Hello - I am not entirely sure but I would strongly assume 'not'.
The TOI article, for example, reads: "LLPs with FDI would be allowed , through the approval route, in sectors/activities where 100% FDI is allowed, through automatic route and there are no FDI-linked performance related conditions. The new rules say that LLPs with FDI will not be allowed to operate in agricultural/plantation activity, print media or real estate business and they will not be eligible to make any downstream investments."
Now I would be very surprised if the legal sector, which currently has 0% FDI, would be included in the first batch of permitted FDI in LLP.
On top of that, even if a blanket law is passed to allow LLPs to take FDI, the Advocates Act would still apply, unless the laws expressly stated that law firms in LLP are allowed FDI?
I am not sure, am just thinking out loud at this stage...
Been a little bit swamped in the past weeks but didn't realise the quality of writing had decreased.
What's wrong with the headling though, apart from being far too long and a bit hard to read? Expanded slightly: The SC rejects to reinstate the Bhopal culpabale homicide verdict, but says that the trial court could have (reinstated the verdict).
In any case, will make sure to keep an eye on the quality of the stuff I write.
The discrepancy between 'closed transaction' and 'signed binding agreement or final board resolution by board of directors' is unintentional.
'Close' in the lead was intended as a colloquial shorthand for closing the deal, which is fully explained after the first heading of the story. But I accept it may have been confusing.
Anyway, the position you describe, from my understanding of the regulations, would not have to be notified because a binding document was entered into already, if the binding document, like an SPA, is entered into from 1 June.
Under section 5(8) of the draft, any agreements that are a "binding document, by whatever name called, conveying an agreement or decision to acquire control, shares, voting rights or assets".
The other option is the directors entering into a final board resolution approving the deal.
I am not sure what would happen though if a second binding agreement is entered into after 1 June? Presumably that would have to be notified too?
Hmm, contrary to what I said in 4.1, it looks like we will have to make at least one exception for business ideas. :)
If you have a business idea that you would prefer to remain in stealth mode for now you can email us over the Contact Us link or our usual email address.
If you publish contemporaneously with your other blog and you think the article would be appropriate for a Legally India audience then you wouldn't even need to modify it.
But we wouldn't accept blog posts that have previously been published elsewhere, in order to prevent a flood of duplicate content that is available elsewhere on the web for a while already.
By all means, you can base the blog around existing content at Glaws.in for example, but we are looking for original content to gauge applicants' ability to apply their mind and to come up with interesting things to write about that would work for a Legally India audience or platform.
The internship would be a rolling internship for a time that is mutually convenient.
Have updated the text above to explain those details.
Still on the agenda, apologies for the delay. The convenor of Vienna is taking a long holiday and we have not been able to get authoritative confirmation. Also there have not been any moots taking place due to student exams, etc.
We are also planning further analysis and write-ups soon, please hang in there.
Thanks - you are absolutely correct, apologies for the error which was entirely mine: It is the Companies Act and not the Partnership Act that imposes a limit on the size of partnerships.
It was an exclusive because we had been chasing the news for two days to get the details and a quote.
When we did, we published the news at 14:22, roughly two hours before a press release was ever issued. We later added Mr Sagar's quote from the press release to the story.
If other websites, leading or otherwise, published the press release, I am sure that it was later in the day (in fact, having just checked, it appears Bar & Bench published roughly 4 hours after we did and I can not find any other websites that have published the news so far).
Therefore, in every way at the time we published the story it was an exclusive.
I tended to find that to get into an India practice area or any other regional specifics usually comes about through either of the following.
1. Someone has an experience of working in the country, laws, clients, etc. 2. Someone has an interest in a jurisdiction (irrespective of personal connection) and lobbies to get more work there and builds up a practice. If you share a language or ancestry with that country, your interest may be greater. 3. Sheer accident, a lawyer ends up with clients who happen to come from India or elsewhere and soon develops a regional 'practice', or 4. You get shunted in front of foreign clients because of your own nationality or language skills, desi or otherwise. This can then result in 1, 2 or 3 happening gradually.
