Get into a good college, apply yourself to the syllabus, imbibe the value placed on hard work by this profession, and do good litigation internships. After graduating, try to get into a good chamber. Litigation is hard for 1st generation lawyers and the first few years (especially the first year) will be tough financially. The nature of the profession is such that hard work, perseverance, and patience are largely non-negotiable for progress at the Bar. Litigators who have family in the Bar will have it easier in the initial years as compared to strangers to the profession. However, if you do all that I have mentioned, then I would say that you have a very good shot at making it big (in the sense of having a sizeable income) a few years down the line. Remember that small victories matter a lot once you join the Bar (for example, consistently earning enough to break even each month) and you should not measure your progress using a scale detached from the realities of the profession.

Regarding the extent to which 1st generation lawyers can leave their mark on the Bar, I know many such lawyers who have established a lucrative practice (though perhaps not as lucrative as could be), some years after joining the Bar. A good reputation cannot be gained overnight and takes a few years to develop. Of course, there will always be exceptions. Thomas Erskine famously went from an impoverished lawyer known by nobody to the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. His skill was such that he immediately made a name for himself at the Bar. Is this likely to happen to you, presumably then a bright and hardworking greenhorn, a few years down the line? Such a meteoric rise cannot be ruled out in India, as is shown by Palkhivala, but the chances of this happening are slim to none unless you have extraordinary talent or get tremendously lucky. You can expect to become a well-known name with a lot of hard work, time, and some luck. However, reaching the greatest heights of the profession is difficult in India for a 1st generational lawyer due to structural reasons (this chapter should be enlightening: https://luminosoa.org/chapters/m/10.1525/luminos.110.f).

I would say take the gamble. You are more likely to win than lose if you are truly committed to the Bar. It will definitely not be easy but most good things in life are not easy to get.

Pre law CLAT aspirant here. Been looking into career prospects after law, so decided to ask people who're already in the ecosystem.

It's no surprise that 2nd and 3rd lawyers have it easier in litigation because of the connections and clientele built over generations, along with the prestige of past generations. But what about 1st gen lawyers? Do they really not make it big in litigation?

Guide me a little here, because from what I see, corporate is arguably a safer option for someone looking for job security and decent pay, something not guaranteed to you as a 1st gen lawyer in litigation...You come across tons and tons of posts and instances with people barely surviving on 10-15k a month in tier 1 cities. But is that all one can hope for? Personally, looking at the working conditions of corporate life has never been lucrative to me. Is entering litigation as a first gen not worth it?

What I'm really asking is, what makes a difference? What can make a 1st generation lawyer stand out in litigation, and is it even possible to get to the level of other advocates and their prestige? If so, how?

Earning a pittance, if even that, immediately after starting a career in litigation is one of the features of the profession which has not changed since a long time. 'Seven Lamps of Advocacy' is a book written in 1923 by Edward Abbot Parry and it lists industriousness as one of the lamps of advocacy. While speaking about this lamp, he quotes an old pleader who said that each lawyer has to be prepared "to eat sawdust without butter" in the beginning. He further quotes Lord Eldon who said that a new lawyer has "to live like a hermit and work like a horse."

This is quite daunting as you yourself pointed out. However, I don't think you should worry too much. It doesn't take long to start earning if you are in a good chamber and not afraid to take up small matters on your own. Luck necessarily plays a role in determining how soon you can start earning a comfortable sum on a monthly basis, but I would say that a willingness to work hard goes a long way in shortening the initial period of struggle. Keep in mind that the period of time it takes for you to start your independent practice is not the same period it takes for you to start earning a decent sum of money. The latter is necessarily shorter than the former since nobody would even think of going independent unless they have a decent base of clients/briefing counsel.

I would suggest not relying too much on the time it took others to go independent. Every person is different in terms of abilities and privilege. Just remember that it is almost a universal truth that the reward for good work is more work. You won't have to eat sawdust without butter for long.

