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?
Joke is on the leadership for being delusional as always, having all wrong kind of advisors !
When you don’t learn, life will keep teaching you till you learn !
what will azb do with this influx of infra partners
Having to read what is just dressed up victimhood when what fuels this is just simple craven ambition with zero accountability when in power - gives most of us a headache. Just another poor excuse of an argument.
Listen - we noticed how how you systematically pushed the conversation towards women's discrimination in a thread that began with women engaging in questionable conduct. Its a classic but its sure getting old.
Your response has been nothing short of cover up and another ignonimous look away. Most of us are tired of this uninteligent shtick. Too bad it barely works and glad some women here called it out.
You should be politician, but then I guess you probably are where you stand right now.
If you really believe women and men should be held to the same standard in a society such as ours which is deeply patriarchal and continues to be extraordinarily discriminatory towards women, you have merely confirmed yourself as yet another misogynist, insecure, failure of a man. Perhaps this is the problem with your generation. Also explains why women find many of your ilk completely insufferable. Which is why they gravitate towards older men. If you do not understand such basics, you are already beyond the point of redemption. Continue barking up the ridiculous tree of equality and continue being a woman hating failure.
All I'm saying is, if you are someone affected by working under younger people in-charge (nothing wrong with it) or have issues with putting in the long-hours due to your age, you will not get hired. Not because of anything else, but simply because you are not compatible with a law firm life anymore. If you are willing to work regardless and are okay with working under those junior to you, I'd say no harm in trying. You may not make partner, but even with the advent of AI, law firms remain in need of work horses.
You sound like someone who has made up their mind and is only looking for reassurance to validate the said choice. So based on my experience, I'd suggest that you should go for it, since at present you sound quite stuck. Its up to you to decide if you're okay with making this choice or remaining where you are.
Also, at the risk of repeating what others have already said, your background in economics and political science won't do much for you if a career at a law firm is what you're looking for. Law firm work, at least on the transactions side, is largely about due diligence, legal research, and drafting, in that order. So the only way to learn these skills is to intern, since even law schools rarely teach these skills well. Hope it works out for you!
Another comment here accurately describes hurdles from a partnership PoV but that assumes people think that far into the future - which no one does when hiring a fresher. The other thing that’s relevant is that a 34 year old has lived live a fair bit and will be presumed to not put up with the garbage behaviour many partners engage in. Young adults who’ve never made money before are much likely to put up with that kind of behaviour.
Additionally, while most law firm partners lack emotional awareness, they also will know that hiring you will be a recipe for friction that will likely be unavoidable - a 27 / 28 / 29 year old SA or PA will direct your life more than you can think right now. Call you at 10 or 11 PM asking for a draft by noon the next day. No matter how much one denies it, egos will come into play when you work the hours law firms do.
I won’t bring up the reductions in hiring due to perceived efficiencies from AI - and yes, they have begun no matter what people tell you. Legora and Harvey aren’t cheap. The money has to come from somewhere.
All of these factors can only be overridden or dispensed away if you get a good partner who is open to unconventional thinking about how lives are lived - and law firm partners like that are exceedingly rare. So, this comes down to the question - are you willing to spend 3 years going you law school when your only chance of success will require immense luck, in this context.
Also, your diplomas and understanding of economic theory will not help your cause. Law firms don’t care about that stuff, much. I’m sorry if my phrasing is a bit blunt. This is not to discourage you or downplay your achievements, knowledge and lived experiences - which I am sure will be more rich and will have helped build more character that most law firm ghouls have. This is an honest opinion of someone who is over 30, and has experienced multiple firms including having a say in hiring exercises.
This past month, the admin has decided that the best way for a uni to represent in a moot is to have the minimum number of members. Under the guise of reimbursement, they have decided that any moot, national or international, would have the least number of members required. You will soon see HNLU at Vis with three people because, well that's the golden number to moot successfully.
All of this so that they don't have to reimburse the entire team. Now, reimbursement has always been for 3 members only, no matter what moot. However, now to "protect the uni's image", instead of - I dont know- supporting students in their endeavours, they will send the exact number of people they will reimburse.
What this clearly and embarrassingly depicts is the lack of awareness and knowledge of this administration. While everything is money, sometimes it feels like most of this has to come out of their individual pockets. What is more embarrassing is that HNLU boasts of receiving Rs.100 lakhs every year solely for moots and conferences.
Where is this money going? We will never know.
But what we do know is happening, in a campus where basic amenities are often ignored, is the inauguration of the "Inner Circle", a faculty only area. A circle whose outer circles keep getting renovated and inaugurated.