If you speak the language of a country (even if like in Indian business you can get by in English) or share some culture or anything in common with a client (be that a love of cricket or having gone to the same college or your kids going to the same school), the firm may consider pushing you out to the client rather than someone else.
If you are in the right place at the right time and continue to be interested and to build that business, after some years you may end up as a head of that regional practice and whether you have practised in India or not becomes moot.
(more unique to India, however, this is ignoring the point that potentially a PIO/NRI may be able to move to India one day to qualify here and practice - something out of bounds for pretty much every non-desi face under current regulations surely...)
Again, the points I make bear no relation necessarily to Mr Malik's circumstances...
Thought I would briefly chime in / explain further - Mr Malik has apparently been focusing on India work for some time, also at Clearys...
If a firang can head an India practice - which many do - surely someone with an Indian background, an NRI or PIO can do so too and perhaps even has a cultural advantage?
I think these league tables have to be taken with a grain of salt.
The M&A league tables also depend to a certain extent on law firms self-reporting the deals that they do by issuing deal releases to the data provider (dealogic in this case).
While this means that a law firm that has zero deals in an area is unlikely to make it into the table, there are many firms that do not make it into the table because they do not report their deals.
This also explains why it can be a little erratic some quarters - for example, some firms may forget to do their submissions for one quarter, but then catch up the next quarter and jump up in the table.
Or it may be a symptom of a decreased deal flow, although that would be pure speculation on the basis of those numbers alone.
Unfortunately this is currently the best system there is of tracking these deals, despite its inaccuracies.
Apologies for the lack of update but Team MPL is feverishly trying to get an official confirmation of results and hon mentions.
Unfortunately our key Vienna contacts are on extended Easter holiday and it will take some time, we expect. If anyone has any good contacts who will be able to give full and final confirmation of all honourable mentions, etc earlier, please do let us know.
"The ‘Certificate of Practice’ for successfully clearing the AIBE conducted on March 6,2011 shall not be issued to those candidates whose Demand Drafts are incorrect and, also to those candidates whose Applications are incomplete/incorrect.
Click here to download the list of candidates who applied for the AIBE with incorrect demand drafts. The ‘Certificate of Practice’ of these candidates are withheld and these candidates have appeared for the AIBE conducted on March 6,2011.
Click here to download the list of candidates who applied for the AIBE, but their applications are incomplete/incorrect. The ‘Certificate of Practice’ of these candidates are withheld and these candidates have appeared for the AIBE conducted on March 6,2011."
Thanks for pointing out. I tried out some comments and it appears to work fine right now - can you please send a more detailed message on when they don't work and in what browser via the http://www.legallyindia.com/Contact link?
Jessup scores are not yet final for exactly that reason, please read the last paragraph of the story:
"Note on Jessup points: Team MPL is still concluding final deliberations on Jessup scoring after final results have been announced by the organisers. We hope to update these later this week."
Dear Troll #103 (who I am fairly sure is not part of the RCC).
Please read my comment @99 which stated that I am "having no reason to doubt" the RCC.
What we will do is cross-check all colleges' figures with the law firms at the end of the recruitment season for the sake of transparency and to appease the doubters.
We are not singling out Nalsar's RCC, which as I said I am "having no reason to doubt".
"Group Dating"? I wasn't even aware such a thing existed.
Google is serving random ads for the page, unfortunately they are not our choice. It may take a little while until Google learns what is appropriate content for the audience.
If any of the ads are offensive or inappropriate, please let me know.
For those doubting veracity of the figures, what we intend to do is cross check with law firms once a few more final results from RCCs are out. Confirming who has gone to litigation or not is a bit harder to do and probably not strictly necessary,
For now, we proceed on the basis that it is accurate, having spoken to someone at the RCC at length and having no reason to doubt them.
And in particular since it would be quite hard to keep something like this hidden for very long and it would reflect very badly on the college in the long term if it was found out.
Respectfully, you seem to be misunderstanding something.
Please point out any occasions when we have "tried to establish many points regarding AIBE" through posts or "exam loyalists".
What we have done is publish both criticisms of the way the AIBE was handled, support of the necessity for legal reform in general, arguments for and against, the arguments by the BCI's chairman for holding the exam early (which we expressly questioned in several interviews and editorial commentaries - and in any case the exam was postponed twice. We also disseminated general information from the BCI and other sources on the status of the exam and court cases challenging it.
