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?
WBNUJS (a law school by your definition) has even set up a department for forensic science and offers two degrees B.Sc-LLB and MSc in Forensic Science to cash in on the opportunity. The authorities at WBNUJS must be foolish to do that, and you are the only smart one in the room.
The bottom line - had NFSU invited NLS and NALSAR (or any NLU) to be part of this national initiative, they would have jumped at the opportunity to associate with NFSU (just like NLUD). But as I said, they just aren't good enough. For all state NLUs, the route to be part of such important national initiatives goes through NFSU, as the remit of state NLUs does not extend beyond the boundaries of the respective states.
Is it just a exit formality and Noone cares to read it or it is evaluated by buddy and taken into consideration for offering ppo?
Please moderate it fast. Thanks
And I thought somebody finally saw through all the frenetic campus "development" taking place and associated contracts.
#LoyaltyasperRoyalty
Andho me kana Raja...
Any doubt NLS is the place to be?
Come on guys, you really believe no one from NLSIU deserves it in the past SEVEN years?
Any truth to the rumours that the working hours are better? Not relaxed but better hours and weekends than Cam , Sam, JSA, AZB, Trilegal?
Better culture overall?
Or is this foolish thinking?
What are you doing now mate? How long after grad you got a job
Most aspirants' parents happily support them during their preparation because this exam requires that and if you make it, all that effort is more than worth it.
I hate the colonial aristocratic mindset too, but this exam requires tough decisions. Most 1st gen litigators also need financial support from their parents. When you don't know about something, speak less and listen more.
PS: I work in a law firm and have no UPSC ambitions
So yes they live off their parents in chance of a 0.01 percent success rate. The high amount of downvotes to your answer will tell you the mentality of the people interested in this topic. They are afraid of facing the reality.
Where there is a will there is a way
Is the work that bad?
Read this. Ranchi High Court view on NUSRL Ranchi
Everyone who's there to get work done and go home will buy a reasonable 45rs pen or just pick one from the conference room for free. What meaningful writing are y'all doing anyway that's not on MS Word? The only thing you will use a pen for is to write deliverables down in a firm issued notepad
Esi ulti sidhi advice na deta fir
Before fantasizing about internships at Tier 1 or Tier 2 firms in your second year, consider that no Tier 1 or Tier 2 firm will accept an intern from VSLLS without a contact within the firm.
I suggest focusing on writing research papers and attempting CLAT/AILET exam again.
The point of doing that is people who want to litigate join court instead of going to class, I've seen plenty of them clerking and learning more than the average law student. Those that want to join judiciary would be attending coaching classes, and those who want to prepare of a govt exam do that.
Mandatory attendance for law colleges is a scam. You will learn more in court than in class. Instead focus should be on mandatory attendance under a district court lawyer for students.
As someone who has read for a three year LLB in England at a Russell Group law school that isn't Oxford or Cambridge and who will begin an LLM in the UK this September, and who aspires to become an academic there (but who has explored both the solicitor and barrister career options), I can tell you that Sudhir seems to have the right ideas. For you to interpret him as saying 'don't focus on skills' or 'the best universities in the world don't focus on skills' is deeply problematic, because that's not what he (or frankly any head of a reputable law school here (usually distinguished by the 'Russell Group' tag)) is saying. The British are very clear about where skills fit in. A university education gives you some basic knowledge. The gaining of the knowledge happens in a problem-based environment where you apply yourself to problems, which helps you begin to develop certain skills. A good university doesn't try to turn out a finished product to the law firms or chambers, because law firms (and barristers' chambers, for that matter) are clear that that's not what they want; without blowing my own trumpet too much, I have been to a good university and spoken to recruiters from both branches of the profession, so am telling you this from personal experience. A good trainee solicitor or pupil barrister is someone who has strong conceptual knowledge and a toolkit of basic skills, which a law firm (in the case of a TC) or a chambers (in the case of a pupillage) will hone and add to during the training period, by getting that trainee/pupil to 'learn on the job'. The 'learning-on-the-job' process cannot happen until and unless the trainee or pupil has the basics right. Just like in Maths, you can't learn Calculus without learning addition or subtraction, similarly, according to the British way of thinking, you have to undertake three steps of learning, in a specific order: a qualifying law degree (or a non-law degree and a Postgraduate Diploma in Law, if you prefer), which teaches you the ABC's, the vocational component of solicitor or barrister training (which teaches you the basics of everyday practice grind) and the work-based component of solicitor or barrister qualification (a pupillage in the case of a barrister, and a TC in the case of a solicitor), which helps you to learn, in a problem-based environment where you apply yourself to problems, as you would have done at university or bar school/in solicitor training, the uk lawyer's equivalent of calculus.
To bust some myths here, if you think all we do at your typical British law school is to have seminar/tutorial discussions and write essays, that is absolutely not the case. Most UK law schools have law clinics, similar to their U.S. and Indian counterparts, where we do exactly what Sudhir is saying: focus, to the extent needed, on the 'craft' (to use his word) we would need as practitioners. Some universities, like QM, for example, have partnerships with law firms where selected students, after two years of study, paralegal at one of their uni's partner firms for a year and come back after the year to complete their final year of study. But do the firms consider people with such experience as finished products? No! They still offer them TC's, not jobs as newly qualified (NQ) solicitors, because they are clear that learning still needs to happen. This is, as Sudhir said, to give upcoming lawyers preparation for problems later in life that we just can't imagine in this day-and-age.
What this should show is that Sudhir (and heads of UK law schools) is (are) saying (correctly in my view) from his experience in Britain's NLSIU that the way the conversation about skills and the rhetoric about it is going in India displays confusion and a surprising (and disturbing) lack of clarity about what a university's place in the larger scheme of things is. I would really, therefore, advise you to think a lot more carefully, before attempting to use what the UK does (or at least the reputable law schools here do) as a justification in favour of an argument against Sudhir's views on this, because the British legal profession (universities/training providers, firms/chambers and regulators) are, and have been, very clear for some considerable time about what is what. Sudhir, even granting he may have other faults to which I can't speak because I don't know him, has got this right, and is trying to bring that same level of clarity to the discourse on skills in Indian legal education. True, while his understanding of what legal education requires is different from the British one to the extent that most UK law degrees have little to no component of non-law study, unlike at his institution, his thinking is much more aligned with the law faculty deans of an Oxford, UCL, LSE-type place than many might believe (or like to believe). If I were you, I'd listen to him, and maybe even take on board some of what he has to say; if you don't like it, that's your concern. And I certainly wouldn't abuse him anonymously. While I have defended him that way here, to be clear, if somebody asks, I would be more than happy to put my name to this, and give you a LinkedIn profile so you know who I am, but I know that doing this outright would not make our mods very happy. If you've made it this far, thanks for reading!