I admire your idealism — it has a certain vintage charm — but the reality is rather more prosaic. India has produced a surplus of lawyers vastly disproportionate to the number of litigants who can afford litigation. When the profession outnumbers its market, the consequences are inevitable and rarely edifying.

Those without pedigree or patronage discover quickly that Supreme Court litigation is not a career path but a stress test. Brilliance is helpful but scarce; luck even more so. The genuinely intelligent do the sensible thing and leave for corporate practice.

As for the younger Senior Advocates: yes, their filing practices are unbecoming of the designation. But clients reserve premium fees for seniors alone. If one is not designated by the late thirties — and is not already a Shardul, Pravin, or Karanjawala — the market marks one as permanently “non-premium.” Early designations and discreet filing practices are the predictable result.

This is not decline; it is adaptation. The solicitor–counsel divide is collapsing everywhere, including Bombay, and the incoming generation of AoRs is considerably more competent than your nostalgia allows.

Which brings us to your proposal: abolishing the Senior Advocate designation. Admirable in sentiment, catastrophic in consequence. Remove the only substantial financial incentive in litigation, and the Bar will empty faster than a Delhi courtroom at 4:58 PM on a Friday!

There’s a development unfolding within the practice of advocacy that is not merely concerning — it is profoundly unsettling. We are witnessing the rise of an entire category of lawyers whose principal role is not advocacy, not legal strategy, not even substantive engagement with the case, but simply to act as glorified couriers for filings and briefings headed to Supreme Court Senior Counsel. To imagine this as a harmless administrative evolution would be a grave mistake. It is, in fact, a system that has been carefully constructed — and carefully maintained.

What should trouble any serious observer of the profession is this: these firms function because senior counsel — yes, the seniors themselves — are feeding them the work. For anyone outside this comfortable little ecosystem, let’s be absolutely clear. This is a complete inversion of how the system was designed. The client never belonged to the senior. The senior was meant to be briefed, not to orchestrate the flow of briefs.

Then there is the matter of fees — astronomical in many cases — and the perpetual “unavailability.” These obstacles exist primarily for those who stand outside the charmed circle. But route your matter through one of the favoured firms and suddenly the senior is available, the conversation changes, and the fee structure becomes remarkably flexible. It is, frankly, astonishing how openly and effortlessly this cartel operates.

Which leads to a question we have been far too hesitant to confront: has the time come to reconsider — perhaps even dismantle — the entire edifice of Senior Advocates and AoRs? The oft-cited claim that AoRs provide some form of meaningful filtration is, to put it politely, implausible. Everyone within the profession knows it. What remains today is a structure that is conceptually outdated and practically repurposed to restrict access to Supreme Court work.

And here we must also address the hypocrisy. A number of younger designated seniors — including the NLS and NLU pedigrees who present themselves as the torchbearers of professional ethics — are, in reality, running what are effectively law firms. They draft. They file. They brief other seniors. They do precisely what the rules say they should not — all while maintaining a veneer of sanctimony about the honour of the designation. Even some of the “stars” so frequently lauded on this very platform are immersed in this charade.

Perhaps the time has come to speak about this openly — and honestly.

Let’s discuss this.

I am a recipient of such anti social behaviour during my days in NLSIU. These people need an excuse to release their suppressed anger towards society over anyone whom they can relate and easily make an example of. It didn't matter whether it is right or wrong. It also doesn't matter whether there is any shred of proof or not. All they care is for the end result to meet their expectations. Because the irony is if you turn out to be someone else, these elements of NLSIU will become all the more angrier of being wrong and then punish you for it by their behaviour for not being that person which they thought you to be. They will act as a unit against you without caring for your point of view and reasons. I have to painfully mention that even the professors and academic institutions were in on it. They even attempted to make me feel that I am delusional and imagining things. And if you say anything they have a ready made story of calling you mentally weak and in need of therapy. It is their go to story and first line of defence because they know they have wide array of discretion and can mold any story according to their whims. But when I see some people have also faced such acts, I just want to let you know it is not just academic rigour or failure of people to keep up but something dark elements of psychology at play to ruin your career by ruining your grades by ruining your social circle. Please take it from me it is very easy for them to give you a bad grades and simply states that he was also doing poorly and used it as a corroborative evidence later. These people have no respect even to their tagline how can you except to respect each other.

IIM A and IIM shillong have a separate shortlist for interviews for those who come from humanities streams/ social sciences streams. I secured an interview call from both with a CAT score of 94 percentile. Different story that they butchered me with on your feet quant heavy questions (even involving graphs) in the interview.

palash is the best. He's so good to work with. Never shouts on juniors. Team members have amazing work life balance. They never open their laptops after going home or over the weekend. He makes sure they are learning by giving constant feedback without shouting at them. He especially takes care of the senior associate and a0.

Siddharth Agarwal, Arjun Harkauli, Dayan Krishnan, Trideep Pais, Samar Bansal, Jayant Mehta, Diya Kapur, and Shyel Trehan.

Among the non-designated counsels, I’d pick Aman Ahluwalia, Arjun Harkauli, Debesh Panda, Samiksha Godiyal, Tanmaya Mehta and Satyajit Sarna.

One of them will almost certainly take you on—especially if you’re from a Tier-1 law school and not a T1 reject. If you are a T1 reject, avoid this cohort altogether. They’re deeply embedded in the T1 ecosystem; they’ll know you didn’t make the cut, and they’ll assume you don’t have it in you.