We were also involved in the launch of a bar exam prep crash course, which was well received and very successful. We were transparent about this involvement and it was done entirely independently from our editorial coverage.
The point I was making is: before the exam not too many people seemed to be too bothered about the certificates or 'right to practice' judging by comments here, some state BC opposition, and the low sign-ups in some states. I agree that the BCI should ideally send out the certificates as soon as possible but judging by how long it took for study materials, etc to arrive I wouldn't hold my breath.
And in effect, I would surmise that anyone who has passed the exam can validly practice even without having to produce a certificate, which is not a legal requirement, right?
Please do enlighten me on your thinking and general animosity when you get a chance though.
As a bit of a chicken-and-egg afterthought: If we had started writing about a firm like Tuli & Co, for example, 2 years ago when we first started, covering their deals, partnership promotions, or other news, would it then be legitimate to keep writing about them because you would have heard of the firm's name?
We can't write about every firm and some small firms in Kolkata, Delhi or Mumbai probably don't want to be written about either.
Besides, if they are small and family driven firms, few of them actually do partnership promotions almost by definition.
In a market as closed and transparent as Indian legal, we write about those we know and those who engage with us, or those who have at least a minimum of media savvy.
Similarly, I am sure there are plenty of small local companies that the Eco Times doesn't write about either but likewise some small companies that have interesting stories to tell that will get told (or paid to be told, in the case of some papers arguably).
Every publication has limited resources and there are only so many hours in the day and we do the best we can. If you think there is an interesting we should be covering, please let us know in the comments or by email.
For one, making a fairly general criticism about a firm's salaries is fine and it is a fact that most law firms are tight lipped about revenues.
To say that a collection of 3 somewhat random firms are "third tier" and that the partners buy excessive property, is a bit more than just 'criticism' but sounds a little personal.
Thought I'd chime in since this thread seems to have been going on for far longer than reasonable.
We are independent and we cover the news we think is interesting.
I personally happen to think that smaller niche firms are very interesting, especially if they are growing and making partnership promotions.
Otherwise we would just be writing about the Big 3 or 4 or 5 brandnames, but the market is far bigger and more interesting than just that.
Specialist firms have an important role to play and in many foreign countries specialists can be amongst the most successful in certain industries or areas of practice.
Finally, it is only a news story, I don't anything has been blown out of any proportion here. If you disagree, please let me know.
Sorry for the delay - I don't have any further information at present either on the certificates. Are the certificates essential, however, in the short term? I understand that no one really asked for certificates when entering courts anyway, right?
On the next exam date, as the article points out it is tentative for now, so I don't think the BCI will have started sending out hall passes yet.
I imagine the process will be fairly similar to the last exams, with sign-ups and the like being announced. When there are announcements we will of course cover them here.
It gives a good indication of campus placement progress for the 2011 batch - please do update for your college when you're able, it should be a helpful resource.
Cheers Kian
Ps: @29 - the reason for there being 40ish offers and only 29 acceptances is that some offers overlapped (e.g. some firms may have made an offer to the same candidate).
#45, LegalPoet @46, #47, #51, thanks for your support and @51 thank you for the dedication but I really think the credit should go to whoever sat the exam! :-)
In any case, #41 I am sorry that you feel this way. I do respectfully disagree and feel we have tried to be balanced in coverage, despite many AIBE hiccups, problems and setbacks. Any commentary (usually only in the newsletter and features) I feel has been a mix of positive and sometimes critical but please feel free to point out instances where you disagree. We have also published several articles in favour of legal reform.
On the headline, we had very quickly changed it to read "6,300 fail/to retake" so Chennai is included. That said, the number is not far off total fails to start with: at least 22,267 candidates registered, of those 1,600 will re-take in Chennai and 29% of the remainder is 5,993.
The reason the number was in the headline was because 6,000+ seems like a surprisingly large number of 2010 graduates for what was expected to be a fairly easy exam. We are still trying to find out how many of those 6,000 never sat the exam.
I really can't be any more certain than any of you.
