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?
Rule no. 2 - even if you are, don't go for M&A
Rule no. 3 - even if you are, don't be prepared well, so you could be fired
Rule no. 4 - back to rule no. 1
Rule no. 5 - in case you don't follow any of these, you'll suffer
Surely I have mailed 100 law firms/partners, followed-up and got rude replies from them. But out of 100 at least 4-5 reply positively and you only need 1 opportunity.
Grab that one and convert it into something solid. Having said that, don't overdo it, otherwise you may get yourself shadow banned from the partner/firm.
1. DO NOT, I repeat do not think of doing 5 year law at all, it will be a career suicide at your age.
2. If you consider pursuing three year llb, either go for Top colleges like NLS and SLS or consider foreign colleges, sub par three year colleges like Jindal and GLC won't get you anywehre since 3 year LLB is on much lower footing as compared to 5 year law anyway, if you do not have very good connections which can get
3. Company Secretary course will take anywhere from 3-5 years of your life from this point if you start now, excluding the mandatory traineeship, and it not even a sureity that you will clear the exam in the first go.
Real Advice -
being in the profession for 3-ish years I can safely tell you this profession is not here for stay. 5-10 years down the line, almost all work would be automated and AI will eat up most law firm and in-house jobs, therefore having a strong passion itself would not suffice for you to succeed . If you want to have a stable trajectory,either you will have to pivot in some very niche field like AI/fintech, capital markets or legal marketing, or might as well look for alternative career options like finance, tech or marketing.
I’m looking for some honest, experience-based guidance from people in the legal field.
Background:
Age:turning 21 this year
Degree: BA Programme (Economics)
Graduation: 2027
I do have strong interest in law, especially corporate law
I’m considering preparing for CLAT 2026 to target Top 5 NLUs only
My dilemma is that I’m debating between
attempting a 5 yr LLB from a Top 5 NLU (joining at 22, graduating at 27), vs
not pursuing law at all and choosing a different path like company secretary
I cant go for mba because my profile overall is really cooked
He termed this as a knee jerk choice by Mamata, because Menaka hasn’t really been very successful defending the TMC. She has lost in the Cal HC, SC etc repeatedly.
He doesn’t say it openly, but there is a veiled insinuation that Menaka’s outburst against Raju and the virality of the video was not as spontaneous as it looked.
Your solution for ending reservation like they're an oppressive regime is to fundamentally change our society to a point where we'd exceed any civilization to have ever exceeded but then you just stop that logic at the first step by saying
"Financial need based reservation" but on the other hand you wanna hold every right wing belief known to man too, to reach income based reservation we'd have to shed ourselves of any right wing beliefs and essentially become China, that's a fair sacrifice, you can't lick your honey too
So now, tell me my dear learned friend would you like advocating for full on communism? Well you have already done that anyways
On a side note I once came across this post on reddit(like 2 months ago) where a guy posted a photo of a girl absolutely failed by the society, begging, disabled, malnourished, no hope, staring into the cold night sky alone.
He captioned "these are the people that should get reservation"
if that's the first thing that comes to your mind after seeing someone like that instead of a speck of empathy and you even feel like posting that thought then even God himself can't pull you out of this neoliberal propaganda
As regards reservations just on the basis of gender and economic grounds, are you sure the entitled class will not cry wolf again with an indulgent judiciary ever willing to step in to do complete (mockery of) justice?
We need reservation purely on the basis of gender and economic status — nothing eise. Give seats to poor women. That’ll uplift India.
No comparison with NLSIU
Is the 35 hour period strictly followed or you guys also slog like other lawyers working in office?
Separately, a section of the Rajbanshis in North Bengal are shifting to Greens.
Is the Joker really serious or just rhetoric? Anyway we are the captive audience of this circus. So we are f*****d anyway
I agree that no one should expect undergraduates to move from classroom essays straight to publishing in journals like the International Journal of Constitutional Law. Serious constitutional scholarship is cumulative and iterative. The developmental cycle you outline, essays, research proposals, longer projects, workshops, and refinement, is both realistic and desirable.
Where I would still slightly differ is on what the anxiety originally was about. The concern was not that students must immediately produce a peer-review-ready scholarship. It was whether constitutional engagement meaningfully survives beyond examinations, whether it becomes part of a law school’s lived intellectual culture.
You rightly highlight faculty research seminars as important spaces. I completely agree. But institutional culture is not only about formal permission; it is about active invitation and normalisation. If undergraduates are not explicitly encouraged into those spaces, many will assume they are not meant to inhabit them.
