This is not right. The partners were not happy with their work and therefore as part of routine clean up, they were asked to leave. Apparently the partners in this team are very just and operate based only on merits of the person. At the time of hiring a person it is difficult to ascertain the quality of associate, however after hiring as soon as they realise the potential of any associate (mainly lack thereof), they ask the associate to leave especially because it is not easy to train associates in a high volume 16 hrs a day 7 day week job.

Ive been in commercial litigation in 2.5 years (1st gen) and want to shift out. Its been very difficult to make ends meet along with the crazy timings.

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

The right has near-zero support in NLUs, I guess? A hypothetical NLU student election would likely be a tussle between the centre-left (NSUI), Left (SFI) and far-left (AISA) — correct?

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

The Trump Gold Card is a new premium immigration visa designed for individuals who can demonstrate a substantial benefit to the US. Unlike the traditional Green Card, which involves a longer and more complex path to residency, the Gold Card offers a fast-tracked route to US residency.

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

This chain must be deleted. Don’t make LI a place to defame and dishonour people. Who’s reviewing Prof Raj Kumar? Kids in law school? He’s Oxford and Harvard alum, Rhodes scholar, built a university from the scratch, convinced an industrialist to pay thousand crores..do you think any of that easy?

Well, an alternative lifestyle he envisioned for himself would have been equally flashy: in the same interview, he mentioned how, as a backup, he obssessively applied for jobs within the UN system. Some of the things that attracted him to that, he admits, was the "UN passport" and the life in Geneva. He'd have been mixing with not just Indian, but international bigshots, too.

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/

Because we are primarily a labour-exporting economy and don’t manufacture stuff, like China. Remittances are also a big part of the economy. What the H1B has done is allowed people with very basic IT qualifications, especially from Karnataka and AP/Telangana, to go to the US and settle there. These are middle to lower middle-class people with Indian degrees. Not the elites who go to Wharton and Stanford for MBAs.

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.

@Mod: I have a policy related question about some of the unpublished posts here. The posts marked trollish and trollish+contested have understandably not been published or have been removed. I'm sure you had followed the moderation policy in those cases. However, I can see that a post only marked contested has been removed/not published. What was the process involved in that case? If you were sure that the post is untrue, then you wouldn't have published it. If you are marking it contested, then it means someone had flagged/challenged it. What did you do after that? Investigated the claim? Seen prima facie evidence of it being unusual? As in, I'm curious about the procedure followed here.

True. The wider student community got hollowed out by NKC admin with active support from faculty, including former Noojies. A powerful SJA, esp one that has a mind of its own is a nightmare for both admin and faculty; being an ex Noojie doesn't necessarily mean they bleed our colour. Same applies for the much touted alumni. And this shouldn't be held against them. That's life. Positions, viewpoints etc change. Any support from these contested quarters should always be vetted and deployed with careful consideration.

But we are here right now. And it is our skin in the game. Even if we are only interested to get a fancy piece of paper, that paper must retain value till we recover the investment made and not just in terms of the monies spent. Maybe small change for more than a few. But certain core things go beyond the usual divides and petty ones like BA and BSc.

SJA is merely an admin created channel to "deal" with students. The student community isn't obligated to continue with SJA if it only advances individual interests of the SJA brass. Labour unions mostly fail because they are often sold out by their own leadership.

You are speaking from a point of extreme privilege and selective bias. You are cherry-picking the top <1% of litigation lawyers and projecting their once-in-a-generation success stories as if they are the rule. They are exceptions, not benchmarks. Multiple surveys and reports have consistently shown that a vast majority of young litigation lawyers in India earn between ₹5,000–₹15,000 a month for their first several years. Many remain financially dependent on their families well into their 30s. In Delhi HC and SC especially, litigation is an entrenched club. Clientele is largely loyal to established legal families, where work is passed down generation to generation. A “non-nepo” litigator breaking through to high-value briefs is not impossible, but it’s the exception rather than the norm. For every Salve, there are thousands of non-nepos stuck at ₹50,000–₹60,000 a month even after 15–20 years, struggling to make ends meet. That’s the statistical reality.

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.

It’s almost impressive how confidently you spout half-baked nonsense masquerading as fact. You throw around names like HN Salve and Mukul Rohatgi as if that somehow proves your point. Do you even understand how statistics work? You are citing the absolute 0.01% and then pretending that’s representative of litigation as a whole. Salve’s income is about as relevant to the average litigator as Mukesh Ambani’s is to your neighborhood shopkeeper. But sure, keep deluding yourself that one senior counsel’s tax filings from 2011 somehow form a credible basis for career advice in 2025.

The funniest part is how desperately you try to flex with these overblown billing figures. You are so eager to sound like you’re in the know that you didn’t stop to ask whether the average litigator in any High Court is even remotely close to that income bracket. Spoiler: they aren’t. For every designated senior arguing in Court 1, there are hundreds slogging through 10,000-rupee adjournment matters with no guarantee of payment, no insurance, no paid leave, and no career stability. But let me guess you don’t see those people. Or you pretend they don’t exist, because acknowledging them would shatter your little illusion that litigation is the one true path to glory.

Your contempt for corporate law is laughable, especially coming from someone who clearly has zero understanding of what the job entails. No, corporate lawyers aren’t “glorified clerks.” They’re the ones drafting, negotiating, and structuring billion-dollar transactions that keep entire industries running. They don’t spend their days chasing clients for appearance fees or praying that a junior gets thrown a few briefs at the end of the month. They have global exposure, intellectual complexity, and yes—far more financial stability than the average litigator can dream of until year 10, if ever. But you wouldn’t know, because your idea of comparison is built entirely on billing myths and anecdotal bragging rights.