I would assume that the conference is taking place, since the BCI told a large number of journalists about it and I did not receive a cancellation.
From experience, I would assume that they will talk about how the exam was a success, they will probably announce how many per cent passed and maybe what will happen to those who failed.
Chennai will briefly be mentioned.
Mr Subramanium will probably talk about his plans for future reforms for the country, and then there'll be a Q&A for 15 minutes or so.
I assume that a printed press-release and materials will also get handed out.
And that will probably be it.
I can't be sure that the individual grades would be available for download after the PC - it would be logical to assume they would be - but maybe there will be some technical difficulties and it will take longer.
Thanks, good point. I'll wriggle out of it saying that I was referring to the election Gore v Bush and not the court case :-)
It appears the result announcement has been postponed. Although there is no official verification from the BCI chairman, it does seem reasonable results will not be coming today.
Either the results will be published today or I guess it must be some sort of internal miscommunication and they will be published in due course therafter.
It could be that the BCI ran into last-minute technical difficulties, needed to re-check some invalid papers manually (remember Florida Gore v Bush?) or could have been a host of other reasons.
Hard to tell - we'll keep trying to get through and to get an update but right now I don't know any more than anyone else here, sorry...
But they could be announcing the results on another page via the BCI front-page...
[Note: I wouldn't worry about the link, it might not be the final one, just check the BCI front-page or keep checking Legally India's Twitter feed or FB page, we'll announce it when we hear about it -Kian]
Thanks for your feedback, is always helpful to know what some readers like/don't like.
Our mission remains to provide something for most. Some people hate cricket, others may hate mooting, or may not care about the bar exam, or court-related news, or some may hate project deals or IP or M&A and some even hate law firms (yes, a comment a few weeks ago asked why we keep reporting boring law firm deals).
Ultimately we'll aim for a mix of news and articles, both serious/important and the more fun kind. I apologise if some of these don't appeal. But in any case we will keep trying hard to ensure that at least one story we report per day is of a more serious nature.
Also, articles such as this one will normally be in the "fun and games" category, which is visible on the frontpage and can be ignored if not of interest.
The TOI article, for example, reads: "LLPs with FDI would be allowed , through the approval route, in sectors/activities where 100% FDI is allowed, through automatic route and there are no FDI-linked performance related conditions. The new rules say that LLPs with FDI will not be allowed to operate in agricultural/plantation activity, print media or real estate business and they will not be eligible to make any downstream investments."
Now I would be very surprised if the legal sector, which currently has 0% FDI, would be included in the first batch of permitted FDI in LLP.
On top of that, even if a blanket law is passed to allow LLPs to take FDI, the Advocates Act would still apply, unless the laws expressly stated that law firms in LLP are allowed FDI?
I am not sure, am just thinking out loud at this stage...
Do share your thoughts, would be interested.
Been a little bit swamped in the past weeks but didn't realise the quality of writing had decreased.
What's wrong with the headling though, apart from being far too long and a bit hard to read? Expanded slightly: The SC rejects to reinstate the Bhopal culpabale homicide verdict, but says that the trial court could have (reinstated the verdict).
In any case, will make sure to keep an eye on the quality of the stuff I write.
Best regards
Kian
'Close' in the lead was intended as a colloquial shorthand for closing the deal, which is fully explained after the first heading of the story. But I accept it may have been confusing.
Anyway, the position you describe, from my understanding of the regulations, would not have to be notified because a binding document was entered into already, if the binding document, like an SPA, is entered into from 1 June.
Under section 5(8) of the draft, any agreements that are a "binding document, by whatever name called, conveying an agreement or decision to acquire control, shares, voting rights or assets".
The other option is the directors entering into a final board resolution approving the deal.
I am not sure what would happen though if a second binding agreement is entered into after 1 June? Presumably that would have to be notified too?
Anyone can shed any light on this?
If you have a business idea that you would prefer to remain in stealth mode for now you can email us over the Contact Us link or our usual email address.
If you publish contemporaneously with your other blog and you think the article would be appropriate for a Legally India audience then you wouldn't even need to modify it.
But we wouldn't accept blog posts that have previously been published elsewhere, in order to prevent a flood of duplicate content that is available elsewhere on the web for a while already.
