generally, T-1 NLU grads don't struggle if they have avg grades because of their law schools. In t-2s, hiring are lesser, so the burden to be at the top is more. However, if you luck out with good internships and are good at your work, shouldn't matter much, I have seen people with terrible grades at Christ work at t-1s.

I am a mid academic student at a tier 2 law school. But I can work better than most of my batchmates. Work harder and far more productively. But if CGPA is a factor to just decide who's better then i will always stay at a disdvangtage.

Furthermore, please if seniors on LI would be able to share names of firms which look for work>grades it will be really good.

▮▮▮.

MC's post is absurd. He wants someone with at least 2 PQE at a TMT team of a T-1 based on the Legal500 rankings. There a 7 such other firms. He puts an criteria that your experience of 2 years should be of working at only one of these firms, perhaps a step to limit attrition.

Now, why would with 2 PQE at a T-1, all of which have pay north of 22-25, most of which are teams based out of Delhi and Mumbai- ▮▮▮ .

This is just to caution people ▮▮▮ Maybe don't even trust me- just go and stalk people's linkedins and you'd know what the attrition is like there. Then try asking one of those people how it was working there. You'll have your answer.

Read the latest hiring post of MC. He has been ragebaiting for a while with random hiring post asking sun and moon from a junior associate.

This creates an environment of panic for college kids thinking this is the normal course for every associate after graduation to be working for big clients at a big law firm with a big partner.

▮▮▮

You keep whining about the same thing in the comments section. One assumes that you're somehow associated with NUJS. What exactly have you done over the years to stop the government from nominating people to the EC, who in your opinion are not good enough? What can the SJA do exactly? How is it even possible for the students to decide who gets to be in the EC?

Obviously Mamata will appoint a servile ex-judge who will whitewash her government’s role. Speaks volumes that he is also on the NUJS EC and exemplified the decay of the institutions. When Menon, MP Singh and BS Chimni were heading NUJS, the ex-judges on the EC were legends: Ruma Pal, Chittatosh Mookherjee etc.

The SJA has continued to look the other way and engage in pointless culture wars.

Justice Ashim Ray will head up the committee constituted by the CM to inquire into the mess up and fix responsibility. Justice Ray has been a veteran EC member and was part of several inquiries initiated by the EC against PIB and his acolytes. He also headed up various inquiries etc during NKC tenure too. Wonder what happened to those inquiries.

SJA if you are done playing and wagging like a L...G could you please make these inquiry reports available to GB?

From what I understand, they are still allowed to give "legal advice" wrt. an issue. The legal advice would include DD and drafting, but now, as the amended 9A says and how I interpret it, the vetting of these documents needs to be done by the MB/IB, and that vetting cannot be outsourced. So now every MB engaging a counsel needs to have an ECM execution team to give a green light to the same, which was originally practised by top Indian banks like Kotak/JM/Axis, etc.

(This is my interpretation; I do not know for a fact.)

Maybe you have tried this already? But write an email to their student help desk, you can even request for a video call with one of the student volunteers working in the admissions office, or anyone at the admissions office- they are generally helpful and do respond within 2-3 working days. Hope this helps, if not there’s a helpline number (fixed line) where you can call and hopefully get some clarity.

BTW, there's no substitute to asking King's directly. I know messaging the unis through their portals can be convoluted, pretty jank and irritating, however they are the ones who wrote the offer letter, and they are the ones who can give you the best answer. Explain precisely what you have here to them and ask them directly. Regardless of what you think of what I've said in my previous comment about your grade averages, and regardless of what anyone else says, ask King's directly,. Just to be safe and to make sure.

How is this "consolidated percentage" calculated? Is it a weighted average of your grades over the years? If so, that is likely to be what they are looking for. As you are doing a five-year degree, I think your best bet (from my own experience with various UK universities) would be to assume that in their calculation, each year counts for 20% of your grade (even if that's not the case according to your uni in India). So you would want to be obtaining a 67% or above as your average every year, and that needs to include your final year (when those grades come).

##### OMG- so the Dean was totally fed up with how they were slacking on the non-academic stuff for months. The campus operation is pretty hot mess since we all moved here. It's totally neglected and needs way more investment. He's had it, for real (coming from super reliable sources super very close to him).

Exactly - I go to the District Courts there. You don't know what you are talking about if you are here just to shit on judges. This lady could very well have recused, and she has not done so in this case is a testament to her sense of duty. She lost promotions to the HC as the Supreme Court ended up asking her to hear and finish this matter.

Proving conspiracy and common object in criminal cases is hard. It doesn't matter if Pulsar Suni says he did it - he can get discredited as an unreliable witness by Dileep's defence. The shortfalls in this case began and ended with the shoddy police investigation, which remains the bane and weak link in all criminal trials all over India.

The victim's legal team rushed to the High Court 4 years ago, claiming Honey was biased. The victim has been ill-advised, and frankly, the media gaze ended up jeopardising her case. An early lesson given to me by a clerk in litigation is this - the judge is your friend, the opposite party is not. Always argue from this basis. If you feel the judge is biased - prove it in an appeal, not declare during court.

This is the reason why American courts sometimes bar and regulate media reporting of court proceedings, and we have a sub-judice rule that is applicable from when a chargesheet is filed, which is constantly flouted. In the US, there is a genuine need as the criminal justice system is required to sequester the jury - here it's one person who is under enormous scrutiny and media gaze.

