But aren't there some car buffs who love all and any car.
Are there no legal education buffs who are interested in all law colleges? (I count myself as one but probably have less vested interest in one institution versus another and when it is so competitive to get the 'car' it is no surprise that more pride is associated with it).
As an idea, the system for higher education in Germany, I believe, is partly down to a lottery. I.e., if you get good enough high school grades to study a certain subject (like Law, which requires top marks), you then get almost randomly allocated a university/law school. I am not 100% sure that is the exact way the system works, but I think at least it used to, more or less.
Now could that work amongst the CLAT schools? The 500 or X number of CLAT toppers will get allocated a place randomly at the CLAT institutions, provided they hit a certain mark?
Or would that be terrible? Could see this working in favour of the institutions in the long-run, with less competitiveness and more unity, also pushing up the quality of all colleges since everyone will have a vested interest in the system as a whole.
Hi, thanks for your comment. I understand your point of view, but what are we to do? Censor any comment that is critical of other colleges, censor any comment that is mean about others or censor downright vitriol? We try to excise names of individuals if possible but where do we draw the line with more general comments against institutions?
On the one hand I feel that by having this mudslinging out in the open, it makes people get it out of their system and they will get bored sooner or later of it, and move on to new topics. And I don't think anyone takes this very seriously and half of it is meant in jest.
Please correct me if I'm wrong and if you have any suggestions, however.
Sorry, been away from this debate for a little while.
First of all, I think it's great that some mooters are confident enough to write in their own name and others should follow their example.
If someone does write in their own name, please respect that and keep name-calling to a minimum, and do not question their motives or whether they are a regular Legally India reader or not - that should not matter.
As a rule of thumb, please think about whether you would feel comfortable telling a person face-to-face what you are writing here.
Abusing other "Anonymous Guests" is another story of course and is pretty much up to everyone concerned.
But it does seem like some valid points have been made, and if some genuine discussion on these can take place we'd be happy to take a consensus or interesting suggestions back to Surana to improve the moot in future years.
Just for the record, we'd love about more good and interesting work that LSCs are doing at other law schools too.
Unfortunately, however much we'd like to be, we are nowhere near omniscient so please do let us know about some of the work you do and we will try to publish it looks like it'd be interesting.
The English language geniuses at my former colleagues at The Lawyer UK just sent the answer over Twitter: "Because you can say it like a word. Acronyms that can be enunciated like a word have only he first letter capped."
Actually, I correct myself somewhat - Nalsar/NALSAR itself is not entirely consistent on its web site either... Sometimes it writes Nalsar sometimes NALSAR.
Maybe the non-caps were suggested by a brand consultant? (joking)
I did have to laugh out loud a little bit at the idea of me policing peoples' opinions and I am not entirely sure why I'd want to... I'm all for opinions.
Moderating comments and threads is exceedingly rare and in the case of this story and the other Spicy IP story became necessary because things had become too personal.
If your comment was attacking someone personally, then maybe it was moderated and for good reason. Opinion is fine, being mean to named individuals anonymously and without a purpose is another matter.
I have only once moderated a personal attack/criticism against me when it really went too far.
Apart from that, you are free to say what you like, I am sure opinions far more offensive than yours have been posted on the site in the past too.
@33 - thanks for your comment. Several reasons perhaps. But mostly:
1. Nalsar and NLS came 1st and 2nd in last year's MPL, GLC came 9th.
2. ILS, the winner and the subject in the headline, beat both Nalsar and NLS, not GLC in the semis as far as I'm aware.
3. Perhaps more open to criticism, people do like reading about national law schools so subconsciously this could have caused NLS to also make it into the headline. There is no science to headline writing alas. If there was they would be very boring to read...
#17, thanks for your comment. I am not sure which comment you are referring to exactly but generally we try to be quite permissive in our policy.
Where we may normally moderate is where individuals are named. For one, most of the time if individuals are criticised it is very hard to establish whether something is valid or whether it is just a disgruntled former employee or a rival.