I would generally agree with this, but I think it would be unfair to provide a harsh assessment of the behaviour of OP's friends without knowing their socio-economic condition. Some people truly do need a job more than other people and perhaps it is justified to withhold information like email IDs to better one's chances of getting a job. It also isn't as if they are the only ones who have access to that information.

This GenZ exceptionalism narrative is blood-boiling nonsense. "Feeling so old"? You're 23. And worrying about Gen Alpha replacing you is literally what every aging generation does. "Will the kids after us be as good as us?" It's the oldest story in the book.

Back in 2021, sociologists sent a letter to Pew Research Center saying to stop using these generational labels. Imagine the gravity when a field like sociology comes out and says this is crap. GenZ, Millennials, this is all just a marketing gimmick, nothing else. These labels were primarily made for white American middle class. Even in that case it was flawed, but using it in India is plain stupid. Imagine saying people born between 1997 and 2012 share similar qualities. It's such a stupid statement. We completely ignore their culture, parents' income, and environment, and give them this blanket label.

"Most transformational generation"? "Broke regressive standards"? "Culture of inclusion"? Let's talk about reality. Go to any NLU and introduce yourself with just your first name without your surname. Watch how quickly people get aggressive asking for your surname. Casteism is still very much alive, just implicit now. We haven't broken anything. The same hierarchies exist, just with better PR.

Indian legal education is still the same except a few universities. Being a student at one of the good NLUs, I can tell you the quality of education is still crap. You're still dependent on the professor. Try telling them what they're teaching is wrong, and they'll tell you to go and complain to the VC and get them removed. Where's the transformation in that?

Every generation thinks they invented critical thinking and social justice. The batch before you thought the same thing. You didn't invent questioning the curriculum. Law students have always debated and challenged their professors. Calling it "epistemological and ontological assumptions" doesn't make it special, it makes it pretentious.

We are not special. Calling ourselves "digital natives" because we use Instagram and X doesn't mean anything.

Had you applied critical thinking, you wouldn't have written this post in the first place.

I'm 19 years old, to GenZ.

I am a tier 2 NLU grad. Currently working in as a state govt employee in maharashtra on a Class 2 post. Posted in a tier 2 town in maharashtra. My dept. is moderately corrupt but with v.high risk and as i dont engage in such stuff face a few problems ( minor not huge ) , but have GOOD power here. Got a couple of friends working in Sebi. One of them suggested I give Sebi generalist ( i had given previously also couldn't clear then joined state service ), his main argument is MORE POWER AND CONTACTS HERE. Another friend says no and says now corruption has infested Sebi and toxic seniors worse than my current dept.

Would really appreciate your advice guys . Thanx.

I understand your confidence in Indus, but there are a few things to consider. First, comparing pay across different practices is tricky, as compensation often depends on practice area and seniority. While Indus may seem competitive, it hasn't revised pay in a while, unlike other firms like AZB and JSA. JSA’s bill-sharing system allows associates to earn more, even if their base salary seems lower. Regarding work-life balance, while it may appear Indus offers a better environment, I’ve heard complaints about specific seniors making juniors’ lives miserable, leading to attrition. The Vietnam retreat feels like a distraction when basic perks like pay revisions and snacks are cut due to cost-saving measures. As for attrition, it’s not just partners moving laterally, many associates are leaving due to poor conditions. It’s not about being “delusional,” but about seeking a fair balance of compensation, respect, and a healthier work environment.

One of my senior while assigning me some research work. Please make this note like how a first year associate would make by 8 in the morning. This while assigning me work at 6 last evening which including going through endless amounts of pages and deep-reading them. Both the timeline and the fact this task was assigned me during my internship, where I did not even know what does " draft like a associate means". It was extremely absurd.

study proves that silent quitters are psychopaths

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825011734

picked up by dailymail, i know the link does not work in India but still here it is for tldr https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-15342107/quiet-quitter-PSYCHOPATH-scientists-study.html

trust me, I got an internship in a pretty well known firm in Pune, and I faced some real unreasonable and morally degenerated behaviour from a lady associate and confronted her for the same- She apologised as it was not work related frustration but her personal. Also the partner has some next level liking for the female interns, he also somewhat showed a pretty rude attitude towards me. And after working for 10 days I left the firm. No reasoning, No regrets- never accept such behaviour and always confront- Change comes with you

How is it trollish to query why the SJA has not shown interest in uncovering how much the univ spent on litigation during NKC regime, including certain specific matters?

Also why is it trollish to debate whether NKC actually paid AMS, MD etc from his pocket or was it covered by univ or the state govt?

Except GPT4 showed everyone that fine-tuning is dead, and I can guarantee that none of these services are providing a custom model.

All modern AI applications are built on APIs that call the same general use models, and provide some supplementary information in the context of these models. Jurisphere/Lucio do not have their own "specifically trained in Indian legal data" models, they just provide this information to the same Gemini/GPT/Claude models you can use through the API. There is no moat whatsoever.

Need practical advice as to how one - who worked in law firms - can get out of the hustle and start their own chamber.

I don’t even have a clue on how to get freelancing drafting work or work for the new chamber I establish - inside my house.

How do you market - how do you get your own clients!

Help!

Please name your law school as well.

- Eric Hobsbawm

- EP Thompson

- RC Majumdar

- Jadunath Sarkar

- Romila Thapar

- Irfan Habib

- Satish Chandra

- Bipan Chandra

- Partha Chatterjee

- Ranajit Guha

- DN Jha

- Others (please specify)