T1: 16-20Lpa base, 3-5Lpa bonus, approx 15-20% increase in base salary and approx 25-40% increase in bonus bracket every year for the few first few years. Then the base stops growing much as a function of percentage, but the bonus grows exponentially.

T2: 10-16Lpa base, 2-4Lpa bonus - about 5% decrease in growth from T1 numbers

T3: 8-10Lpa base, 1-3Lpa bonus - much lower salary growth, but I don't have the exact numbers

Third year law student in a t2 nlu and I kinda feel lame at the fact that im so fucking lost when it comes to publications, meanwhile my batchmates have already published in reputable places like slr, irccl, nls blr etc. I kinda get intimidated by the fact that it seems a little time consuming and can stretch for a month or so if you want to fine tune it properly. I need genuine advice on how to get on with it. want to ensure that I have atleast 2-3 before entering my 4th year so that I have something good in order to secure internships w t1 and t2 law firms. really need help with this.

Just to add to this. The British have introduced a system known as "solicitor apprenticeships" for those people who want to be solicitors - i.e., the types of lawyers who mostly tend to work in law firms. This system actually involves the student working in a law firm for six years to qualify as a solicitor. However, even in this system, the student takes classes at a university, because the way the system is set up is that law firms and universities partner up to offer "solicitor apprenticeships". So even the designers of a system created for people who didn't want a typical university education, but an "earn while you learn" experience setup, felt the need to build in some academic class elements into the system. Why did they feel this way? Because they understood that, without academic learning, kids who participate in such a scheme will be no more than paper pushers.

And you want to understand what they do for barristers? In other words, those who go in for litigation careers? Just look at the criteria for any good chambers you like in E&W. The first and primary criteria they have on their pupillage adverts, whether that's through the pupillage gateway or through some other source, such as their website, is "intellectual ability". And what shows that, according to them? Marks obtained at university, further studies (e.g., LLM) for some chambers or some practice areas and references (i.e., letters of recommendation) written by the university teachers. That is why people like the Rhodes Scholar Niranjan have done so well over there. In their system, even the inns scholarship setup they have to undertake post law-degree training has this as a criteria. This is because, whatever you might call them - old-fashioned, stuck in the Victorian past, decaying or any other adjective you like to use about them - they aren't stupid. They don't allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes, they don't allow themselves into being deceived that black is white or white is black. They understand that academics is essential to being a good litigator.

India has numerous fantastic litigators, from all kinds of universities, who were excellent students. Please let us not shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to argue about stuff that is obvious. And for god's sake, let's not do something that makes our system of legal education worse than that of E&W, whatever else we may do to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Therefore, such learning is required. England and Wales is a reasonably high class regulatory setup. Not as high class as the United States, perhaps, (which, BTW, requires you to have a non-law and a law degree) but the setup which has a system that, in some respects, resembles what is being spoken of here. Therefore, to the one who dismisses university learning so easily and casually, please think about what you are saying and kindly try not to talk nonsense. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yes, that's exactly true. I have massive respect for teachers who keep reinventing themselves for students.

Internships, moots, papers help only if they secure you a job. In litigation, it matters even less- a person would be interested in getting the bail or an analysis of gender bias in lower judiciary?

I'd agree to this partially. If you are with a law firm or with a good advocate, you will learn how to use your brain by learning from your seniors. There may be subjects like International comercial arbitration or a specialized WTO law where you would want to sit, but extremely few people will be I terested in these subjects. Those who're interested can attend, those who aren't can intern.

Honestly, I see the zeal to learn in classes die down after 2-3 trimesters or semesters. After that, it's all autopilot and performing chores. This comes from watching students being extremely disinterested in their 4th year, when the faculty teaching them was one of the best in India. It teflected in their exams as well- horrible answers. If a majority isn't interested in class, why force them to attend ?

1. What you types who bring up "free speech", "entitled to his opinion" sort of arguments don't seem to realise is that those concepts mean that if someone gives an opinion which, of course, they are entitled to, regardless of whom they might be, that someone can get criticized for it in various ways. You cannot stop the criticism. You can be critical of the criticism: maybe it is wrong, maybe it is misdirected, maybe it is overblown/exagerates/blows up the remarks/comments made to something much bigger than intended, in your view. But you cannot shut down the criticism. That just isn't allowed.

2. Tell me how many of those types of students:

- Are Rhodes Scholars.

- Have done TCs at foreign law firms right out of university and gone on to achieve partnership at said firms.

- Are King's Counsel (their equivalent of the Indian 'Senior Advocate' designation) in England and Wales, despite having taken law degrees in India.

- Have been admitted to JD programmes at the likes of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, UCLA and NYU and then gone on to achieve success as U.S. lawyers.

- Are professors at the world's greatest universities.

- Have published world-beating publications (books and articles) which, if you haven't read, mean you are poorly educated, akin to the likes of Tarunabh Khaitan (in other words, how many Tarunabh Khaitans have the unis and kinds of unis you name produced?).

- What percentage of those students from those unis and kinds of unis are up to scratch, objectively?

Answer all the above, and then we can continue this conversation.

So? What's wrong with his statement, he is entitled to opinions and expressing them. As a member of the legal fraternity you should be understanding this first and foremost.

Secondly his words do carry relevance; i have seen many govt. or even pvt. college students from the likes of IILS Siliguri, OP Jindal etc. that have produced remarkable legal alumni in the last 5 years who carry significant practice areas in many different fields.
Corporate Law and firms aren't everything OP.