Many lawyers are also very thin skinned when it comes to personal criticism, no matter how justified, and we try to tread a fine line between freedom of expression and turning the forums into a massive mud-slinging match.
If you express things delicately and sensitively they will normally get through - on most average days I'd say we only moderate 1 comment out of 50 or 100 (apart from spam).
Hope this helps.
Best regards Kian
Ps: There was also a but in the commenting system for the last 2 months which may have swallowed some comments. Will elaborate shortly...
There is one person who has been trying to post close to a dozen comments in variation on the same theme, purporting to be an AZB lawyer, a rival lawyer, a Clifford Chance partner, and others. Please feel free to express your opinion in this thread (subject to technological restrictions) but do not pretend to be someone you are not - even though it's anonymous, there should be certain standards of ethics and normal debate. And try to make your point in one or two comments or in responses, rather than spamming one-sided comments in succession. Thanks!
Thanks for your support - if a discussion like this continues too long I will move it to a forum thread but we try not to ban anyone unless they are spammers.
However, in this case they may be correct - I think comments are still sometimes broken on the site in some browsers. We are investigating the technical issue and will hopefully fix it soon.
Dear All - comments are not working well at the moment in certain browser. If you find that the rotating arrow animation keeps continuing when you press post but no orange confirmation box comes up, please try to refresh the page and then repost. Otherwise, please post the comment in the Quick Message box in the left hand column of the page and we will post your comment for you.
We are currently investigating the issue and hope to have it fixed soon.
Dear All - comments are not working well at the moment in certain browser. If you find that the rotating arrow animation keeps continuing when you press post but no orange confirmation box comes up, please try to refresh the page and then repost. Otherwise, please post the comment in the Quick Message box in the left hand column of the page and we will post your comment for you.
We are currently investigating the issue and hope to have it fixed soon.
Many apologies - there was indeed still a bug on some versions of Internet Explorer that meant that comments were not posted. I am so sorry for the inconvenience - please post the comment again and we will publish.
Thanks for your comment and kind wishes from me and Team LI.
Agree that ideally we should have picked up the TOI report earlier.
Although generally we try to focus on exclusive news that is not reported elsewhere (which tends to take a lot more time), we do try to aggregate important news from third party sources also. Unfortunately sometimes we are not able to for various reasons but we will continue trying to do our best and picking up the most important news from elsewhere too.
Thank you also for yours. Please do point out an occasion when we have censored a negative comment about LI? I think there was one comment a year ago which started talking about members of my family but apart from that I can't recall a censoring single comment critical of us. Please do enlighten.
And congratulations if I took your bait with my response too.
Best wishes, Kian
Ps: Re "earn money", in the interest of transparency, we are still a long way off break-even point...
However, it leaves me severely confused as to what your aim is and has been in your previous comments along similar lines.
Either:
1. you really think that we are biased in favour of NLSIU and believe this is reflected in our coverage because we did not manage to cover a report with questionable detail in the TOI (which in any case has now been blogged about by four bloggers in the Legally India blogs section). You also seem to believe there's some deep injustice taking place here. I can not help but be fascinated by this repeated allegation from you. Why exactly would we exhibit a bias towards NLSIU? Are they paying us money? Are we secretly NLSIU alumni? Are we afraid of the NLSIU network? Or do we simply hate all other law schools? Please do enlighten.
or alternatively, and more likely:
2. ironically, you are trolling for a response and are not really bothered about NLSIU bias, since you seem to "expect no change in approach" and more "excuses". In which case, congratulations, I rose to the bait again.
Either way, thank you for your commenting and feedback, it was amusing.
Blogs are generally not heavily moderated and we normally allow readers to post what they think is interesting. Bloggers are therefore independent and do not "belong" to Legally India, as you seem to imply.
Blogging is often as much about sharing content from elsewhere with readers as creating new content.
