▮▮▮ ▮▮▮. And that unscripted dialogue - 'Need your attention to a fairly sensitive transaction - million [billion] dollar plus, wanted your attention to the matter, bit urgent' - pure legend.

Watch it here: https://youtu.be/5kYaisrTo5Q?t=232

Please don't compare Sanya with the Livelaw people. She used to work for Livelaw. She left because of their left-wing bias. She is a non-nepo girl from a regular family. She is a one-man army who doesn't have the backing of big funders. In fact, she has hurt her chances of getting funding by talking on the liberal elite lobby, but still she has put her beliefs ahead of her business interests.

You kids are really naive. Please understand, journalists are basically businessmen. Livelaw “invested” in Sibal by giving him positive publicity, now that he has won they will reap “profit” in terms of having access to the SCBA powers that be, getting exclusive stories, getting invited to speak at SCBA conferences alongside the CJI etc. It works the same way with Fox and the Republicans, CNN and the Democrats, The Wire and the Congress, Republic and the BJP. True journalism is dead. Money, power and access is what it’s all about.

Bar and Bench took a neutral stance because they weren’t sure of the results, but what they miscalculated is that many BJP people didn’t like Adish Agarwala and the anti-Sibal vote got split.

The only legal journalist with integrity was Kian before the closure of LI.

In fact, Sanya set up LawBeat because many people were getting annoyed with LiveLaw’s bias and she felt there is a market opportunity in this. Bar and Bench remains #1 and Livelaw remains #2, but Sanya has eaten into Livelaw’s market share and taken many of their Twitter subscribers, no doubt about it.

Ah, the irony is almost poetic. Accusing me of trolling while conveniently ignoring the very bias and moderation issues I pointed out. Bravo!

First, let’s address the “troll” tag. It seems that any dissenting opinion here gets swiftly labeled as trolling. A neat trick to silence debate, but not exactly a hallmark of intelligent discussion.

Now, onto the meat of the matter. My critique of Live Law’s editorial choices and The Wire’s bias isn’t trolling—it’s pointing out a significant issue in media ethics. When platforms present themselves as neutral but engage in partisan cheerleading, it’s a disservice to informed discourse. Kapil Sibal’s “Dil Se” series is less journalism and more a fan club meeting, and pretending otherwise insults the intelligence of readers.

Intelligent discussions thrive on diverse viewpoints and healthy debate, not on shutting down criticism under the guise of maintaining decorum. If this forum truly values intelligent discourse, then perhaps it should start by embracing all perspectives, not just the ones that align with certain biases.

So, let’s elevate the conversation, shall we? After all, real progress comes from engaging with different viewpoints, not from silencing them.

Ah, the classic "media should be critical" argument. Thanks for the reminder, Captain Obvious. Yes, we all know that holding the ruling party accountable is part of the media's job. But there's a difference between constructive criticism and outright partisan cheerleading.

Live Law's cozy chat series with Kapil Sibal is less about journalism and more about creating an echo chamber for his fan club. And the so-called "experts" in his entourage? They seem more like handpicked supporters than unbiased commentators.

Meanwhile, The Wire has elevated anti-Modi/BJP content to an art form, all while claiming to be the epitome of unbiased journalism. It's almost impressive how they manage to keep a straight face. And let's not ignore the moderation circus here—any critique of this blatant bias gets swiftly drowned out or removed. It's like they have a dedicated squad ready to silence any dissenting voices.

So, while you're busy celebrating these "critical" voices, just remember: Criticism is necessary, but pretending to be objective while pushing a partisan agenda is a whole different ball game. ▮▮▮

Depends on your PQE. If you are SA2 plus above, may not be a great idea. Also, you're assuming they will take you. Assuming they do- if you will have to fight to undo you reputation and build on it. If you are junior, you have the luxury of time.

But separately- join another place where you are not on the backfoot even mentally. It will impact your work, interaction and confidence. And they are like Jack and jill who went up the hill.

Unless ofcourse this is a practice which is superb with no real alternative.

There's no definite answer. It all depends on your 'ex'. If he wants he can definitely block your chances. But the management or new Partner could still look at other factors like your abilities and all. If the Senior management wants they can take you back no matter the past.

Your ex may not even have any issue. All depends on the reasons of the fallout.

If you are soo midddle class why do you need to spend 8k on travel- Delhi has metro, Bombay has locals. Also stay in a PG for less than 10k. You have hyper inflated the costs, it’s under stable the stipend should easily be 5x to even come near to fair levels but don’t thing you will burn 40-70k monthly as an intern anywhere in India atleast

I think everyone should read these numbers with a jar of salt.

Remember when you appeared for CLAT along with 70k others and were worried about if you'll make it in the top 35k? I guess not.

The above news should be as concerning for you as the above scenario. Obviously the majority of law schools are sub par and half of the students appearing for these examinations have not even attended a single day of college - therefore the result.

Hi,

I’ve just completed my 2nd year and am currently looking for an online internship at law firm. I have a decent record and am from a T1 NLU but still I haven’t received any confirmation email from over 135+ firms to which I have applied till now. None of the firms were T1 and were in-fact small T2,T3 firms that I research about on LinkedIn and from other sources.

