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 is very obvious to me (and to anyone with half a brain) that reform is desperately needed. In my view, these nine reforms (Navratnas) will change the Legal landscape in India.
(i) Increase the number of courtrooms and judges by 3X in the lower judiciary.
(ii) Make the AIBE tougher - so that the pass percentage comes down by half. The AIBE cannot be a no-brainer, open-book exam
(iii) Scrap the collegium system for recruitment to the High Court and Supreme Court.
(iv) All judges (whether in the lower courts or in the higher judiciary) should be hired by a written exam and then allotted points based on the number of appearances in court and number of favourable verdicts.
(v) Designation as a "Senior Advocate" should be automatic for any advocate who has been enrolled at the bar for a certain number of years (20 years) and has filed a minimum number of Vakalatnamas and obtained a minimum number of favourable verdicts.
(vi) Replace the Bar Council of India with an independent regulator. The Bar Council of India is controlled by lawyers with vested interests and are happy with the status quo. WE NEED CHANGE!
(vi) Replace the Bar Council of India with an independent regulator. The Bar Council of India is controlled by lawyers with vested interests and are happy with the status quo. WE NEED CHANGE!
(vii) Allow Indian lawyers and law firms to partner with foreign lawyers and law firms, subject to the rule that only Indian advocates who have passed the AIBE can appear in court.
(viii) Advocates should be under the jurisdiction of consumer courts. If doctors are subject to consumer courts, why not lawyers?
(ix) Ban the Society of Indian Law Firms (SILF) which has so far successfully lobbied to keep foreign law firms from entering India and prevented any reform that could help lawyers without godparents.
If you are law graduate looking for a job or a law student who is unsure of getting a job, take a piece of paper and write a letter to the Prime Minister (don't type-write with a real pen and real ink) requesting for legal reform and mentioning the Navratnas I have listed above, plus anything else that you might want to add, slip the letter into an envelope, write the address by hand, buy real stamps from a post office and post the letter to the Prime Minister at the address mentioned above.
If you don't agree with any or all of the nine points I have written above, but still feel reform is needed, please write to the PM nevertheless. Tell him that reform is needed and (in your view) how to go about it.
Let the Prime Minister get a room full of letters from all of us and maybe that will nudge the powers that be, to reform the legal system in our country.
i - no money
ii - what will it do? also even with this sort of questions it only ~75% pass, I shudder to think about the quality of legal education the rest 25% had. i would instead suggest that CLAT be mulitlingual and be the entrance exam for joining LLB or a qualifying law degree. also, any law teaching institution which does not get 50% of its incoming cohort pass AIBE within 10 years of admission over a three year period (moving average) should be delisted (you would not believe me but it would take away 40% of seats)
iii - what would replace it?
iv - would it be a completely quantitative assessment?
v - i would suggest scrap the senior advocate system itself, if someone wants to call them the king of the heap let them call themsleves, like the abolition of titles did nothing to stop people calling themselves rajadhiraj maharaj hukum babu
vi - tried and failed
vii - sensisble point but dependent on ix
viii - because we write the laws, writers' privilege, brahmins had it ~2000 years ago, now we have it
ix - who will ban?
Good point...
Another gyanu is waiting for an appointment.
The ones that could do with more fleshing out:
1. Changing AIBE and mucking about with the regulator. Combining these two into one. Good theory, but more needed. Based on the theory that the NLSIU VC once articulated about the structure of the Indian profession vs. UK, United States and Singapore: very easy to get into India, managing after that is the problem. UK/USA/Singapore: Bar to get in (i.e., get qualified as a solicitor or barrister in the case of E&W) is in and of itself so high, that you get a degree of earning-your-stripes respect just by getting in, and there is a marginally greater degree of career security because of that. Make some efforts to make the AIBE a little bit tougher if you want, but be careful that doesn't go too far. Look carefully at the case of the English SQE where they've gone too far and the reputation of the exam has gone down because of strong complaints of accessibility of the exam to the disabled/neurodivergent. Much better to have:
(a) An England-and-Wales-style solicitor-barrister classification, for one thing. Makes things clearer for everyone.