I agree that original content is always preferable to copying other content but in this case it was pretty clear that it was from a newspaper article, the blogger quickly provided a citation of the original and I do not think tried to pass this off as his own work.
We will keep re-evaluating the semi-open nature of the blogging platform as and when required.
The legal jobs section on LI works independently of editorial and is confidential, so I do not know if this recruitment took place through the job posting. Also, we do not work on a commission for placement basis and applications through the jobs site go straight to the firm, so we are not directly involved in the placement process.
Hope that answers your curiosity, do let me know if you have any other queries.
Guys, I know a few of you are having a lot of fun here but it seems like comments are again taking a personal slant, this time apparently in an ironic nature. Honestly, please don't abuse each other. If you have to be mean to each other off the pitch, please do so in a way that does not upset other human beings and get personal... Thank you, Kian
We all know that these comments are just a bit of fun but please do not bring down the tone of the conversation any further than it already is and refrain from personal attacks on individuals or overly derogatory language.
Slight clarification there actually, the way we had expressed it left room for misunderstanding.
One apparent proposal is that law grads can start practising, but before they do so they'd have to give an undertaking that in March 2011 they would sit down and take the exam (whether that is an undertaking to pass the exam is not clear).
I have no idea whether that is true and whether it will be implemented but thought it was a proposal worth mentioning.
Earlier we had written it back to front slightly which left room for confusion out of context ("students may have to give an undertaking that they would sit for the exam in March before practising").
We have corrected the wording in the copy to make this clearere...
Thanks for your feedback. As you said, it didn't say anywhere you were not supposed to vote more than once because I thought it wasn't possible.
It was literally a matter of not having checked two checkboxes in the poll back-end to check for duplicate votes, which was completely unintentional and my fault, as I freely admit.
To be completely honest, if a poll allowed multiple voting I too would probably click back and forth several times although I imagine I would get bored after 5 or 10 clicks or so (as dozens of other voters did).
What was interesting was not that some people voted multiple times, but that a few of those against the exam were happy to vote more than 100 times, which definitely shows some above average conviction on their part, which the ones less opposed to the bar exam did not seem to possess.
When I saw this trend I did find it quite amusing and hoped this blog post would be taken in the right spirit of gentle jesting.
Hello - no major update right now and definitely not intentionally keeping anyone in the dark. However, we will let you know as soon as we confirm anything, promise!
Thanks for your comment but please read the full blog you refer to before criticising. I at no point blame the entire 2010 batch nor even seriously those who tried to rig the poll. Nor did I make any statement about the merits or demerits of the exam in that blog post.
There just found a surprising correlation, which I thought was interesting to point out in a tongue in cheek manner.
1. It was clearly a tongue-in-cheek and intentionally provocative blog on what I thought was an interesting and surprising correlation. 2. I never said cheating, I only said 'cheating'. 3. I never called you (either individually or collectively as bar exam opponents) 'cheaters', unless you did in fact try to 'cheat' a little on the poll. 4. Those who did vote more than dozens of times, would probably fairly admit they tried to 'cheat' a little bit by rigging this poll, right?
Again, no offense was intended and I hope not taken either.
You seem to have misread this article. We did not say that Gopal Subramanium was misquoted, we only say that Supreme Court said this was misreported, and that GS denied the Times of India report, while TOI stood by its original story. We do not know the full facts here as we have not done detailed original reporting on this story and instead have clearly relied and referred to mainstream press reports. To clarify this I have now added quotation marks around "misreported" to make it clear we are using the language apparently used by the court.
However, in the larger scale of things, perhaps you mistake our purpose. In news stories our purpose is not to criticise or give you our opinion. All we do is try to condense the facts as we reasonably understand them.
As a great journalist once famously said: "Comment is free but facts are sacred."
If you want opinion, please read articles in our Analysis section or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter, in which we indulge in a little more editorial leeway on comment and opinion. Or read articles in our Legal Opinion section.