Please. While they may earn well, they definitely won't be earning anything close to ones like AMS HS MR or KS. These firm folks would max earn upto 100cr which too is a stretch a year. While huge, its peanuts compared to what the former earns. Only shows to prove litigation is far better than law firms

Oligopoly. Because Indian lit is an old boys club, the selected few earn in hundreds of crores, whereas the vast majority (say over 90%) are grossly underpaid. The reason why the select few can charge kingly ransom, is because there are very few alternatives. Simple rule of demand and supply at play here.

NUJS…. Good alumni network…. Active student body…. Campus right in the city…. Good for non-vegetarians…. Comparatively better placements than GNLU

GNLU…. Campus far away (but metro connectivity is there)…. Students are comparatively docile and compliant…. Well funded institute… 50 acre campus shared with Gujarat Maritime University…

This is what happens when you post random comments without being aware of facts. NUJS mostly has their own alumni teaching there and the original comment mentioned that T2 NLU alum are teaching at NUJS. If you fail to recognise the dig despite that, then you should go and watch Pogo instead.

Somebody had once said, after a NALSAR student's response to an LI reader asking if they should take up their place to read law at university in NALSAR in India, or in one of the non-Oxbridge big name UK unis, that NALSAR people seem to be reasonable, non-partisan folks, largely (with even the ones like so-called 'NALSAR Joe' pretending to be otherwise for fun). That NALSAR student's response to the prospective law student was characterised by rationality and objectivity, and others also pointed that out. Glad to see (as someone who didn't go to either NLSIU or NALSAR) that the qualities of impartiality and objectivity still seem to be the defining approach of NALSAR students. Whatever the truth or otherwise of the OP's claims, we have to give credit where credit is due.

I suppose one unsaid reason might be Trump. Better to be in the sarkari-babu-is-royalty culture of his part of India than in Trump's immigrants-are-by-default-horrible-people USA. In a way, though, I suppose we should be happy at this. These are the kinds of guys we'd be wanting to get into the system. if I had been him, I'd go with the mentality of 'If not foreign service, then I relinquish/resign from whatever service post I get and carry on life outside government'. Must confess, while I am sure the other government services manage to do some useful work, if I wanted a career in government (which I don't), foreign service is the only thing remotely interesting (for me at least - and I know it's not anywhere close to all parties and gatherings, so don't even think of jumping on me for that).

It is surprising how a former NLU Jodhpur student/law clerk of Anurag Bhaskar lobby has effectively begun to control student committee work at GNLU. There is a GNLU Child Rights Centre that organized a domestic worker conference with a very biased set of speakers who were all friends of this particular person. He also appeared to heavily self-promote the event and ensured the participation of a certain set of people.

The team has not been very inclusive in considering diverse views on the issue and has dismissed several perspectives, partly due to the internal politics surrounding the individual involved. It is interesting that while students organized the event, the professors showed little effort to ensure that the issue was examined in a more holistic and balanced manner. The convenors should be more mindful that such external influences are not encouraged.

There seem to be rumours, whispers but repetitive whispers that the current Registrar is going ▮▮▮. The best candidate is the current Chief Proctor. There are also rumours that the Chief Proctor will appoint ▮▮▮ to take over his office and that he is seeking his replacement for the Controller post (likely to go to ▮▮▮). Is this shift at JGLS/Jindal likely? Would the Dean of OAG (PR) or the CCO (NB) have strong chances of being considered? There are Deans who, outside of the psychology school and the languages school, have been critical of both the Chief Proctor and the Dean of OAG. The Law School Dean successfully got CRK to segregate Exam Office for law school and Career Placements Department for law school from each of these individuals' domain. ▮▮▮ Who the Registrar is will also have drastic consequences for students (with regards to disciplinary actions and campus policies) and for faculty autonomy (with regards to events and institutional support).

I'm aware of some folks who switched from companies like Airtel/Telenor to fully fledged TMT teams in T1/T2 law firms. However, this switch was only after attaining a considerably high position in the company's legal team, no switches I am aware of from a junior in house counsel role to that of an associate.

