Nalsar Hyderabad vice chancellor Prof Faizan Mustafa said at an event on education organised by the New Indian Express: “People are coming to law colleges not because they want to become good lawyers, it’s because they want to become corporate lawyers.”

He added: “We should look at our curriculum. We are loaded with corporate courses because that sells.”

At the same event, NLSIU Bangalore vice chancellor Prof Venkat Rao agreed: “Our students aren’t going to lower courts to practice, they are going to corporates. Privatisation of law is already happening here.”

The complaint is not new, of course, and echoes the warnings made by others such as NLU doyen Prof Madhava Menon at least nine years ago.

Click to show 6 comments
at your own risk
(alt+shift+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.
refresh Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments. Sort chronologically
1
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 Double Standards 19 Jan 18, 13:58
In majority of the cases, it is corporate law that has attracted students towards legal education in this country. The expectation of a good paycheck, along with financial stability is fair, considering the fees charged by the so called "top law schools", and the effort put in by students over the course of 5 years. Majority students come from humble backgrounds, which have financial needs required to be fulfilled. A career before the courts does not guarantee any of this.

Also, people talk about the "growing opportunities" law has to offer. Majority of these happen to be within the domain of corporate law.

So for Christ's sake, stop ranting against the very cause of your popularity!
Reply Report to LI
2
Show?
Like +2 Object -0 Darkseid 20 Jan 18, 09:48
Double Standards has made a very valid point about the fees aspect. It is very easy to ask students to seek justice for the poor and downtrodden, but the existing litigation structure and practices in the country have ensured that it is likely to pay peanuts for at least the initial five years. And what the VCs have said is simply not true. The existing law school curriculum is in no way "loaded with corporate law subjects". On the contrary, barring rare exceptions, none of the teachers in almost all the law schools do not teach anything useful that may help the students to do their jobs in the law firms. A simple survey among law school students who have interned with law firms will reveal that. Not that they are taught helpful things in relation to litigation much either. For instance, a course on how to manage individual practice, know about court rules (original and appellate side etc.), do expedited legal research and court case management software usage and techniques would be of tremendous help to those interested in litigation. But the sad fact remains that the people at the top who decide on the curriculum are so far out of sync from the real world requirementsthat they won't recognise the truth if it appears before them dancing, dressed in Dobbie's tea-cosy!
Reply Report to LI
2.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 kianganz 20 Jan 18, 12:02
Lol @Dobbie's tea cosy.

Don't the NLSes, Nalsars, Jindals etc though have a fair number of corporate options on their syllabus? They might not be super useful in practice, but I'd assume they would be super popular?

Maybe that's what Messrs VCs are angry about: that law students are understandably all flocking to the corporate options, while doing less of the human rights law type courses?
Reply Report to LI
2.1.1
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Darkseid 20 Jan 18, 19:10
I can tell you that most of those optional papers have highly outdated syllabi, lack of connect with the outside world, mostly regurgitation from outdated sources by teachers who have had no involvement with the subject in the real world outside books. At least for most of the NLUs. A case in point, despite IBC being a thing now, few law schools have updated their Corporate Law syllabus to include it. Despite combinations being the most frequently dealt with part of Competition Law, most of the teachers at NLUs who do teach Competition Law seldom deals with the 2011 Regulations properly and how to file before CCI. FEMA is covered properly in rarest of rare places. Project Finance, one of the most lucrative business of law firms, is barely taught anywhere. I can go on. Even the few teachers in law schools capable of teaching these subjects are desperately short-handed by their own account and cannot cover all these papers.
Reply Report to LI
3
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Guest 21 Jan 18, 13:02
The reason they do corporate law is coz court advocates do not pay. if they pay well then just see the difference...
Reply Report to LI
4
Show?
Like +0 Object -0 Guest 09 Feb 18, 23:35
Not all students want to be Corporate lawyers. It appears from the statements by the VCs that all they can do is to be mute spectators as their institutions churn out corporate lawyers year after year.
Reply Report to LI

refreshSort chronologically Filter out low-rated comments. Show all comments.