In such columns we have in the past criticised Gopal Subramanium about some of his methods in implementing the bar exam, for example, while also readily acknowledging his apparently good intention. As anywhere else in life, nothing is black and white.
Legally India is ultimately here to give you an unbiased reporting of the facts so you can make up your own mind and form your own opinions.
I believe there is already too much shallowly formed opinion in the media, so I feel no need to add to it and I hope we can continue with our current approach.
I agree, there has not been any formal confirmation but this below story we posted today is the closest to official confirmation it'll be until next week:
I am surprised there are claims that this is surrogate advertising. We generally try to report those stories which seem either important, interesting to readers or both.
In this case, there definitely seems to be reader interest and I think such a collaboration was also important - we would have covered many other law schools that that do something similar.
Again, to reiterate, we will never take payment or other benefits in kind to write news articles or features about organisations. Our overall editorial judgment will always be the final decider.
Thanks for your feedback, I think that may have come across differently than Sanjay intended...
We had long discussions on LawAsia and it was also raised during the initial period when the MPL list of moots was finalised and debated, which was done transparently.
We again considered LawAsia last week when it was raised but we understand that participation this year was of only 13 teams, of which 3 were Indian. I believe John Marshall had 20 participants in total or so?
Additionally, the barrier of entry raises slightly after an event has happened and the winners are already confirmed, for obvious reasons of fairness.
Ultimately, as also happened during the initial selection phase, a line had to be drawn somewhere for practical reasons, and to many having an international Tier 5 was already contentious.
Therefore unless there are clear and overwhelming arguments in favour of a new moot or the promotion/demotion of a moot, it would be fairest not to change the existing order.
I agree there is merit to inclusion of LawAsia potentially, but it is a very borderline case in a Tier and category, which is itself already borderline, and many others would argue against it.
Hope that makes sense, please do let us have your feedback and criticism anytime, we will endeavour to continue being as transparent and inclusive as possible within our decision making.
Thanks for your feedback. The details you refer to were provided by Raj Kumar and directly follow an indirect quote of his. I agree that attribution could have been more clear in this case but I hope this clarifies your query.
However, I don't know if the first part was referring to a formal Harvard student exchange programme but is something more informal, although I have in the past met Harvard students who were visiting the JGLS campus. If any JGLS students wish to clarify, please feel free.
In terms of publications in law reviews, I have no references to those right now but we will hope to do some more research in this area.
The data is not ours, it is compiled entirely by Venture Intelligence so we don't know why Lexygen deals were not included.
Ultimately none of these league tables are 100% accurate at the moment in India. Abroad they are slightly more accurate although still often subject to error.
But aren't there some car buffs who love all and any car.
Are there no legal education buffs who are interested in all law colleges? (I count myself as one but probably have less vested interest in one institution versus another and when it is so competitive to get the 'car' it is no surprise that more pride is associated with it).
As an idea, the system for higher education in Germany, I believe, is partly down to a lottery. I.e., if you get good enough high school grades to study a certain subject (like Law, which requires top marks), you then get almost randomly allocated a university/law school. I am not 100% sure that is the exact way the system works, but I think at least it used to, more or less.
Now could that work amongst the CLAT schools? The 500 or X number of CLAT toppers will get allocated a place randomly at the CLAT institutions, provided they hit a certain mark?
Or would that be terrible? Could see this working in favour of the institutions in the long-run, with less competitiveness and more unity, also pushing up the quality of all colleges since everyone will have a vested interest in the system as a whole.
Just thinking out loud...
On the one hand I feel that by having this mudslinging out in the open, it makes people get it out of their system and they will get bored sooner or later of it, and move on to new topics. And I don't think anyone takes this very seriously and half of it is meant in jest.
Please correct me if I'm wrong and if you have any suggestions, however.
Thanks, Kian
First of all, I think it's great that some mooters are confident enough to write in their own name and others should follow their example.
