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?
and if you are 3rd year or above (which ofc you are) do not mention to people at tier 1 that you are doing a national moot. It shows either a hobby endeavor or inability to secure a better moot.
The faculty continues to be great.
As far as the VC is concerned, he is not involved in the day to day administration of the college, he does not know about what his students are doing and how they are learning/living etc. He is told about this from the administration who honestly are small people high on whatever little power they have been given.
1. Have you ever been taught to read? If you were self-taught, my sympathies.
(a) Look at the language: is it saying he "should leave the country", or anything like that? Of course not! It's just saying that his coming back and doing what he has done was pointless. It hasn't even properly satisfied the ideals he himself says he had.
(b) Not all educators of his kind of background are deserving of this hostile reception. Take Sudhir Krishnaswamy (the NLS VC), for example - a Rhodes Scholar (Oxford BCL) and an Oxford DPhil. Other than trolls, can you see anyone saying that his choice not to work overseas didn't make a difference?? Do you know why that is? That's because where Raj is superficial and engages in box-ticking exercises, Krishnaswamy actually isn't a hipocrit and tells (and does) it like it is. Raj was the moderator for a conference of sorts of NLU VCs during the COVID pandemic. He asked a question about how to deal with issues of internet access being a barrier to learning for law students during the pandemic. Big gesture, the hugely rich elite guy giving a nod to the existence of the great unwashed. At least Krishnaswamy had the grace to admit that the demographic of students NLSIU at that time was dealing with wasn't the sort for whom such a problem arose. He said, very clearly, that if it arose and should NLSIU need to fund it, they'd fund it.
2. The point of LI is that people exchange ideas. Therefore, calling me an "idiot nobody" helps nobody, least of all yourself. Remember my mentioning of how you missed the point entirely? What if I were to call you an "idiot nobody?".
3. Finally, your "successful educationist" point. If he were to have been so successful, then why isn't Jindal a choice for a wider range of people, even among the elite? Note my point about academically strong students from privileged backgrounds still wishing for abroad for their undergrad degrees. Why is that the case? Why is Jindal the choice, largely, after all worthwhile options have failed? And why is it that I have personally observed students from such backgrounds with academic promise getting out of Jindal to go abroad (i.e., not graduating and going for an LLM but leaving the undergraduate law programme, successfully applying for admission to a UK or Australian law degree and going to do that instead)? Of all things, you, as a pro-Raj person, should feel deeply ashamed that students from rich backgrounds with anything more than half a brain prefer overseas options over his uni.
4. Raj is a public figure and an occupational hazard of this status is that his life choices, his motives and his actions are the subject of greater scrutiny and greater public comment. Where I grant you are right is that the moderators' application of this principle has been patchy, at best. The law firm partners and advocates are also public figures (in that they have an overarching duty to maintain public confidence in the justice system). Therefore, suppressing most criticism of them isn't right.
And if you think about Raj's lifestyle, it isn't anything unique compared to, let us say, VCs of some of the big name universities overseas. Take Larry Kramer and Minouche Shafik, for example (current and former VCs of LSE). Their lifestyles and connections etc were equally flashy. Raj has just introduced that concept of academic-getting-it-rich by climbing to management status in India (or at least, taken it to another level). Again, the same story: taking the dubious/bad things of the west (and, by forcing that on us, diluting the good of India) for personal convenience, and casually disregarding the good stuff of them completely (actual rigour in research, appointing faculty who can properly teach and are duely qualified, etc). If he really wanted to make Jindal a "global" university worth the name, what he'd have taken from overseas was their system of treating PhD degree (rather than LLM) as the primary entry gateway into academic jobs, rather than VCs striking it rich.
https://thebeaverlse.co.uk/lses-president-and-vice-chancellor-salary-and-expenditure-revealed/
Once you step in court you may feel that you will win and argue good matter but in initial years you will just come to the point that a small panel may be given, you will take small clients so that you keep food on the table
Thank you.
With all of my heart.
All that you've said, about earnings, work conditions, survival, growth, and all that lies in between, in litigation or corp, NEEDED to be said out loud.
I am a litigator. Per my peers and seniors, not a bad one, in fact, I have earned a few verbal accolades from judges and seniors on a few ocassions. I, however, am a litigator. Not by choice or anything like that; I am bereft of the liberty/ privilege to join corp, being a regular university law college graduate.
I am, like so many of my peers, too junior to matter on most days. Even to the judges/ seniors who might have said a few good words about those like me, just a few serial numbers ago. (Yes, that is a bit weird of a unit for time, but eh, not all of us measure time in billable hours.) Yes, undoubtedly this phase also exists in a corporate lawyer's initial years, I guess, but the amount credited to your bank account is worth it. I sincerely so hope.
