Nowhere other than in delhi do the chambers pay juniors. I have never understood this concept of paying juniors by the chamber senior. It kills their growth. This delhi system needs to be done away with. The traditional bombay-calcutta-madras system is way better for growth. Juniors should not be paid by their chamber seniors but rather by clients

Payment should not be done by senior. It should be done by the solicitor or the client coming. Seperately to the senior and the junior. Watch the bombay bar association and calcutta bar library reflection videos on YT. The delhi system of paying juniors kills their growth. Useless and horrible system. Should be done away with law and should be punished. There is a reason why bombay calcutta madras counsels were and still are so much better than delhi ones and their drafting is so much better. They grow much faster. Delhi just because financial centre and politics they grow. Otherwise nothing.

Yeah why not officially give a statement via the Supreme Court website that non privileged people should not enter litigation and that it should be reserved for the elites only.

It's statements like these which has made exploitation in the legal profession an unquestionable norm.

Bhai, litigation is about privilege. If you can't suck it up, then go to lala firms, earn a handsome salary and live peacefully. Too bad, your life sucks. What to do.

FYI I am first gen lit lawyer as well. Of course, the ride is harder. But, all (1st gen, 2nd gen, 10th gen, nlu, non nlu yada yada) have their struggles in litigation. Good day.

When I go to the SC as an established SC/ASG/SG/AG or a judge, i will do so. I will discourage seniors from paying juniors and encourage them to get briefed in matters like the senior does. The stupid system of the senior paying the junior needs to stop. It kills growth. Those who don't understand it are nothing but blinded by money and don't even know anything about how the legal system works and how juniors command fees elsewhere like in bombay.

I remember reading a political/spy thriller book jointly written by Hillary Clinton and the Canadian author Louise Penny, in which the present-day (from the book's perspective) U.S. Secretary of State and her closest aid go to interview the Secretary of State's boss's predecessor as President of the U.S., a Trump-like character. Someone says in that interview, "I am only here for the sex". The Secretary of State thinks, "God, if you're listening, take me now!".

That's what I thought when I read this comment: "God, if you're listening, take me now". Even the country from which we basically borrowed our advocate regulation system, England, does not have this stupid policy you're suggesting in place. While the trainee barristers there are doing their work-based training, known as pupillage, they get paid by their seniors - that's one of the reasons chambers are so cautious about hiring international students, because they are afraid that the int'l student will do pupillage, make their pupil supervisor sacrifice part of a year's income and then go back. So even if a half-dying, godforsaken country like Britain does not do this shit (at least for a while), why should we?

i have never agreed on a post where corp is getting licked, But this is actually true,

the sooner we all understand that we couldn't make it any law firm, ( we start overshadowing it with - yarr in law firm you will be just a glorified clerk, real learning happens in chamberssssss.)

been to both kinda liked the corp culture. |

once sombody enters T1,2,3,4 firms you wont look at chambers at all,