Thanks for your message and interest.
By all means, you can base the blog around existing content at Glaws.in for example, but we are looking for original content to gauge applicants' ability to apply their mind and to come up with interesting things to write about that would work for a Legally India audience or platform.
The internship would be a rolling internship for a time that is mutually convenient.
Have updated the text above to explain those details.
Do let me know if you have any further questions.
Best regards
Kian
We are also planning further analysis and write-ups soon, please hang in there.
Best wishes,
Kian
I was unfortunately unavailable in a meeting so it took a little while to correct...
It was an exclusive because we had been chasing the news for two days to get the details and a quote.
When we did, we published the news at 14:22, roughly two hours before a press release was ever issued. We later added Mr Sagar's quote from the press release to the story.
If other websites, leading or otherwise, published the press release, I am sure that it was later in the day (in fact, having just checked, it appears Bar & Bench published roughly 4 hours after we did and I can not find any other websites that have published the news so far).
Therefore, in every way at the time we published the story it was an exclusive.
Best wishes
Kian
I tended to find that to get into an India practice area or any other regional specifics usually comes about through either of the following.
1. Someone has an experience of working in the country, laws, clients, etc.
2. Someone has an interest in a jurisdiction (irrespective of personal connection) and lobbies to get more work there and builds up a practice. If you share a language or ancestry with that country, your interest may be greater.
3. Sheer accident, a lawyer ends up with clients who happen to come from India or elsewhere and soon develops a regional 'practice', or
4. You get shunted in front of foreign clients because of your own nationality or language skills, desi or otherwise. This can then result in 1, 2 or 3 happening gradually.
If you speak the language of a country (even if like in Indian business you can get by in English) or share some culture or anything in common with a client (be that a love of cricket or having gone to the same college or your kids going to the same school), the firm may consider pushing you out to the client rather than someone else.
If you are in the right place at the right time and continue to be interested and to build that business, after some years you may end up as a head of that regional practice and whether you have practised in India or not becomes moot.
(more unique to India, however, this is ignoring the point that potentially a PIO/NRI may be able to move to India one day to qualify here and practice - something out of bounds for pretty much every non-desi face under current regulations surely...)
Again, the points I make bear no relation necessarily to Mr Malik's circumstances...
If a firang can head an India practice - which many do - surely someone with an Indian background, an NRI or PIO can do so too and perhaps even has a cultural advantage?
ALMT is left with only 1 associate in Delhi, while Vineet Aneja has joined with Clasis.
The M&A league tables also depend to a certain extent on law firms self-reporting the deals that they do by issuing deal releases to the data provider (dealogic in this case).
While this means that a law firm that has zero deals in an area is unlikely to make it into the table, there are many firms that do not make it into the table because they do not report their deals.
This also explains why it can be a little erratic some quarters - for example, some firms may forget to do their submissions for one quarter, but then catch up the next quarter and jump up in the table.
Or it may be a symptom of a decreased deal flow, although that would be pure speculation on the basis of those numbers alone.
Unfortunately this is currently the best system there is of tracking these deals, despite its inaccuracies.
Hope that helps somewhat.
Best regards
Kian
Apologies for the lack of update but Team MPL is feverishly trying to get an official confirmation of results and hon mentions.
Unfortunately our key Vienna contacts are on extended Easter holiday and it will take some time, we expect. If anyone has any good contacts who will be able to give full and final confirmation of all honourable mentions, etc earlier, please do let us know.
Thanks and best regards
Kian
http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/important-notice-incompleteincorrect-applications-aibe-conducted-on-march-62011/
"The ‘Certificate of Practice’ for successfully clearing the AIBE conducted on March 6,2011 shall not be issued to those candidates whose Demand Drafts are incorrect and, also to those candidates whose Applications are incomplete/incorrect.
Click here to download the list of candidates who applied for the AIBE with incorrect demand drafts. The ‘Certificate of Practice’ of these candidates are withheld and these candidates have appeared for the AIBE conducted on March 6,2011.
Click here to download the list of candidates who applied for the AIBE, but their applications are incomplete/incorrect. The ‘Certificate of Practice’ of these candidates are withheld and these candidates have appeared for the AIBE conducted on March 6,2011."
