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?
even within BCI there are few who can take on MM
only the cockcroaches can take him on, perhaps a twitter poll by the CJP handle asking if he should resign would be sufficient for MM's malik to drop him, he has finished his usability and if one looks at the loose cannon that he is (and the damage he can do the brand) mota bhai may decide that its better to cut him loose
10 from NLUJ
4 from GNLU
3 from NLS
What are the numbers for NALSAR, NUJS, SLSP,
There in no mandatory internship.
Further, the news of other senior partners like RC leaving is complete nonsense which has been put in the air to unnecessarily alarm clients. Stop spreading lies and defamatory statements. Otherwise, we will be forced to take legal measures.
Difference:
- National institutions
- Strong faculty
- Top business people in the country on governing bodies, especially IIMA
- Alumni actively involved and have a seat in the governing body
- No disruptive students and profs fighting woke culture wars
Compare with NLUs: absolute clown show, barring NLSIU to an extent under Sudhir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6qrYLlHy0s
Fundamentally, any master's course/certification/diploma at that stage of your career is not meant to demonstrate legal competence - that is assumed at that stage (and even if it isn't, noone expects any law school to actually impart the practical legal skills needed to be a GC).
So obviously, a place that has better creds for an MBA was chosen. It would've been absurd for CAM to invest into DOMS, Nalsar without there being a steady track record of successful alumni or interest.
So you agree that there is not a single NLU that can align with and help law firms to be run as businesses.
You see, whichever way you spin this, it is a huge setback for all NLUs. This is time for a reality check instead of deflecting this. The downside of being a state university is getting starker by the day.
This Man has been made. Quite self made actually. Let's just help nature and let gravity do the rest.
Manan Mishra lowered the Bar with NALSAR threat. Shouldn't he pay for it?' https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bci-nalsar-row-supreme-court-questions-manan-mishra-order-bar-council-india-cji-surya-kant-2971115-2026-08-14
==============================================================================================================================================================================================================================
what is the legal basis (appropriate section or rule) for the BCI to intervene?
if this is allowed to stand, can BCI tomorrow stop enrolment of a law student who puts forward any politically inconvenient views?
what is the objective standard of determination of what hurts the public confidence in the profession?
no whatsapp forward please; the notice does not really illustrate any meaningful regulatory foundation, a few sections are thrown about and a case is cited, classic pray and spray, hoping something will stick
Sure this order seems pretty weird. But what about the argument that the persons who participated in this campaign are behaving in a way that undermines (or may have the potential to undermine) the confidence of the public in the profession of advocate? What is the substantive response to that? Because the satirical letter posted in reply doesn't address that point. People might be somewhat tired of citing ADM Jabalpur and Plessy, but in the spirit of free enquiry, we must not forget J.S. Mill who reminds us in On Liberty to know the argument of the opponent like the back of our hand. I assume that this undermining/potential of undermining confidence in the profession argument is the one they'll come up with, so it's important that it be responded to.
With a few exceptions, same goes true for IP too: most TMT lawyers are fairly well versed with copyright law because you need that everytime you advise on content related media / ad laws, including basic aspects like software/content licensing, ownership over AI-generated content, ad advisories, endorsement deals etc. What TMT teams don't typically also do is things like trademark registrations or patent filings or disputes on these. That's typically handled by an IP team. Very specific partners do all of this, and that's typically what is referred to as a 'TMT/IP' team. And yes, everything in my previous comment continues to squarely apply to these teams too - it's too small and niche a market, there's not enough partners, and noone wants to hire a fresher outside of PPOs. You'll have 50x more chances at M&A, if you pivot. Maybe you still want to do this - and I can respect that and related to it, but you should know the facts before you take that decision. All the best.
waiting for FSR, B&F, TMT, Corporate, Disputes, Insolvency, etc
2. There is a comprehensive argument to study each and every one of the subjects you have listed, but I am going to give you a pretty persuasive one for only one of them: philosophy. Here's an article from The Economist, 24th June 2026. It tells you everything you need to know. If you think about it, you are the one who looks like an idiot, not anybody else.
Why big AI labs are hiring so many philosophers
The technology presents all sorts of thorny problems—a philosopher’s favourite kind
Jun 24th 2026
Ten years ago, as the ai revolution was gathering pace, arts and humanities students were told that, if they wanted to make themselves employable, they should “learn to code”. That may have been bad advice. These days, it is programmers who are nervous about ai taking their jobs.
They might consider learning to philosophise. Earlier this year the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published figures showing that American philosophy graduates are more likely to have jobs than their peers who studied computer science. In 2024, the most recent year for which numbers are available, 7% of those who had studied computer science were unemployed, against just 5.1% of philosophers.
Many are being snapped up by ai firms themselves. Students get job offers before they have graduated, says Luciano Floridi, a philosopher at Yale University. Academics are moving, too. Dr Floridi describes the scale of departures from philosophy departments as a “haemorrhaging”.
Some of the lessons that philosophy can offer ai researchers are ancient. The Socratic method—as described by Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher—uses feigned ignorance and sequential questioning to clarify meanings, spot contradictions and reveal ramifications. Many current ai systems tend towards sycophancy. Models trained in the Socratic method, says Jörg Noller, an expert on philosophy and ai at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, are less keen on people-pleasing and more willing to pursue the truth.
Then there is the idea of “Socratic ignorance”. In the “Apology”, Plato has Socrates claim that his wisdom consists mostly of being aware of how much he does not know. Implanting that humility into a model can help limit overconfidence, a common flaw that Dr Noller describes as “ai immaturity”. Iason Gabriel, a senior philosopher at Google DeepMind, an ai lab based in London, attributes an industry-wide decline in hallucinations to such efforts. More broadly, he says, philosophy lessons are “a powerful mechanism” for improving long ai reasoning processes known as “chains of thought”.
