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?
Hope, this sets the bar!
B.A. LLB is the equivalence degree to a JD in the United States. LLM is usually just an additional option if you want to qualify the bar exams there. The US cohort including the Indian Americans don’t take LLM seriously at all, plus the prestige factor lies with the JD making the LLM students less shiny. Plus, you have to understand that Harvard students are known to be arrogantly snobbish when it comes to their law programme. My friend from Virginia who is pursuing his JD at NYU stated that HLS even crushed Yale law grads time to time. So it’s not uncommon for them to look down upon a law school which isn’t well known in the whole of Asia. Let’s be honest, even your Indian peers (especially your batchmates) salivate to even get their journals in the Harvard student law review where even the JD students are given first preference. Also, it’s incredibly harder to get into the Harvard JD programme when you compare it to their LLM programme. LSAT US (not india) is not a joke. Either you need to have a certain 175ish grade / life altering extra curricular or legacy admission (but that too if your dad or uncle is a governor). For LLM there is no exam and let’s be honest even if by any great misfortune the HLS students come across something like CLAT- they will start laughing at us despite the unpredictability the exam holds every year. NLUs are not even as prestigious as IITs (which are quite well known to Harvard and MIT grads, even Yale too), so it’s difficult if you expect Harvard to take note of us. Plus, the inferiority of top Indian law schools are exposed vividly when we ourselves including the NLS cohort refer certain institutions as ‘Harvard of the East’ / ‘Yale of the East’. We already admit that their institution is already bigger, just hang out with your cohort and mingle with those JD folks who are actually nice, not everyone can be bad.
I owe everything I have today to NALSAR. It gave me a high paying job, exposure to some truly brilliant people, and the best fucking five years of my life.
1. How strictly is the PQE requirement enforced? For example, if the job requirement stated a minimum 1 year PQE, or, let's say, a 1-4 year PQE, but I only had 9 months of PQE, would I still be considered?
2. If I apply to an organisation and am rejected, is there a certain cooling-off period before my application will be considered again, or can I apply again immediately for any subsequent job posts by the organisation?
Am a partner now in a Tier 1 law firm.
Rare NLS W
No updates so far
no update so far
2nd year - HC Delhi or SC internship or judicial clerkship.
3rd year - After Vth Sem, try to intern at a T2 or T3 corp firm and after VI semester intern at T1 corp firms.
4th year - get a PPO or intern at places where you can get a PPO.
5th year - Jo man karey woh karo.
But I have found that political slogans are panacea to all ills. So chanting them all the time. You also do so.
In my view, the theory of the food cycle no longer applies as humans are now sufficiently equipped to choose ethical dietary habits. If we haven't created an animal, what gives us the right to end their life?
It is true that many supporters of progressive ideologies (Woke liberal as originally referred in the post) advocate for veganism, but my point was about the inconsistency in applying these values. It's contradictory to vocally champion animal rights while participating in practices involving animal cruelty, like eating meat or supporting events where animals are killed. This selective empathy undermines the goal of universal compassion for all animals.
Moreover, I understand that people have different views on animal intelligence and which animals deserve protection. However, the idea that some animals are less sapient and thus okay to eat is ethically problematic. The capacity to suffer, not intelligence, should be the criterion for moral consideration. By this standard, causing unnecessary suffering to any sentient being is unethical. Promoting the reduction of animal suffering logically leads to reconsidering one's dietary choices.
Furthermore, the health and safety risks posed by mice are valid concerns, but we should still use humane practices to address them. Humane traps and deterrents can manage rodent populations without causing unnecessary suffering. Treating animals differently based on their perceived nuisance value or cuteness reflects a biased approach to animal rights, which I argue against.
Animal Rights Activists Who Eat Meat
It's true that some animal activists are not vegetarians. However, this doesn't negate the argument for a more consistent and ethical approach to animal welfare. Advocating for the humane treatment of animals while consuming them presents a moral or ethical inconsistency that many animal rights advocates, including Peter Singer and Tom Regan, have critiqued. The ultimate goal of animal rights activism should be to minimize suffering and promote compassion across all species.
My intention is not to be confrontational but to challenge the inconsistencies in our approaches to animal rights and advocate for a more comprehensive ethical stance.
I just watched a video by Robin Singh (PFA the aforementioned link) from Peepal Farm. Robin, who is an animal rescuer, vegan, and promoter of organic farming, shared his thoughts on Bakrid (Eid al-Adha), which is today, June 16, 2024. His message highlighted the problem with millions of goats and other cattle sacrificed during this religious festival, sparking a timely discussion about animal rights.
It's crucial to recognize that this issue isn't confined to any one religion. In India, many people, including a large number of Hindus, consume meat. This widespread practice highlights the broader challenge of advocating for animal rights in a society where meat-eating is common. Therefore, this comment should not be considered coming from a religious perspective. Animal rights is a universal cause that goes beyond religion, taste preferences, protein needs, and income sources. The philosophy of ahimsa, or non-violence, is deeply ingrained in Indian culture (something that should not be limited to any particular religion) and supports extending compassion to all living beings.
Philosopher Peter Singer, in his work "Animal Liberation," argues for considering animals' interests based on their capacity to suffer, not just their utility to humans. His utilitarian perspective challenges the moral justification for practices that cause animal suffering, such as factory farming and ritual slaughter.
Moreover, treating animals ethically aligns with broader environmental and health benefits. The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization has pointed out the significant environmental impact of livestock farming, including deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution. Transitioning to a plant-based diet can help mitigate these environmental issues and promote sustainability.
On a personal level, adopting a more compassionate lifestyle can lead to better health outcomes. Research shows that plant-based diets are linked to lower risks of chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers. By advocating for animal rights and reducing meat consumption, we not only promote ethical treatment of animals but also improve our own health and the planet's well-being.
Robin Singh's video and the timing of this discussion on Bakrid/Eid al-Adha remind us of the importance of consistently and universally advocating for animal rights. By fostering a culture of compassion and ethical consideration for all animals, we can address the inconsistencies in our activism and work towards a more humane and just society.
It's 8
All Jindal can offer is bookish knowledge. At GLC, you don't have to attend clg so you can intern, intern and intern.
Compared to GLC, I'd say all clgs are useless and futile. GLC is good for nothing but it gives you liberty to intern and nothing beats that. Practically speaking a studious nlud or any nlu grad cannot even come close to GLC grad WHO HAS INTERNED DILIGENTLY.
If you are want to work/practice have house in Mumbai, knows good English and have socialisation skills. GLC is good.
If you want to go into research, academia, ethics etc then JGLS is a good option.
GLC students have 4PQE by the time they graduate 5 year LLB. There is no concept of attendance. You only have to attend exams.
Most capable GLC kids work for 4 years. When an NLU kid graduate they have 1 year internship experience and 4 year of study. GLC mostly it's for working.
Up to 12 LPA - 0 tax
Up to 24 LPA - 5% tax
Up to 48 LPA - 7% tax
Up to 1 cr - 8 % tax
Up to 1.5 cr - 10% tax
Above 1.5 cr - 15% tax
Above 10 cr - 20% tax
For farmers, we can simply tax from 1 cr onwards at 8%, gradually brining both farm and non-farm tax rates at par.