The reality is that Honey would have been heralded as someone sort of feminist icon if she had sent Dileep to jail and given some exemplary punishment. Mind you, it was the government that ensured that a female judge heard the matter, which itself is bordering on interfering with the course of justice. Honey stuck to the evidence put in front of her, and the HC can remand if it feels otherwise.

Just to be clear - Do I think Dileep is guilty? Yes. Has criminal conspiracy been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Prosecution struggled, and many resigned, blaming the police, the judge, powerful people and the media. Why don't you look at the prosecutors? Court reporting in India is banal. Often paid, hysterical, reactionary and one-sided. Usually read the TNM, but they have messed up a lot lately.

Choose an area of your interest (This domain can also be your major in PhD later). Research and write research papers. If you can get it published in a scopus journal, that's even better. Do internships in NGOs, community foundations, govenment organizations, etc.
Do your LLM and then your PhD after graduating

Talk to your best credentialed and most productive professors. Also to guest faculty who are fully time academics whom you admire. LL.M., Ph.D., fellowships and teaching experience but not necessarily in that order. You need good mentors first because recommendations and good advice are everything at your stage.

No. This is at least not a requirement across the board. I am sure that a few people expect juniors to have worked in a firm for a few years but not all do. My advice to you would be to intern under the person whose chamber you want to join. Impress them during your internship and you will at least have a decent shot at getting a referral for a junior position from them, if not at joining their chamber itself.

No words…

⚖️💰🇮🇳🫡

https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/sandesara-brothers-deposit-rs-5100-cr-total-recovery-nearly-double-of-rs-5383-cr-fraud/amp_articleshow/125914809.cms

Good article summarising Tharoor's dilemma - https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/refusing-savarkar-award-exposes-shashi-tharoors-dilemma-3828706

I’m considering applying to her team, but I have heard some serious complaints from a few people within. Apparently, she has genuine anger issues and takes unnecessary personal jabs. Could you please let me know about the salary, the team culture, and whether she and Ashutosh work together or separately?

I too feel have the same issue. Been only 3 months into practice and I am not getting good at drafting, almost all the time by boss tells me that the draft were not good, while I convey everything there is.

Moderator can you pin this? Maybe some reply will really help a few of us out here.

The pay is ▮▮▮ (example 14 LPA (fixed) for someone with 5 years experience) and the work is basic commerical contracts. You'll end up reviewing POs and NDAs for most part of the day. There's hardly any employment work even though the firm claims to have 'expertise' in the subject area. ▮▮▮ The bonus is a joke and the firm will come with very novel reasons to withhold the same - such as "we like your work but there are some challenges (with no explanation of what exactly are those)". Do not fall for any variable amount that is mentioned in the contract because pretty much the whole of it will not be paid. ▮▮▮ There's no HR nor an HR policy. Leaves are completely dependent on the whims of the newly minted partner and some people who have been in the firm for a long time. Same goes for the so called work from home policy which was only applicable for the Partners and the seniors associates. ▮▮▮

1. The part about the top NLU graduates being the main part of the Indian student demographic in the good (and even mediocre) LLM programmes in Britain and the U.S. is true, though there are people from places like University of Delhi and ILS Law College as well. Indeed, the first blind person from India to get the Rhodes Scholarship (world's oldest international postgraduate scholarship to study graduate degrees at Oxford for two years) was a law graduate from Nagpur University.

2. However, (1) a UK LLM is very unlikely (chances almost zero) to get you into a U.S. law firm's U.S. practice, even if you had amazing contacts (one of the things that U.S. law firms look for from foreign lawyers), unless your amazing contacts were like really top-notch ones, preferably from both India and the UK (which would mean you'd need high levels of experience in both jurisdictions) and/or India and a third jurisdiction, and/or India, the UK and a third jurisdiction that wasn't India, the UK or the U.S. (like Singapore); and (2) a U.S. LLM, even if you were to get into one, with or without funding, is very unlikely to be the trigger that leads to a U.S. job. That market does not favour LLM graduates (not like the UK does, either). And they know enough about India by now to have formed opinions on our law schools. So if you were to go to a non-T1 NLU in India (read: not having attended NLSIU, NALSAR, NLUD or NUJS), that would be very unlikely to help your prospects either.

1. My personal suggestion: Don't move at this point. Just grit your teeth and stick it out for another up to four to five years. I know it's hard, but the chance that you'll get good fruit out of this is much higher.

2. At the same time: An anecdotal example for you to consider (from the London market). One of my best friends is a lawyer in Britain (having attended university there straight after school) who worked at a prominent Anglo-American law firm's London office for just under six years (the amount of time required under current British immigration law to go from immigrant to citizen), and then moved in-house. This individual worked in the securitisation practice of the law firm and moved to a prominent investment bank, where she has been working for under a year (it is one of the top players). The major difference between her CV and yours (unless you have omitted relevant information) is likely to be that she worked at the Mainland Europe office of a second prominent investment bank on secondment from her law firm for three months, early in her career.

It's confirmed that it was leaked. Take a look at just this video:

https://youtu.be/BuYcTUsz5X8?si=6MYwwZthsObZ4f5_

In fact, some students have already reached out to solicitors to speak to Gopal Sankaranarayanan

Fantastic person, lawyer and boss to work with. Very balanced - highly organised so you now how to pace yourself, clear about deliverables, and very considerate. She will actually look out for you and help while respectfully ensuring you work hard and learn. Trust me that's a rarity in the T1s