As to your statement on "But DPDP is creating a whole new regulatory and adjudicatory framework. The Data Protection Board will need representation. Firms will need people who understand how compliance actually works inside companies. So can this be different from the usual one way situation?"

I understand the optimism that comes with the DPDP Act and its rules. However its pertinent to note that India is likely to not see a "privacy wave" as was seen in law firms when the GDPR was implemented in India. The GDPR only resulted in a huge wave because the EU was adamant in pushing the GDPR despite a huge Big-Tech pushback. The CJEU and the respective DPBs of every member state are extremely proactive in fining companies for privacy violations. Additionally, the GDPR is comprehensive and when I mean comprehensive, I mean extremely detailed to the extent that several gaps within the DPDP have solutions that can be found in the GDPR or privacy jurisprudence from the EU. This comprehensiveness and proactiveness essentially translates to the requirement of a workforce that can understand the GDPR and its recitals which ultimately resulted in the law firm privacy wave in the EU. In comparison, India's DPDP is pretty simple, its rules straightforward. In fact it seems so simple that people think it is vagueness that gives rise to this simplicity ( You can keep things short by not explaining stuff). Secondly, looking at how the specialised bodies such as the CCI and TRAI have operated in the past, there's no guarantee that the DPB in India would be proactive in its approach. What this translates to is unpredictable hiring. Law firms will only take Data privacy seriously if their clients took it seriously, the clients will take it seriously only when the Government takes data privacy seriously. Right now the DPDP isn't exactly operative, so there's no knowing how it would also progress in the years ahead. Don't play a hunch based on the DPDP. For now, owing to its infancy, data privacy forms a subset of Technology, Media, and Telecommunications. Explore other laws, fintech is growing well, there's slow but steady growth on AI mandates. Telecom is also a hard but lucrative field once you crack it.

Personally, I'd say you have a greater chance at shifting into a team that primarily does GC with TMT work on the side because that essentially what in house counsels do. All the best!!

There are several threads on him but I need answers to the following Qs before applying:

1. How is the work and practice?

2. How large is the team? Is the team toxic?

3. How are the 2 JP’s under him in NCR? Do they only execute or do they run their own practice under Mr. Singh’s umbrella?

4. There is a lot said about the abnormal work hours and expectation of being available in office on weekends - Any truth to it?

5. General tantrums are expected but is there anything out of the ordinary?

Simple answer, no.

There's way more nuance to it. There are different sides of the HC - you cannot have a single lawyer claim the "no 1" position blanket across. Would Sibal be a good choice for a criminal matter, for instance? Or a mat. appeal? Definitely no. Is he the "no 1" on the IP or commercial side? Debatable. Top tier, sure. But you cannot have a "number one" like that in real life.

A company cannot / should not ask for your previous salary as part of the selection process. However, they can ask for it after they have made a firm offer. The idea is to make sure that the HR does not peg your salary offer based on your last salary. It is the HR's job to estimate how much you are worth and make an offer.

I sat for his final viva voce which happened recently. He may have taken a long time to complete his thesis, but judging by the quality of the discussions and the comments by the external examiners, it seems to be a worthwhile effort. The external examiners were among the best names in the country drawn from the fields of political science, sociology and constitutional law. All of them were quite positive that the thesis should be promptly converted into a book. Sid.C, being the selfless fellow that he is, has already shared the full text on his SSRN, Academia and ResearchGate profiles. In the middle of the viva, he actually said that the point of writing the thesis was to benefit practitioners and students. It seems that he is not worried at all about his publication prospects and citation counts. He said that his purpose would be served if his writing feeds into the teaching of courses on Indian Constitutional Law. I must say that it was the first time that I was hearing him in person, and I have not seen anything like it at an Indian Law School. No wonder he is so highly rated by his former students.

Any of your peers in law firms are earning more than you, and will continue to earn more than you. You are just trying to cope by telling yourself this bullshit about learning more in the court than in a firm. You go speak with any good law firm lawyer, and they will have your pants down in a minute. Work to learn and not get paid? What kind of entitled bullshit is that?