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?
Second part - the proposition about "conventional legal topics": Very, very disappointing. I thought we were agreed that robust theoretical work is needed in law schools? Doctrinal black-letter law scholarship has its place, but suggesting that any "type" of scholarship's authors are simply, because of doing that kind of work, "better off than others" is very dangerous. The Indian legal academia's research culture is by default cheapened because of this low quality suggestion.
But isn’t it becoming tried to death now? Aren’t law school essays looking like humanities essays? Aren’t law students better of researching on conventional legal topics, like how laws governing contract, company, law, and so on be reformed?