Philosophical training can also affect a model’s outlook in more specific ways. Feed an ai legal assistant the writings of John Locke, says Thomas Powers, a philosopher of technology at the University of Delaware, and it will favour robust property rights as an underpinning of political liberty. And if you don’t like those principles, the model-makers have others. The “Granite” series of models from ibm, an American computing giant, come with dials that let business customers better align outputs with their own corporate philosophies. Francesca Rossi, ibm’s head of responsible ai, says these can let users choose where to strike the balance between philosophical trade-offs, such individual agency versus social harmony.
Philosophy can help with safety, too. Researchers have documented all sorts of ominous behaviour in ai models, including attempts to evade oversight and even blackmail their users. One way model-makers try to discourage this sort of misbehaviour is called ai constitutionalism. This involves building a model around a scaffolding of rules and principles culled from philosophical writings with legal or moral authority.
Anthropic, an ai lab based in San Francisco, is one proponent. Constitutions for its Claude models have incorporated material from sources as diverse as Immanuel Kant, Apple’s terms of service and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The latest iteration, led by Anthropic’s top philosopher, Amanda Askell, was published on January 21st. Some staff at Anthropic have nicknamed the 78-page constitution Claude’s “soul doc”.
The biggest question, though, is what sorts of rules should be put in those constitutions in the first place. Philosophers have zeroed in on two main ethical frameworks. One is deontology. Popular with Kant, among others, this imposes strict rules that prohibit things like lying, coercion and treating people as a means rather than an end, even if it is for a greater good. Anthropic’s constitution incorporates many deontological strictures. These can make ai behaviour more consistent, says Dr Powers—a plus for deploying robots in homes and public spaces.
Models with a deontological take on the world have other benefits. One is greater honesty, a trait widely noted in Claude. Models that are more truthful, says Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, are less likely to mislead their users. Inflection ai, another Silicon Valley lab, imposes deontological constraints onto its Pi chatbot, which is designed to provide emotional support. Sean White, its boss, says Pi is good at spotting users at risk of harming themselves or others. Deontological constitutions also help with legal compliance, says Dr Floridi.
The other approach to ethics of interest to philosophers of ai is called consequentialism. It weighs costs against benefits to decide what to do. Models more sympathetic to consequentialism include OpenAI’s Chatgpt and Google’s Gemini. Google’s ai models are designed to produce “likely overall benefits [that] substantially outweigh the foreseeable risks”, a classic consequentialist goal.
Consequentialist algorithms are also crucial in software for autonomous vehicles: if an accident is unavoidable, a decision must be made on the least tragic way to crash. Chris Gerdes, a senior engineer at Waymo, which makes self-driving cars, says the trend is to make driving software more consequentialist. Consequentialism is also central to ai weapon systems. Military objectives must be weighed against possible civilian deaths, says Jack Shanahan, a former head of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Centre, which studies ai for America’s armed forces.
Thorny problems abound—a philosopher’s favourite sort. Are there cases when deontological rules should be overridden? How do you make decisions when the consequences are unclear? Should ai systems take into account animal welfare, or the state of the environment? Would it be morally acceptable, asks Stefan Heck, a philosopher and the boss of Nauto, which makes ai-powered safety systems for lorries and other commercial vehicles, to prioritise young pedestrians over old ones? He predicts ethically fraught lawsuits: consequentialist algorithms, after all, explicitly permit one harm as long as it is designed to avert a worse one.
Critics fret about “moral deskilling”: if computers increasingly make ethical calls, might people become less willing to make their own judgments? Roman Yampolskiy, an ai theoretician at the University of Louisville, argues that morality “is historically unstable, culturally variable, strategically manipulable, and often only retrospectively legible”. Unemployed coders take note: there seems to be no shortage of work for philosophers of ai. ■
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2026/06/24/why-big-ai-labs-are-hiring-so-many-philosophers
3. This commentary of yours also displays a profoundly ignorant understanding of how university governance works. It also displays something shocking: an inability to read a two-page article.
(a) As somebody has written on LinkedIn, nobody in western higher ed making these kinds of decisions about cuts really wants to do this. There are external pressures on university finances (in the case of the UK, perhaps also in the U.S. case, I don't know) and regulatory pressures (in the U.S.). That person in fact said very beautifully that trying to get into these stupid and reductive conversations about defending the humanities with administrators which you have raised is pointless, because it is preaching to the quire.
(b) The earlier point is justified if you actually read the article. Neither you nor the OP seem to have done. They have given a breakdown of who was asked to go. Mainly admin positions. So even what Harvard is actually doing does not seem to be supporting this absolutely stupid crap that has been published here.
Moderators, the fact that you didn't point this out in the case of the OP commentary (by use of a 'trollish' tag or at least a 'contested') is pretty surprising to me. If only the article had been posted without commentary, I would have understood. But commentary has been posted clearly pointing in the direction of an opinion.
I’m keen to learn the practical aspects of litigation, especially court procedures and drafting nuances, from someone with regular practice.
If anyone can point me towards a lawyer in Delhi who might be open to having a student intern/assist them, I’d be really grateful.
TIA!
I have left it recently, have the worst experience
▮▮▮ in 3 months, 10 good A1-A4s have resigned ▮▮▮
▮▮▮ promotions happened, based on who are in good books . ▮▮▮
▮▮▮