If someone does write in their own name, please respect that and keep name-calling to a minimum, and do not question their motives or whether they are a regular Legally India reader or not - that should not matter.
As a rule of thumb, please think about whether you would feel comfortable telling a person face-to-face what you are writing here.
Abusing other "Anonymous Guests" is another story of course and is pretty much up to everyone concerned.
But it does seem like some valid points have been made, and if some genuine discussion on these can take place we'd be happy to take a consensus or interesting suggestions back to Surana to improve the moot in future years.
Best wishes and happy mooting,
Kian
Unfortunately, however much we'd like to be, we are nowhere near omniscient so please do let us know about some of the work you do and we will try to publish it looks like it'd be interesting.
Best,
Kian
Legally India actually started out as a business/law firm focused publication, which is still our core focus.
However, original law school news and readers have obviously increased since starting so I appreciate your point.
We will work on presenting the content in a better form in future to make both audiences happy!
Best regards
Kian
Hope this explains it somewhat.
Thanks,
Kian
Maybe the non-caps were suggested by a brand consultant? (joking)
I guess it's a style thing and the fact that Nalsar rolls of the tongue easier than RGNUL, which looks more like an acronym?
Maybe some Nalsarites can shed some light on the mystery? I'll post up a query on the Facebook page, maybe someone can answer there.
Thanks,
Kian
Moderating comments and threads is exceedingly rare and in the case of this story and the other Spicy IP story became necessary because things had become too personal.
If your comment was attacking someone personally, then maybe it was moderated and for good reason. Opinion is fine, being mean to named individuals anonymously and without a purpose is another matter.
I have only once moderated a personal attack/criticism against me when it really went too far.
Apart from that, you are free to say what you like, I am sure opinions far more offensive than yours have been posted on the site in the past too.
I hope this makes sense.
Best regards
Kian
1. Nalsar and NLS came 1st and 2nd in last year's MPL, GLC came 9th.
2. ILS, the winner and the subject in the headline, beat both Nalsar and NLS, not GLC in the semis as far as I'm aware.
3. Perhaps more open to criticism, people do like reading about national law schools so subconsciously this could have caused NLS to also make it into the headline. There is no science to headline writing alas. If there was they would be very boring to read...
Hope this explains somewhat and makes sense.
Best regards,
Kian
Haven't checked details but I guess it was mostly an unintentionally ironic technicality...
Also pleased you are moving up in the world: Bradburies are a brilliant firm with even better pay packets. Don't spend it all on booze now.
Tally ho!
Kian
Where we may normally moderate is where individuals are named. For one, most of the time if individuals are criticised it is very hard to establish whether something is valid or whether it is just a disgruntled former employee or a rival.
Many lawyers are also very thin skinned when it comes to personal criticism, no matter how justified, and we try to tread a fine line between freedom of expression and turning the forums into a massive mud-slinging match.
If you express things delicately and sensitively they will normally get through - on most average days I'd say we only moderate 1 comment out of 50 or 100 (apart from spam).
Hope this helps.
Best regards
Kian
Ps: There was also a but in the commenting system for the last 2 months which may have swallowed some comments. Will elaborate shortly...
However, in this case they may be correct - I think comments are still sometimes broken on the site in some browsers. We are investigating the technical issue and will hopefully fix it soon.
Best, Kian
We are currently investigating the issue and hope to have it fixed soon.
Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Best regards,
Kian
We are currently investigating the issue and hope to have it fixed soon.
Apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Best regards,
Kian
Best regards
Kian
Editor
Best regards
Kian
Thanks for your comment and kind wishes from me and Team LI.
Agree that ideally we should have picked up the TOI report earlier.
Although generally we try to focus on exclusive news that is not reported elsewhere (which tends to take a lot more time), we do try to aggregate important news from third party sources also. Unfortunately sometimes we are not able to for various reasons but we will continue trying to do our best and picking up the most important news from elsewhere too.