I wanted to know if this is the case with all of you as well? People from my batch got Kocchar & Co., Anagram, HSA Advocates, Vaish & Associates and other fairly decent firms (w/o any sort of Connections) while I’m struggling to even get a reply back. It’s honestly very tiring but still I’m hoping for a reply soon for the month of June.

All they will do is host conferences for networking, invite their chosen clients and targets and engage in shameless self-promotion. The underwhelming speeches will be transcribed, with lots of errors as always, by the “transcription specialists”. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the grand plan to make India the numero uno arbitration destination

1. Legal philosophers are often lawyers, advocates and professors (especially professors/academics, since this profession is most conducive to what legal academics the world over do, i.e., asking good questions and attempting to come up with good answers through research). What is unique about them is that they think about law from a philosophical point of view. They ask questions such as "What is the law?" or "What should the law be?" (or, in fact, "should we be asking what the law is or what it should be? And if we can ask what it is, how do we know what it is, what is the benchmark for knowing that? If we ask what it should be, how do we know what it should be? What is the standard for justifying that? Religious? Or in some other way normative?")), "What does the law regulate and what are its limits? Why these limits and not others?", "How do we know something is law?"

2. The "jurisprudence part" and the "theoretical conceptual part" (which should read "theoretical/conceptual part", actually) could be argued to be synonymous, and yes, that is what legal philosophers do work on. If, by "jurisprudence" you mean "black letter law doctrine" or anything doctrinal, that is obviously different; some legal philosophers don't have anything (almost) to do with doctrine or doctrinal research, while others do, working on stuff at the intersection of doctrine and philosophy. As an example of the latter, take the so-called 'floodgates argument' in English tort law. It is obviously considered to be a policy argument. If you consider Dworkin's interpretivist philosophy, is there a way of conceptually justifying its continued use and existence? That is a classic example of a research question that is at the intersection of doctrine and legal philosophy (to be clear: this is not an original idea, you can read in the Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence an article written by Noam Gur, a legal theorist in England, called 'Ronald Dworkin and the Curious Case of the Floodgates Argument').

Philosophy is a real discipline- you can learn it. There’s conventions and grammars and existing literature and you spend a lot of time reading people who are long dead. And then you write something that contributes to the philosophy of law. That’s how you become a legal philosopher. There’s no big mystery- just a lot of studying. It’s not a status thing - it’s about having the education and making a contribution to the field. Same way people become legal anthropologists and sociologists and legal historians.

Please tell me how does a foreign university campus besides yours help you as a student of GNLU. Are you going to learn what is taught there by osmosis? Then you may as well as join the foreign university rather than GNLU, you are paying high enough as an NRI student. As for other GIFT city businesses, which business hires exclusively from the same city? Had that been the case, the Delhi and Mumbai law firms and companies would not have been full of students of NLSIU, NALSAR, NUJS etc.

Basically title. There is inherently precedent privilege and inherent disadvantage when we are born. Law schools fail to recognise this disparity, because everyone is treated as equals when they are not equal. Thus how can privileged students support non-privileged ones? Can it be done by forming student clubs and societies, having sensitivity training, practising affirmative action in university mooting/sports/debate teams etc?

Fastest partners in Amarchand, Luthra, AZB etc are mostly family members.

Trilegal and JSA are the only non family owned firms among Indian law firms.

As of now Umakanth Varotil holds the record for being fastest partner at a Tier 1 in India. He became partner at undivided amarchand at the age of 27. And after becoming partner he quit his job and went to NUS Singapore to teach.

Umakanth Varotil doesn't have any family relationship with Amarchand Mangaldas.

Hello! A third year student here. I know this is an old post but I'd love to work at KCO kol for my next internship probably in January or November. Could you please tell me how to apply there? Do I directly mail the HR or apply via website? And most importantly when should I apply if I wanted to intern in January? Thanks!

Good: Highly qualified profs, the curriculum is good and will give you an edge throughout your career.

Bad: Very strict admin, tough deadlines, not enough space to house so many people on campus.

Ugly: A lot of politics and backstabbing, students don't have a voice.

do ask if you have any specific questions.

I have received a PPO and I am set to start as an A0 in 2025 in a Tier 1 firm in Bangalore. My college is affiliated to KSLU, which has delayed it's academic year so I will only be writing my final 10th sem exams in July 2025, and the results will only be out at the end of Sept 2025 (these are my estimates since they don't provide us with a proper timeline either and they could get delayed as well).

I have heard the joining date for most firms in Bangalore are in July. Will I be able to start as an A0 in August 2025 or do I have to wait for my results in Sept 2025 and only then be able to join in October 2025?

Would really appreciate some clarity on this, thanks!

That's the beauty of students with science backgrounds. The BSc students easily ace BA electives, but the other way around will have BA students s**t their pants. If this is true, then it is clear that even the university is scared that the BSc cohort will outshine the flagship BA students.