(b) A pre-SQE-style LPC + training contract-style route into the law firm side of the profession (like solicitors) and a barrister-style pupillage period for courtroom advocates. In England, the barrister pupillage system comprises of two 'sixes': two periods of six months, in the first of which the barrister-to-be observes their pupil supervisor (a senior barrister teaching them) and starts to take cases in the next six. A good friend of mine who is disabled works at 39 Essex Chambers. As a reasonable adjustment for him, instead of two 'sixes' they increased the pupillage period to 18 months, making it two 'nines' (two periods of nine months). Maybe that would be a better idea for everybody. Have a voting period at the end of the training where the chambers or firm can decide whether or not to keep on their trainee lawyer after the training period. Also try, at least for the transactional lawyers, to give some exposure to multiple practice areas.
(c) Regarding the entire thing of cold emails from aspiring interns, professionalise it. Graduate recruitment, MC law firm-style (for the law firms): graduate recruitment officers, LinkedIn posts singing the firms' praises, specific application deadlines (Legally India can contribute here, by developing an application deadlines tracker like how Law Careers Net has in E&W), the works. Pupillage Gateway-style applications for the litigators.
(d) Make the law degrees worth more than toilet paper!
(i) Shut down a boat load of law schools, right the hell now. Many of the older, TLC-type (non-NLU) and some private law schools we can do without, thank you very much.
(ii) Actually have somebody care about the quality of law degrees instead of micromanaging them like how BCI does. Not just about the content, but the quality of assessment. Make gaining good marks in your law degree actually a meaningful achievement for the job applications, meaning you must have very strict marking, like NLSIU. Cut down on the number of subjects taken during the course also. This will make the GPA/degree classification actually meaningful, unlike the current messed-up system. Standardise the grading: either adopt a degree classification system like the British have, or a U.S.-style GPA system, across the country. Not this total mess of systems being different from uni to uni.
(iii) Modify the options available in terms of law degrees! Why only the British, French etc are getting the opportunity of having properly regulated dual inter-jurisdictional degrees (e.g., King's with Georgetown four year LLB of two years at KCL + two at Georgetown)? Reduce unnecessary shit in the degrees to allow for such things to actually happen! Also, why do again people from other countries have options we don't, like solicitor apprenticeships in E&W or 'law in practice' type options? You want foreign law firms coming in? You need this stuff, not the outdated, unnecessarily content-heavy (instead of quality heavy) system we have now.
2. Suggestion (viii) is not that good. Why not create a Singapore-style system where you can get a foreign lawyer with certain expertise to work in court for certain things but you have to approach a court to argue why a foreign lawyer is needed and local counsel won't do?
3. Upon reflection, totally endorse suggestion (vii). One more thought on (vi): why is the regulator regulating LLM and PhD degrees in law? Stop that and get them to focus on proper stuff.
The rubbish suggestion
The Senior Advocate one: absolutely not. The KC distinction of England has more meaning and credibility than SA of India for a reason. Let's not even go any further with this. Either have a robust and transparent competitive process, or nothing at all in terms of distinctions.
Finally, something to think about which may make me unpopular: why have law schools that are part of multidisciplinary universities worked well in other countries, but not in India? What to do to make them work?
I think at this point of time quality etc. can be kept aside and the one thing that REALLY needs to be addressed is the court pendency. IMO court infra and increasing judge count is the single most important agenda for this country. As a disputes counsel in a top-tier law firm, I can clearly see that corporates (domestic and foreign alike) are absolutely frustrated with the legal enforcement in this country.
It is deplorable that one of the most senior supreme court lawyers goes for a lecture to the SCBA and casually remarks that our (Indian) practice is by and large interim in nature (the fact that he is correct is even worse).
This can also be seen from the fact that in no other country does the supreme court counsel command the highest fees. It's usually the commercial court bar which is the richest. Maybe this fact goes on to prove that Kunal Kamra was right when he said our SC is basically a glorified arbitration tribunal.
Rest of the points are debatable policy issues which can be discussed at leisure.
Lawyers with chiseled jawlines should be made partner as soon as they are recruited from campus
The state of Indian lawyers is similar to that of India’s general population. They don’t know what’s good for them. And lawyers don’t even have excuses such as lack of literacy or education!