Moreover, HNLU - State as per Article 12 - has suddenly found the urge to look into the attendance schematics of students I. e. 2 days before the end semester examinations. While the DHC judgement on attendance stays, what is the HNLU's creative solution to disturb students, you may ask? Fill undertakings where you waive your rights away. You have to note down your reason and sign that it would be a conditional permission and that you can never claim equity, right, or relief. All of this two days before the exams actually start.
We haven't received our admit cards for the exams, but have been notified about all the changes at a point where our hands are tied.
Now I wish this is where things ended, but students have also been honoured with proctorial proceedings for having a plate from the mess, calling the ambulance, and many more😌
Further, our hostel wardens have also made it their mission to visit us at 3 AM in our rooms and break windows if we do not wake up to them knocking. Our dear Registrar has also highlighted that wardens do not have to apologise for breaking windows of students rooms.
Seems like Administration has a clear plan towards how this esteemed educational institution will function.
Rules are just being made out of nowhere. No explanation, no logic, nothing.
On one hand, they’ve capped the number of people who can be part of any national or international moot at 3. This very clearly shows they have no idea how mooting works at all. They have also asked students not to seek sponsorship from outside for moots.
On the other hand, they are busy inaugurating things: new research centres, new faculty chambers, a café inside the academic block called Inner Circle, and extra seating called Outer Circle, again inside the academic block.
All of this, when the WiFi does not work.
At the same time, there has been a sudden increase in surveillance and restrictions on students.
The library, which is the only place with proper AC, shuts at 11:30 pm. Even during exams, we cannot access it beyond that. This is a residential campus. And then people are getting emails asking them to justify and pay fines for entering their own hostel late at night. Not the campus, the hostel, while already being inside the campus.
Why is all of this happening? Mind you, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Please feel free to elaborate on what else has been going on.
How is the administration getting this much discretion?
Can someone please explain?
I completed the 1st test and now, am moving towards the second assessment. Can you tell me what practice areas should I choose ? And how to proceed with the assessment?
I am expecting a job offer from a boutique firm with offices in Delhi & Mumbai called Curiam Legal.
I would appreciate if I can get some advice whether I should accept the same or not. Also, please feel free to add to the pros and cons list below. It would really help me decide.
Pros:
1. Decent paycheck for a 2 year old firm with 7-10 employees.
2. Partners and most associates are from tier 1 colleges.
3. Has a decent mix of work.
The bad:
1. They penalise mistakes in the form of deductions from salary. From what I have heard or read, salary is deducted for arriving late to the office, making typos etc.
2. Most of the work is insurance related advisory, and thereby, mundane (at least to me!).
3. Disputes work is exceptionally limited.
4. Exceptionally high attrition rate does not augur well for the reputation that they already have.
5. ▮▮▮
P.S.: Most of the information has been gathered through various threads on legallyindia.com
Both these tribunals are, in their functioning, a poor reflection of the Modi Sarkar. Spend a week in these forums and one quickly realises that the Companies Act and its accompanying rules are effectively toothless, rarely—if ever—invoked with meaningful consequence against fraud and corporate malfeasance. Relegating corporate disputes to these forums amounts, in effect, to granting bad actors a free pass to run companies in whatever manner they deem fit, with little fear of consequence.
And now the NLUs have become a place to perish. Let's not get there. This is not a trivial matter.
https://theleaflet.in/leaflet-reports/they-have-not-come-here-to-die-an-epidemic-of-student-suicides-plagues-indias-national-law-universities
Regulatory sector only ask for your LLB degree. Masters is only listed as preferred everywhere. I mean it might give you an advantage in your interview if you did your LLM from a reputed university but it's not a big enough factor.
IMO - the graduating batches from JGLS have a bit of an uphill task ahead of them to shake their alumi's sterotypes. Again - my sample size is not very large and I am speaking from the experience of a small circle of T1 PAs in Bangalore. May be the comments section will validate my experience or help me think otherwise!
- Was the academic pressure as high as today, or was it less?
- Was the crowd in your law school more elite than today, given that there was less reservation and most students were from big cities (unlike today)?
- What was the dating and hookup scene like?
- Were mental health problems as commonplace as today?
- Was there less inclusivity of LGBTQIA++ people?
- How did you do research and write projects with primitive internet and no AI tools?
- How did you have fun on campus?
Also, while this assessment internship is ongoing, would appreciate any pointers on specific partners / teams (city-wise) at Tier 1 firms who are currently hiring, or may be open to hiring for privacy, AI compliance, or allied work.
Your candid inputs, ballpark figures / recent experiences would help a lot.