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?
1 - Indus Law
2 - S&R
2 - CAM
It's an interesting read.
Here we go again..
Not that it makes any difference. The gulf between Tier 1 lawschools in the US and in India is so huge that it is a mockery to call NLSIU even the Georgetown of India, much less the Yale or Harvard!
Regstreet is nowhere near the best securities litigators or law firms practicing in securities law. They don't even appear. They are essentially small firms that act as briefing counsels, and at best, they are solicitors.
While the HR was supportive and the stipend is really good, the capital markets team was so toxic and non communicative for the work.
Equally important are mental and physical fitness. You need to be ready to give 8-10 chargeable hours + 2-4 hours in learning and business development to really beat expectations. Even the partner who hired you will have some apprehensions about you, so will have to go the extra mile.
Lastly, you need to be committed to devote weekends, festivals, etc. Success is a top tier law firm demands this sacrifice especially in the current competitive environment.
Please factor all this in before making the switch as it is an important decision.
And, yes, as someone said, smaller firms will be more open to you than larger outfits.
All the best!
1. Flashy stuff on your CV which recruiters in India or third countries might find tasty. One reason for that being the difficulty of the exam - see below at point 1 under 'Cons' for the other side of this argument.See further at point 3 under 'Cons' below for further details about the bad side of this.
2. Possibility of getting a TC or a lateral position out of it. Refer below to point 2 under 'Cons' to understand the flip side to this argument.
3. Qualifying as a solicitor with a reasonably high level of flexibility, including by working abroad - once again, read point 3 under the below section to understand the other side to this, too.
Cons:
1. Huge uncertainty: SQE failure rates are alarmingly high. System is almost set up for you to fail. Barriers to multiple attempts are huge: forking out something like £4000 per attempt. If you have a TC in place, even, the prospects are extremely scary. Firms (including magic circle ones) have been known to withdraw TC offers from people who fail on their first attempt. Others use the prospect of a delayed start date to the TC as a stick for SQE failure. That is, if your TC was due to start in January 2026, they threaten that if you fail the SQE, they will not withdraw your TC offer, but keep you hanging (i.e., unemployed) until January 2027 to start it. They (the SRA and their PR machine) claim that you can pass even by self-study, but that's a lot of hot air. Unless you are associated with one of the providers (like BPP or ULaw) and their SQE LLM courses, you won't be getting access to the best materials, anyway. And it's not a fantastic idea to enrole in those kinds of courses as a self-financed person, if you've already done an LLM, especially. Get your TC in the bag first, then get funded by your firm to do the SQE or SQE LLM prep course they want you to do.
2. Regarding the pro no. 2 listed above, that comes with a significant caveat - and this has a dual purpose, as also being the reason that self-funding your SQE (or SQE LLM) is a bad idea. The way the system currently works is that the law firms have very fixed arrangements, processes and ideas about which provider they will make you do your SQE prep with and which courses they consider to be value for money. Like in some so-called "SQE LLM" courses, which combine SQE prep with some aspects of an LLM (essentially an LLM-but-not-really-an-LLM), the uni offers you a certain number of electives (let us say five), and out of that, the firm offering a candidate a TC and funding them (funding for the SQE comes with the TC offer) prescribes three of the electives (they essentially say you should take electives a, b and c). Of course, this is based on the soundest commercial principles, i.e., the law firm's need for particular specialised knowledge. The catch with self-funding your SQE is that you may have the moving-room to take those five electives and not be dictated to about three of them, but if you take up the wrong electives, then you've got a serious problem, because you may not have the exact thing your target firm(s) want.
3. Again take the pro listed above - the flexibility. You can gain your admission to the roll of solicitors in England and Wales by undertaking work abroad under the supervision of a qualified solicitor in England and Wales who will be ready to certify that you satisfy the SRA competencies. Essentially, that's a flashy way of saying you can get your QWE abroad even. Now flip the argument to a certain extent. As that is the case, the hallowed and elite spaces of the magic circle or U.S. law firm's London office are even more hallowed and elitist. Essentially, a form of second-class citizenship: you have the title and the fancy paperwork, but not the substantive package that should come along with it - to work in the office of a magic circle or U.S. law firm's London office. Of course, they (the firms, that is) will argue that even British citizens who are qualified solicitors do not have any substantive right or entitlement to work in a top firm merely by virtue of their status of being a qualified solicitor. As far as that goes, that is right. But the British citizens do still get the chance to continue working in England and Wales, at perhaps less flashy firms. You, in comparison (unless you're a Brit yourself, of course), don't get that, most likely. That's because of the skilled work visa salary thresholds and visa sponsorship eligibility, which a high street firm or a bootique may not fulfil or be able to fulfil, which is why I have dubbed it 'second class citizenship'. So you'd be qualified as an English solicitor, with all the respect and stuff that commands abroad, without actually the right or ability to work in a UK law firm, if you just had a self-funded SQE under your belt, without the certainty (based on a TC offer given prior to you doing the SQE) that it will lead to a TC.
Of course, you might say that one must take the rough with the smooth and all that, and if you think that way, then props to you. But regardless of how you think, I hope this was helpful in some way.
Such things from other firms should also be brought to light.
Back in April, a firm I had previously interned with called me for an interview because the partner knew I was interested in working with them. The interview went well (at least in my view). It wasn’t very technical. It felt more like a conversation than a formal interview. They mostly asked HR-type questions, and towards the end, the partner even mentioned that if I received an offer elsewhere, I should let them know. Naturally, I took that as a positive sign.
They said they’d get back to me by the end of May. When I followed up in the first week of June, HR said she would check with the partner and update me. Later, she told me that they were still interviewing other candidates but that I was free to explore other options.
I just don’t get it, why can’t law firms be honest? If they don’t intend to hire someone, why not just say it outright? Why keep someone hanging? These are the same people who will be looking for Associates later on because the same fresher they hired move away to greener pastures. I honestly liked the place and was fine with the salary they were offering, I am just disappointed
Alag kuch chahiye toh go to some random chamber and work on smuggling and confiscation cases boss.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2023/02/law-student-claims-tc-interview-offer-at-us-firms-london-office-was-rescinded-after-bofadeez-nutz-voicemail/
Also which is better work life balance wise? (I know law firms generally have bad wlb, but can someone tell comparatively)?