Best regards
Kian
Thank you also for yours. Please do point out an occasion when we have censored a negative comment about LI? I think there was one comment a year ago which started talking about members of my family but apart from that I can't recall a censoring single comment critical of us. Please do enlighten.
And congratulations if I took your bait with my response too.
Best wishes,
Kian
Ps: Re "earn money", in the interest of transparency, we are still a long way off break-even point...
However, it leaves me severely confused as to what your aim is and has been in your previous comments along similar lines.
Either:
1. you really think that we are biased in favour of NLSIU and believe this is reflected in our coverage because we did not manage to cover a report with questionable detail in the TOI (which in any case has now been blogged about by four bloggers in the Legally India blogs section). You also seem to believe there's some deep injustice taking place here. I can not help but be fascinated by this repeated allegation from you. Why exactly would we exhibit a bias towards NLSIU? Are they paying us money? Are we secretly NLSIU alumni? Are we afraid of the NLSIU network? Or do we simply hate all other law schools? Please do enlighten.
or alternatively, and more likely:
2. ironically, you are trolling for a response and are not really bothered about NLSIU bias, since you seem to "expect no change in approach" and more "excuses". In which case, congratulations, I rose to the bait again.
Either way, thank you for your commenting and feedback, it was amusing.
Best wishes,
Kian
Blogging is often as much about sharing content from elsewhere with readers as creating new content.
I agree that original content is always preferable to copying other content but in this case it was pretty clear that it was from a newspaper article, the blogger quickly provided a citation of the original and I do not think tried to pass this off as his own work.
We will keep re-evaluating the semi-open nature of the blogging platform as and when required.
Best
Kian
Hope that answers your curiosity, do let me know if you have any other queries.
Best regards
Kian
We mentioned a previous leading bidder in this case because it was such a large transaction that took such a significant amount of time to negotiate.
I apologise for any indigestion this may have inadvertently caused you.
Best wishes,
Kian
We all know that these comments are just a bit of fun but please do not bring down the tone of the conversation any further than it already is and refrain from personal attacks on individuals or overly derogatory language.
Best regards
Kian
The Hoot has also been doing great coverage, hope it and magazines like Open prosper!
One apparent proposal is that law grads can start practising, but before they do so they'd have to give an undertaking that in March 2011 they would sit down and take the exam (whether that is an undertaking to pass the exam is not clear).
I have no idea whether that is true and whether it will be implemented but thought it was a proposal worth mentioning.
Earlier we had written it back to front slightly which left room for confusion out of context ("students may have to give an undertaking that they would sit for the exam in March before practising").
We have corrected the wording in the copy to make this clearere...
It was literally a matter of not having checked two checkboxes in the poll back-end to check for duplicate votes, which was completely unintentional and my fault, as I freely admit.
To be completely honest, if a poll allowed multiple voting I too would probably click back and forth several times although I imagine I would get bored after 5 or 10 clicks or so (as dozens of other voters did).
What was interesting was not that some people voted multiple times, but that a few of those against the exam were happy to vote more than 100 times, which definitely shows some above average conviction on their part, which the ones less opposed to the bar exam did not seem to possess.
When I saw this trend I did find it quite amusing and hoped this blog post would be taken in the right spirit of gentle jesting.
Best regards
Kian
Best wishes,
Kian
There just found a surprising correlation, which I thought was interesting to point out in a tongue in cheek manner.
http://www.legallyindia.com/1535-82-of-2010-grads-want-bar-exam-dead-but-does-hacking-attempt-of-legally-india-poll-prove-bar-exam-opponents-are-more-dishonest
I hope no offence was taken.
Best regards
Kian
1. It was clearly a tongue-in-cheek and intentionally provocative blog on what I thought was an interesting and surprising correlation.
2. I never said cheating, I only said 'cheating'.
3. I never called you (either individually or collectively as bar exam opponents) 'cheaters', unless you did in fact try to 'cheat' a little on the poll.