There is also another dimension to this that we should not ignore: student initiative. Many law schools today have societies, clubs, and faculty-led centres dedicated to constitutional law and public policy. The question is not merely whether these exist, but whether students are willing to take ownership of them. Institutional scaffolding matters, but so does student appetite.
For instance, at NLU Delhi, I have recently seen on social media that certain student groups are actively attempting to create a culture of public law discussion, organising talks, engaging with students' writing, and sustaining conversations outside the classroom. These may not yet resemble Humboldtian research ecosystems, but they are attempts at cultural formation. That, in itself, suggests that constitutional engagement is not entirely retreating, while it may simply be uneven and evolving.
On H. M. Seervai: I agree he likely succeeded more because of individual discipline than institutional perfection. But if excellence depends solely on rare individual drive, then constitutional culture remains fragile. The real question is whether institutions and students together can lower the threshold of entry into serious engagement without lowering intellectual standards.
And perhaps that is where we converge:
Rigour must remain non-negotiable. But access to the process of becoming rigorous must not be restricted to the already-formed scholar.
If institutions create spaces and students choose to inhabit them seriously, constitutional discourse does not retreat, but it matures.
1. Silence is not being demanded.
2. Obviously, engagement is developmental. As I mentioned, students should try writing blogs and things like that. But the way the original question seems to have been framed is as if students are somehow expected to produce the kind of scholarship that can pass peer-review process that happens for an established constitutional journal like ICON, and as if there is some magic way for institutions to get them to do that. I don't think that is possible. The way I see developmental engagement is:
- First, get students to write essays in response to the prompts of others - classroom work.
- Encourage them to then think about gaps in the literature, etc. Come up with a research proposal for a project - the project to be 5000 to maybe 12500 words.
- Write up that proposal into the actual project. At some stage, maybe write up some smaller argument within the project as a blog to see how it is received. Or even do a very small version of the project as a blog and see how that is received.
- Workshop the project with faculty, fellow researchers, etc, to make it publishable quality.
- Repeat cycle (with slight variations, if necessary) for larger-scale projects.
My understanding of the question's wording may have been wrong, but it seemed like the OP wasn't fully appreciating exactly how much hard work would be required for this - it seemed as though they were skipping from step 1 to step 5.
3. The fact that there is one important thing I forgot to include - an institutional question - that may have also caused the impression to take hold in your mind that I am demanding silence until the scholar is a finished product. One of the things that I have experienced at my university is a culture where events known as faculty research seminars take place a few times a term. This is where a member of the faculty presents a project she is currently working on and is questioned by the fellow attendees of the seminar afterwards - postgraduate students and faculty, who ask questions, provide suggestions, etc. My question is, how many universities have such a culture? And even among the universities that do have such a culture, are undergraduate students allowed to attend such events? My university's policies on this are ambiguous: while they don't prohibit undergraduate students from attending the faculty research seminars, it is certainly not something that is advertised to them or that they are encouraged to attend. Why am I emphasizing so much on UG student attendance at such events? The logic is simple. Undergraduate students may often feel like hesitating a bit before engaging with new ideas in legal scholarship - on the basis that the scholar is so much more qualified than them etc, so will have thought about the objections to the arguments that somebody might come up with. If the faculty research seminar norms are like those at my university, where attendees are expected to have read the material the project author will have given to the seminar chair for circulation (usually an abstract and often a paper draft), and would be considered as exceptions if they didn't ask questions, with the difference that undergraduates are expressly welcomed (as long as they are ready to engage), then why? Where are undergraduates being silenced? If anything, they are being supported to thrive!
4. I think people like HM Seervai tended to succeed more despite their institutions, than because of them. Seervai's accomplishments are far more credit to him than to his university. But the vast majority of people aren't going to be becoming great constitutional law scholars in universities that aren't Humboldtian in character. And as for my use of the word "bilge", students need to produce that before producing other stuff - it's a natural step on the progression ladder to great scholarship.
TLDR: Very sadly, I must concur that the NLU regime has failed the legal system and become a chicken coop for law firms. I see so many posts here just decrying for a slavery job (not blaming the people but rather the fostered circumstances) and it is very sad how few public prosecution/policy discussions go about as legitimate options.
I am from a lower tier nlu going to intern with Indus' Disputes Team. Can anyone shed some light on their hiring prospects in Disputes Team for Delhi Office and their internship pattern (callback & assesment)
Cheers.