Thanks,
Kian
We will keep following up,
Kian
"Note on Jessup points: Team MPL is still concluding final deliberations on Jessup scoring after final results have been announced by the organisers. We hope to update these later this week."
Best regards
Kian
The Lachs coming up in Oct 11 will be part of MPL 3, because MPL largely goes by the academic year and the time that most moots take place.
Please read my comment @99 which stated that I am "having no reason to doubt" the RCC.
What we will do is cross-check all colleges' figures with the law firms at the end of the recruitment season for the sake of transparency and to appease the doubters.
We are not singling out Nalsar's RCC, which as I said I am "having no reason to doubt".
Best wishes,
Kian
Google is serving random ads for the page, unfortunately they are not our choice. It may take a little while until Google learns what is appropriate content for the audience.
If any of the ads are offensive or inappropriate, please let me know.
Best regards
Kian
For now, we proceed on the basis that it is accurate, having spoken to someone at the RCC at length and having no reason to doubt them.
And in particular since it would be quite hard to keep something like this hidden for very long and it would reflect very badly on the college in the long term if it was found out.
We will keep you posted.
Best wishes,
Kian
Please point out any occasions when we have "tried to establish many points regarding AIBE" through posts or "exam loyalists".
What we have done is publish both criticisms of the way the AIBE was handled, support of the necessity for legal reform in general, arguments for and against, the arguments by the BCI's chairman for holding the exam early (which we expressly questioned in several interviews and editorial commentaries - and in any case the exam was postponed twice. We also disseminated general information from the BCI and other sources on the status of the exam and court cases challenging it.
We were also involved in the launch of a bar exam prep crash course, which was well received and very successful. We were transparent about this involvement and it was done entirely independently from our editorial coverage.
Please read most of our previous coverage at: http://www.legallyindia.com/tag/bar-exam
The point I was making is: before the exam not too many people seemed to be too bothered about the certificates or 'right to practice' judging by comments here, some state BC opposition, and the low sign-ups in some states. I agree that the BCI should ideally send out the certificates as soon as possible but judging by how long it took for study materials, etc to arrive I wouldn't hold my breath.
And in effect, I would surmise that anyone who has passed the exam can validly practice even without having to produce a certificate, which is not a legal requirement, right?
Please do enlighten me on your thinking and general animosity when you get a chance though.
Best wishes,
Kian
Best wishes,
Kian
We will update as soon as they are.
Best regards
Kian
Besides, if they are small and family driven firms, few of them actually do partnership promotions almost by definition.
In a market as closed and transparent as Indian legal, we write about those we know and those who engage with us, or those who have at least a minimum of media savvy.
Similarly, I am sure there are plenty of small local companies that the Eco Times doesn't write about either but likewise some small companies that have interesting stories to tell that will get told (or paid to be told, in the case of some papers arguably).
Every publication has limited resources and there are only so many hours in the day and we do the best we can. If you think there is an interesting we should be covering, please let us know in the comments or by email.
Best regards
Kian
Thanks for your comments @8, 9 and 10.
For one, making a fairly general criticism about a firm's salaries is fine and it is a fact that most law firms are tight lipped about revenues.
To say that a collection of 3 somewhat random firms are "third tier" and that the partners buy excessive property, is a bit more than just 'criticism' but sounds a little personal.
Best wishes,
Kian
We are independent and we cover the news we think is interesting.
I personally happen to think that smaller niche firms are very interesting, especially if they are growing and making partnership promotions.
Otherwise we would just be writing about the Big 3 or 4 or 5 brandnames, but the market is far bigger and more interesting than just that.
Specialist firms have an important role to play and in many foreign countries specialists can be amongst the most successful in certain industries or areas of practice.
Finally, it is only a news story, I don't anything has been blown out of any proportion here. If you disagree, please let me know.
Best regards
Kian
On the next exam date, as the article points out it is tentative for now, so I don't think the BCI will have started sending out hall passes yet.
I imagine the process will be fairly similar to the last exams, with sign-ups and the like being announced. When there are announcements we will of course cover them here.