Academic rigor is only for freshly minted academicians. Even they stop trying once they have 5 years as an assistant professor, because now they're well settled. What he's saying is the realistic form of law. It doesn't matter what your score is, what your internships are, how many papers you wrote, how many moots you won. In the end who you work for in reality after graduating is what matters. It's all about the connections. Nothing more and nothing less. So grow a spine and just stop following what these NLUs are spweing.

Then why bother with the law degree at all? Just get people into apprenticeship after class 12. And you only speak for yourself and your classes. I have learnt a lot in the classes that I have attended as well as during my internships. Learning is not limited to only one form.

"... “... regular colleges and universities, many of which face challenges in infrastructure, faculty… and curriculum design,” the CJI added."

Instead of unnecessarily talking down a model of legal education which, in the Indian context at least, has been shown to work, why doesn't he concentrate on dealing with those problems with 'infrastructure, faculty… and curriculum design'? Why is India seemingly the only country in the world where products of failed human experiments of whatever kind get to say bullshit about successes?

JJ’s team has hands downs the smartest lawyers with the most diverse work. JR is a super sweet partner to work with but the associates are not as competent and the work is limited to crypto/data. JJ’s fintech team gets better and more diverse matters. NN has a fantastic practice and team with some really smart lawyers (with some associate level exceptions lol). Having worked on matters for all three team’s as an intern, I personally would rank the partners in the following order JJ>NN>JR purely in terms of work.

it has been restricted for a reason, ifkyk

also, I completely agree with op's statement, the names of the selection committee members should have been published, it is the basic requirement of transparency

well, the members are: a chancellor of a private uni in WB, an nlu vc and a WB state uni vc

The atmosphere at the university is full of envy as a lot of top batch rankers are yet to land a job. This is because of Jindal’s horrendously random grade inflating marking schemes. This practice creates a false picture of the batch ranks. Whereby a lot of people end up higher than more skilled students just because they were lucky enough to be marked preferably. What ends up happening is that you end up with a lot of top batch tankers who won’t be able to convert to an offer letter if they sit for an interview.

+ Jindal’s recruitment committee is total disaster. Almost all the people who have gotten PPOs have bagged them with literal zero support from the recruitment committee. And mind you that more than 50% of the offers to the BO’26 are via PPOs. This means only 10-12 offers were facilitated via the recruitment committee. This is like only 10% of the entire batch 💀

▮▮▮.

Nobody is telling why ▮▮▮ associates leave within a year? Be it with LLM from NYU or CA or NLU rankholder. Are they all dumb or something else is wrong?

Why so much EGO bro? Are you sending rockets into the space or inventing a cure for cancer? This goes out to the whole corporate legal industry, WE ARENT DOING ANYTHING WHICH MAKES A HUMAN'S LIFE BETTER.

WE ALL ARE DOING OBNOXIUSLY BORING JOBS WITH THE AIM OF JUST MAKING MONEY.

Don't need research. I know practically all their preferred counsel and have briefed / worked with few of them personally. Both of them are have very high number of litigation, so better if you say which matter are you referring to. Not even asking where he is lead counsel or argued in a batch matter. Been around this field for a fairly long time, but have never heard his name for Indirect tax. SM, yes. Have also got few of his opinions for giving second views. But never HS. DT, I know he has name. But not IDT.

I have been fortunate to work with both the Delhi and Mumbai offices during my internship and those experiences has been deeply enriching. My long-term internships with Komal Ma’am and her team allowed me to view taxation not merely as an academic subject but as a dynamic and evolving practice. The designated mentors helped me navigate my way through the journey.

The work largely revolved around tax advisory in areas such as business restructuring, fund investments, and employment taxation. From engaging discussions on complex legal propositions to informal team lunches, every interaction contributed meaningfully to my learning.

I also had the privilege of interacting with Himanshu Sir. His humility and kindness left a lasting impression on me and made the whole process of learning even more inspiring.

Title. Is this a good place to learn and earn well? What are the salary pay bands here? Also - how on earth is a designated senior advocate running a law firm? Isn’t it prohibited? Is this because nobody cares or checks such things or is the law on this not even worth the paper it’s printed on?

Honestly, for a fresher, any chamber with good volume where you are in Court (mix of District Courts and HC) at least 3-4 days a week is a good chamber; bonus points if the Chamber has a mix of civil and criminal practice.

For specific recommendations you need to clarify the branch of law you are interested in.

i think the team is great and the work is varied. like electricity, IBC, and certain ICC arbitration matters. But the problem is, you can work really well, but they don't respond to messages or fill out your feedback form. I completely fail to understand this exploitative behaviour. Not just my personal experience, heard from others as well. (even T1 college's interns share this experience)

I'm not confident of my advocate, since he doesn't argue much, as a consequence I have lost 2 cases, 1 he withdrew and other he compromised against my wishes. how can I engage an arguing counsel to represent me or should engage new advocate? I'm thinking of the former i.e. arguing counsel. People have told me I have strong proof: documentary and A/V and other party has made a lot of mistakes which I have rebutted in writing with proof.

Please guide. Any help is appreciated.

Also, what essential questions that I must ask before zeroing on a prospect candidate and how do I approach/find the candidates? should I just go to the high court and meet advocates in their chambers at random or should I first schedule an appointment? I'm an introvert and socially awkward hence the anxiety.

Thanks.

Yes practically you are right.

To go a step ahead, I even designed my resume like a visiting card so that seniors and partners could glance through it within minutes, and I sent it across to them. Unfortunately, I haven’t received much response that way. But luckily, I did secured a judicial internship at the High Court of Karnataka by reaching out with this card.

Thank you for your kind wishes.