cropped up is, they don't need people. Else they'd give ppos. They dont have vacancies? Why so? Why no vafancy? Because these desk jobs are clerical and can be done by someone who does not even know law. Here, ai is doing so. If you really want to work, and do real work and make some contribution to society, whether in the so called traditionalist way by defending peoples rights or maybe doing IP disputes, get into litigation - comss with far more respect,far more money, and no such issues

god only knows man. Word in town is that fresher roles are going to be obsolete, most of it is getting automated, firms are not keen on hiring freshers yada yada. I hope day z fills the numbers. But in the past when day z numbers were good, there were an equally high number of ppos. It seems like the hiring cycle is running quite delayed or that we are, well, fucked

It's just a market with not as much demand. It happens every other year atp. Bo24 had great numbers, Bo25 had shit, Bo26 was much better. It'll go on like that. Nothing any of us can do about it. Will speaking up of this net you more jobs? Why would a firm hire if it has no need? Why should they give a shit?

And it's attributable to economics. Supply and demand. Plain and simple. Supply is increasing every year. Numbers used to be more concentrated in the top 5, now they're being spread out. Every single job given to someone from a pvt law school is a job that would've otherwise contributed to the concentration.

I have given you 2 reasons, but there would be more. You can rationalise the market, you can't defeat the market.

What is happening? Why are there no jobs for everyone? Why is the combined PPO count of top 5 universities not crossing the number 50?

How is no one speaking of this and why does no one care? Various firms mentioned that they'll move from a Day Zero hiring process towards a PPO model - did they give up on that? Will Day Zero hirings shoot up because of such little pre-day zero job offers?

It is genuinely driving me insane and no one gives a shit. What is this attributable to? It cannot be AI, we are not quite there yet.

Know of a people being kept in the dark by Khaitan, three by Trilegal (no response after interview), one rejected in CAM PPO interview. And all of these people are bright by all reasonable metrics. Something doesn't seem right and I'm not sure what it is. Or they are all just planning on hiring at Day Zero, which I hope is the case.