Like a good chunk of the population, I am not a person high on lofty ideals. I work to earn a living for myself.
However, as you rightly pointed out, it is more often than not, only nepo babies who whimper on and on about the supposed 'clerical' corporate work. No, not all of them, before anyone says so. A good deal of them are mindful of their privilege, and do put in the hardwork. These aren't mutually exclusive components.
For those belonging to my category (working for livelihood, no real attachment), we begrudgingly stagger along in these dismal conditions. Again, we are unhappy because the fuel which keeps the truly dedicated, or talented folks running, whether it be the fact that they have that optimistic approach, or if it is the sense of the deep responsibility in realising that we litigators are the only ones between the client and an unfavourable outcome- a sense of justice or whatever, is lacking in us. May be, it was all burnt down, depleted, or what nots.
This pitting of professionals in a gladiator-esque fashion has to stop. Let people live with their choices (or the absence thereof) in peace.
Coming back to the original question on this thread, all I can say is, my friend, you can choose to step back, retire once having made enough money. If you as a person, love life and believe it has something to offer to you, please consider squeezing out time to take care of your health and well-being.
Godspeed✌️
Saying that someone charges ₹20 lakh a hearing proves nothing about the profession at large. By the same logic, should we say that since Mukesh Ambani makes billions, every businessman will too? It’s a fallacy of extrapolating from the top outliers.
Law firm partners, even if not in the top 0.1% of lawyers in India, have a more predictable, transparent growth trajectory as opposed to a covert career growth of a non-nepo litigation lawyer. At the equity partner level in M&A/GenCorp practice, ₹3–4 crore per annum is very realistic (and at the upper end, 8–10 crore+ in top firms). That’s more than 99% of litigators will ever make, even after decades.
In litigation, nepotism is structural as you inherit chambers, clients, and networks. In law firms, nepotism exists but is far weaker: most entry-level associates and laterals are recruited through exams, internships, and merit filters. That makes the playing field significantly more level.
I'm getting it because i have lots of PDF to read and I don't wanna carry books everywhere. I'll be reading, highlighing and mostly using notion and youtube
which one of them should i go with ?
The work environment in my team is okay to fine, but the upper management got their set of idiosyncrasies, which is why no associate wants to stay in the long run. Of course, pay is another issue.
Now I don't know what to do. Seems foolish to leave a PPO from a tier one firm. Neither can I actually try working with him, because...you know..PPO and what not.
My parents will be able to support me, I have my own place near the guy's practice. I need some guidance.
30 after that
▮▮▮, ▮▮▮, ▮▮▮
I have an opportunity with a tier 2 legacy firm in banking and finance.
However im more interested in media and entertainment.
B&F will be easier to get into than completely shifting practise areas and shifting to a TMT (will most likely have to do a course for this pivot).
Please advice keeping long term in mind which practise area should i focus on and firms I should keep in mind
Also interesting to see a non-law student becoming DUSU president. Rare sight.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/who-is-aryan-maan-the-hansraj-graduate-and-abvp-elected-dusu-president-2025/amp_articleshow/123994789.cms
Partners here bill on plain rates and not hourly basis. Hence more work hours = more billing. You don't need to maintain a time sheet but you need to work almost everyday to achieve the target
To qualify, applicants must make a $1 million “gift" to the US as part of their commitment to contributing significant value to the country. This program is intended for elite individuals, such as investors, entrepreneurs, and global influencers, who bring measurable benefit to the US economy or society.
https://www.news18.com/world/trump-gold-card-is-here-know-application-fees-eligibility-and-how-to-apply-aa-ws-l-9584563.html
Don’t be stupid to pay high fees at bad places.
Go to DU, BHU or govt law colleges if you seek free or low cost decent education.
▮▮▮;
Heavy biasness is present in selection of students for committees;
Little to no exposure to practical workings;
Zero support in internships;
Campus is small af for parking.
Also a big warning to Modi to enact second-generation reforms and restart privatisation asap. The GST cuts are hardly a reform: just undoing a stupid bureaucratic decision, that’s all.
P nagesh ji is a gentleman. Mentor and humble figure, every effective in nclt, delhi.
Young ones list, I have seen them regularly in nclat whenever I visit delhi but all of them might have lot of work there but they are not proper counsels like Nausher or Rishab or Shaunak in mumbai or kolkata. Most of them do filing work also.
Check your uni website and the examination rules.
They are good enough to sustain the entire firm.