And then there’s the rich irony of you calling yourself a nepo kid who’s joining a senior’s chamber—while lecturing others about grit and success. Do you hear yourself? You are the very product of the privilege you're pretending doesn’t matter. Of course you can afford to wait it out in litigation for five years, you have the safety net. That doesn’t make you a warrior. It makes you sheltered. You're standing on a platform someone else built and yelling at people who took the elevator because they didn’t have the time or money to wait on your slow-moving staircase.

Your whole rant reeks of insecurity, not insight. You are not defending litigation you’re trying to justify your own path by tearing down everyone else’s. You know why? Because deep down, you’re unsure. If you were really convinced of your choices, you wouldn’t need to screech about how corporate lawyers are clerks and how you’re destined to “make it big.” You’d let your work speak. But you can’t. So you compensate with hollow bravado, exaggerated billing numbers, and a tired superiority complex.

At the end of the day, the only real difference between a litigator and a corporate lawyer is delivery - one argues it out loud, the other writes it down. That’s it. Don’t confuse articulation with superior intellect. Just because a litigator knows how to sound convincing in a courtroom doesn’t mean they understand the law better than someone who structures billion-dollar transactions, navigates regulatory minefields, or drafts airtight agreements that hold up in international arbitration. A voice in court doesn’t make you the custodian of legal wisdom. it just means you are good at performance. And performance isn’t law.

So here's the truth: litigation is not better than corporate, and corporate is not better than litigation. They are different paths, suited to different skill sets, personalities, and goals. Your problem is that you think your choice is the only one that matters. That level of arrogance doesn’t make you a serious professional, it makes you a cautionary tale. Keep pretending you’re better than everyone else. The rest of us will keep building careers without having to scream into the void to feel validated.

You clearly have some long-standing beef with corporate law. it shows up in almost every post you make.

First, yes, corporate law isn’t perfect. The hours are tough. Early-stage work can feel repetitive. You don’t build personal brand equity as fast as a litigator might.

And fulfillment may lag in the first few years. So fair criticism? Sure.

But calling corporate lawyers “clerks” just shows how little you actually understand the depth of what they do. You tell me can you handle this?

1. Draft a shareholders' agreement that balances drag, tag, ROFR, and anti-dilution all within SEBI and FEMA constraints?

2. File an FC-GPR on the FIRMS portal within the RBI’s Master Direction on Reporting under FEMA 395?

3. Advise on the upstream and downstream investment rules under FEMA 20(R) and explain when pricing guidelines apply and when they don’t?

4. Structure a transaction that complies with Schedule I (foreign investment), Schedule IX (convertible notes), or Schedule VI (rights issues)?

5. Navigate the SEBI (PIT) Regulations, handle insider trading risk assessments, and balance it with the SAST takeover norms?

6. Or even draft a compounding application under FEMA, citing the correct AP (DIR Series) Circulars and RBI compounding manual?

Because this is daily work for corporate lawyers.
This is not “clerical.” It’s real legal strategy involving risk, regulation, and millions of dollars on the line.

Second why are you so obsessed with corporate law?

If litigation is so fulfilling and lucrative, why do you keep dragging corporate lawyers into every rant?

You sound less like a confident litigator and more like someone who’s still trying to convince himself he made the right choice. Secure litigators, real ones, who are doing well,don’t spend their time putting down other practice areas. They’re too busy working and winning.

Third whether you like it or not, corporate lawyers earn more on average.

7–10 PQE corporate lawyers at Tier-1 firms: ₹70L to ₹1.2Cr.
Salaried partners: ₹1Cr to ₹2.5Cr.
Equity partners: ₹4Cr to ₹10Cr+.
In-house GCs: ₹80L to ₹2Cr+ with stock options, ESOPs, and weekends off.

Compare that with litigators: Most spend the first 5–7 years earning less than a first-year law firm associate.
A few make it big. Most don't. And even designated seniors get their clients through — surprise — corporate law firms. You think your Senior is flooded with SC briefs because of random walk-ins? No. It’s the same firms and corporate clients you are mocking that bring them the matters in the first place.

My friend, litigators and corporate lawyers exist in different ecosystems. Both are difficult. Both require brains, grit, and consistency. But if you need to drag down another profession just to validate your own it says more about your self-doubt than about the field you are attacking. Maybe you are just bitter that you are a nepo kid watching a first-year law firm associate out-earn you. Keep obsessing over Salve and Rohatgi with this attitude — you are never getting anywhere close.

▮▮▮ you get to re-appear in EndTerm . I am not sure about the rule wrt Mid-terms , many nlu dont let students re-write the mid-terms. If there is genuine issued covered within their exam rules then maybe endterm terms are propotionately enhanced to include mid-terms as well.

Check your uni website and the examination rules.

can someone guide me over how to go about networking, I'm a major introvert and all these messages on linkdin or just unanswered coldmails, I don't get it. can you pleaseeeee explain it like I'm 5. wtf do i even say. Hi, saw your work wanna untern just sounds tooooo transactional (not even transactional) what do i ask them, that won't make me sound like an imbecile and won't make them ghost me.

We are entering the phase when Gen X is taking over the top leadership of firms and Gen Y all join them in another decade.

But sadly Gen X and Gen Y have continued the toxicity of boomers. Both these generations also look down on Gen Z and make sarcastic comments about us.

The two cases are not comparable. The Karnataka HC accepted the arguments of NLSIU that it is a national institution comparable to the IITs and IIMs, as the BCI set it up and the CJI is Chancellor. The court accepted NLSIU’s argument that other members of the CLAT Consortium are state institutions.

The ratio decidendi still stands until overruled by the SC.