Best regards
Kian
http://www.legallyindia.com/wiki/Recruitments-_Indian_Law_Schools
It gives a good indication of campus placement progress for the 2011 batch - please do update for your college when you're able, it should be a helpful resource.
Cheers
Kian
Ps: @29 - the reason for there being 40ish offers and only 29 acceptances is that some offers overlapped (e.g. some firms may have made an offer to the same candidate).
Best regards
Kian
In any case, #41 I am sorry that you feel this way. I do respectfully disagree and feel we have tried to be balanced in coverage, despite many AIBE hiccups, problems and setbacks. Any commentary (usually only in the newsletter and features) I feel has been a mix of positive and sometimes critical but please feel free to point out instances where you disagree. We have also published several articles in favour of legal reform.
On the headline, we had very quickly changed it to read "6,300 fail/to retake" so Chennai is included. That said, the number is not far off total fails to start with: at least 22,267 candidates registered, of those 1,600 will re-take in Chennai and 29% of the remainder is 5,993.
The reason the number was in the headline was because 6,000+ seems like a surprisingly large number of 2010 graduates for what was expected to be a fairly easy exam. We are still trying to find out how many of those 6,000 never sat the exam.
Best wishes
Kian
I would assume that the conference is taking place, since the BCI told a large number of journalists about it and I did not receive a cancellation.
From experience, I would assume that they will talk about how the exam was a success, they will probably announce how many per cent passed and maybe what will happen to those who failed.
Chennai will briefly be mentioned.
Mr Subramanium will probably talk about his plans for future reforms for the country, and then there'll be a Q&A for 15 minutes or so.
I assume that a printed press-release and materials will also get handed out.
And that will probably be it.
I can't be sure that the individual grades would be available for download after the PC - it would be logical to assume they would be - but maybe there will be some technical difficulties and it will take longer.
Best regards
Kian
However, a press release has been promised by email so we will alert you when we receive it or when we get other news from the conference.
Best regards
Kian
“The results were ready dot on time,” he wrote, “but we needed to be perfectly sure!”
So it sounds like they are doing some final manual checks on the papers and they'll be out by tomorrow.
It appears the result announcement has been postponed. Although there is no official verification from the BCI chairman, it does seem reasonable results will not be coming today.
Best regards
Kian
No official word or update so far.
Either the results will be published today or I guess it must be some sort of internal miscommunication and they will be published in due course therafter.
It could be that the BCI ran into last-minute technical difficulties, needed to re-check some invalid papers manually (remember Florida Gore v Bush?) or could have been a host of other reasons.
Hard to tell - we'll keep trying to get through and to get an update but right now I don't know any more than anyone else here, sorry...
Best regards
Kian
If all you are getting is a password screen then presumably the results are not up yet.
That link above is NOT necessarily the link that the results will be published on.
And GS said that NO password will be required. I assume it will be a downloadable PDF document, as in the case of the rolls of candidates, etc.
Best regards
Kian
http://www.barcouncilofindia.org/bci-results-download/
[or http://bit.ly/gAYUTm ]
But they could be announcing the results on another page via the BCI front-page...
[Note: I wouldn't worry about the link, it might not be the final one, just check the BCI front-page or keep checking Legally India's Twitter feed or FB page, we'll announce it when we hear about it -Kian]
http://www.legallyindia.com/201103161924/Law-schools/bar-exam-results-to-be-published-tonight-or-tomorrow-gs
Good luck!
Kian
I have sent an SMS to the BCI chairman this morning but no response yet.
Best wishes and good luck!
Kian
Our mission remains to provide something for most. Some people hate cricket, others may hate mooting, or may not care about the bar exam, or court-related news, or some may hate project deals or IP or M&A and some even hate law firms (yes, a comment a few weeks ago asked why we keep reporting boring law firm deals).
Ultimately we'll aim for a mix of news and articles, both serious/important and the more fun kind. I apologise if some of these don't appeal. But in any case we will keep trying hard to ensure that at least one story we report per day is of a more serious nature.
Also, articles such as this one will normally be in the "fun and games" category, which is visible on the frontpage and can be ignored if not of interest.
Best wishes,
Kian (Editor Legally India)