4. Those who did vote more than dozens of times, would probably fairly admit they tried to 'cheat' a little bit by rigging this poll, right?
Again, no offense was intended and I hope not taken either.
Best regards
Kian
Thanks for your comment.
You seem to have misread this article. We did not say that Gopal Subramanium was misquoted, we only say that Supreme Court said this was misreported, and that GS denied the Times of India report, while TOI stood by its original story. We do not know the full facts here as we have not done detailed original reporting on this story and instead have clearly relied and referred to mainstream press reports. To clarify this I have now added quotation marks around "misreported" to make it clear we are using the language apparently used by the court.
However, in the larger scale of things, perhaps you mistake our purpose. In news stories our purpose is not to criticise or give you our opinion. All we do is try to condense the facts as we reasonably understand them.
As a great journalist once famously said: "Comment is free but facts are sacred."
If you want opinion, please read articles in our Analysis section or subscribe to our weekly email newsletter, in which we indulge in a little more editorial leeway on comment and opinion. Or read articles in our Legal Opinion section.
In such columns we have in the past criticised Gopal Subramanium about some of his methods in implementing the bar exam, for example, while also readily acknowledging his apparently good intention. As anywhere else in life, nothing is black and white.
Legally India is ultimately here to give you an unbiased reporting of the facts so you can make up your own mind and form your own opinions.
I believe there is already too much shallowly formed opinion in the media, so I feel no need to add to it and I hope we can continue with our current approach.
Best regards
Kian
http://www.legallyindia.com/201011171522/Law-schools/bci-will-only-issue-formal-statement-of-state-of-bar-exam-next-thursday-25-november
I don't think there has been any denial, merely a lack of updating of the BCI website...
We have corrected the headline and added an update to the story.
Best regards
Kian
In this case, there definitely seems to be reader interest and I think such a collaboration was also important - we would have covered many other law schools that that do something similar.
Again, to reiterate, we will never take payment or other benefits in kind to write news articles or features about organisations. Our overall editorial judgment will always be the final decider.
Best regards
Kian
We had long discussions on LawAsia and it was also raised during the initial period when the MPL list of moots was finalised and debated, which was done transparently.
We again considered LawAsia last week when it was raised but we understand that participation this year was of only 13 teams, of which 3 were Indian. I believe John Marshall had 20 participants in total or so?
Additionally, the barrier of entry raises slightly after an event has happened and the winners are already confirmed, for obvious reasons of fairness.
Ultimately, as also happened during the initial selection phase, a line had to be drawn somewhere for practical reasons, and to many having an international Tier 5 was already contentious.
Therefore unless there are clear and overwhelming arguments in favour of a new moot or the promotion/demotion of a moot, it would be fairest not to change the existing order.
I agree there is merit to inclusion of LawAsia potentially, but it is a very borderline case in a Tier and category, which is itself already borderline, and many others would argue against it.
Hope that makes sense, please do let us have your feedback and criticism anytime, we will endeavour to continue being as transparent and inclusive as possible within our decision making.
Best regards
Kian
It is now fixed and the full download links are at:
http://www.legallyindia.com/images/stories/docs/cases/CCI-Action_Replayy_-_Order.pdf
http://www.legallyindia.com/images/stories/docs/cases/Sunshine_Pictures_Vs1._Motion_Picture_-_Complaint.pdf
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Best regards, Kian
However, I don't know if the first part was referring to a formal Harvard student exchange programme but is something more informal, although I have in the past met Harvard students who were visiting the JGLS campus. If any JGLS students wish to clarify, please feel free.
In terms of publications in law reviews, I have no references to those right now but we will hope to do some more research in this area.
Best regards
Kian
Ultimately none of these league tables are 100% accurate at the moment in India. Abroad they are slightly more accurate although still often subject to error.
Best regards,
Kian