Shift to NLUD regardless of what your aims are; much better to study in Delhi (albeit in Dwarka, which is 40 mins away from the city centre and Gurgaon) than some motley village 50km from Hyderabad which is already about as developed/fun as Dwarka itself. Nothing needs to say about the opportunities in Delhi vis a vis Hyderabad or literally any other city in India maybe barring Bombay

Beijing I have no idea about but I've been to Tokyo and New York. Everything was fixed price or runs by meter. At most 'rip off' experience was some overpriced tourist trap coffee shop or something like that; not charging different rates to different people on basis of language they speak. Heck, even in Mumbai, auto and taxis run by meter, and meter doesn't discriminate on the basis of language.

Now when your North India landlady called you madrasan and charged higher rent, how did that make you feel? Did that endear you to North India? Two wrongs don't make one right.

I guess that's the problem with BLR: rather than trying to build a higher trust society, you're busy justifying micro agressions against fellow citizens.

It’s extremely easy to move abroad and settle outside if you are working in cap marks because the work done here is exactly the same as what is done outside the country. The only reason it doesn’t have a good reputation within India is because the work may get repetitive and boring after a while. It’s definitely a sustainable practice abroad

That may be true, I wouldn't want to take positions on that. But that doesn't take away from the fact that (1) the hiring processes may not be taking everyone from India who is deserving; and (2) it is not the best time to be engaging in foreign hiring right now. Even if your point is correct, I think the point about the hostile environment still stands.

And if you consider yourself to be part of that 'elite micro-minority', I challenge you: instead of engaging in personal attacks, refute that proposition in anyway you can. Tell us that the UK and the U.S. are open to the best legal talent from our country. And explain why that is, and how that openness manifests itself. Finally, explain why language like 'island of strangers' isn't a problem, if you object so strongly to Enoch Powell being named.

LMFAO.. Some noob decides to sound like an intellectual and namedrop Enoch Powell from the 1960s. 😂

Take it from someone who’s studied and worked in the UK and US: barring an elite micro-minority educated in top schools and universities, the majority of Indian law grads are of terrible quality. Very poor writing skills and very bookish knowledge.

Plus, what nobody is willing to say, is how politically inconvenient it has become for them to hire immigrants for anything (not including government constraints, such as charges levied on those who sponsor work visas being raised). There was an article in the London Times just the other day, where the President of the Council of Europe said that the European Convention on Human Rights needed to be reformed to deal with a situation in which immigration (in all forms) was being questioned. If you knew anything about European human rights law and the debate surrounding it, you would know that saying such a thing ten years ago would have crossed all possible red lines.

Even in the UK, the situation is so ferile now that if someone prominent (even in the current Labour admin) found it politically to their advantage to start being nasty about how many lawyers with non-UK qualifications the international law firms hire, the current government might just try to make it harder for foreign firms to do that in some way or the other (slipping in a few nasty remarks coded with assumptions about 'non-standard qualifications', without necessarily mentioning Indian law degrees by name). And this would be done to convince the hard right people who think that they (the current government) are pro-left, open borders types that they are not, so that those people vote for Labour rather than for Reform UK (an extremist anti-immigration party). It doesn't matter that they would alienate their traditional support base by doing this, because they are convinced beyond a point when reasoned argument can help, that that support base is comprised of a small portion of irrelevant London-based elites with one or more university degrees, and that the only way to gain back the so-called 'red wall' (working class constituencies that traditionally supported Labour, comprising of miners, farmworkers etc, who've not been to university) is to just stop short of outshining Reform (their main political challenger) on being rightist on immigration. You want evidence of this? Just read the speech by Starmer, the PM, on the launch of the recent immigration white paper, where he explained the reasons for toughening English language requirements across all visa categories. He said that if this were not done, Britain would become 'an Island of strangers'. You know who was the one who is famous (or infamous) for using words like that? The Tory politician Enoch Powell, who, in a 1967 speech decrying even lower levels of immigration than today as horrible, and calling for race relations laws that removed the flexibility of landlords and pubs to refuse service based on skin colour, said that immigration to the UK meant that there would be 'rivers of blood' on UK streets and people from the white majority would find themselves 'strangers' in their own homeland.

You want more evidence? Did any of you wonder why the UK government didn't fight harder on legal services access to the Indian market, why the Law Society blasted them on this? Didn't you think they were a little less enthusiastic on this than conventional wisdom stated that they should have been? Especially when the UK government is led by big shot lawyers - Shabana Mahmood (Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice), Lord Hermer (the prominent human rights lawyer turned Attorney General) and Sir Keir Starmer himself (also a prominent human rights lawyer and director of the Crown Prosecution Service)? Only one reason: they were scared of the impact it could have on immigration numbers. Concrete illustration: in a speech to a think-tank, Hurmer called the Conservatives and others advocating for leaving the ECHR 'Nazis'. If you see his profile and the type of work he has done, you will understand exactly why/how that might be in line with his political instincts, and you may even mentally encourage him to bring it on, in order to speak out against democratic backsliding. What you may find difficult to reconcile as being in character is his almost immediate apologies in 14 different positions, his bootlicking of these very people he called Nazis, his emphasis on the 'reasonableness' of such people. So consider the British side's fear of their own people and immigration numbers while doing your estimations of the power of SILF, the Lalajis and so on, and of whether SILF commands disproportionate political influence.

Understand this: Quality of you guys as lawyers doesn't matter anymore (not for the politicians or the drafters of immigration rules). The quality of your law schools is not relevant to this debate. The current political landscape doesn't care that many of you who want a training contract (and have what it takes to gain one) have attended a law school led by a Rhodes Scholar + Oxford DPhil graduate, a law school that is better (in some ways) than a few of their own (including some of the 'Russell Group' ones). They don't care that some of you may only want to stay as long as it takes for you to complete your TC. You are coming for 12 months, the worst is assumed: that you will do anything legal or illegal to stay as long as needed to gain a British passport. You are foreign, your qualifications are foreign. Foreign, in the political landscape of today, = bad. In other words, for a law firm, foreign qualification = unnecessarily risky. Therefore, we may have even to thank our stars that they are taking in as many NLU grads as they are.

Does this mean you should quietly turn over and give up on your dreams? If (working as a solicitor in the London office of a prominent international law firm) is what you really want, and you are willing to put in disproportionate sacrifice, then not. Fighting this is as important as anything else. But fight it pragmatically, choose your battles wisely. Calling for increased hiring right now is deeply unhelpful, unwise and irresponsible, considering the political landscape. If you are really willing to take on this fight, just do whatever you can to ensure that you are part of the steady trickle of foreign lawyers that are still allowed to get in.

Sorry for the long write-up, but I feel many of you are speaking with a very poor understanding of the situation in many countries, particularly UK. I hope this helps to refine your perspective.

Regards,

Someone with experience of the UK job landscape

You have done each member of that team an immense disservice. Give it 24 hours, and, knowing Legally India, your comment will have been downvoted 200 times and at least three attempts will have been made to carry out character assassination of those people through replies to it.

But it must be made clear that your culpability might not be as high as that of the OP. They started this, without doing proper due dilligence on what happens when nice people are identified here. But I would beg that all parties be careful, that trolls exercise restraint and that only people with genuine things to say of whatever viewpoint add replies to this thread.

As more I dive into this profession. I realised how important it is for first generation to be from top NLUs. And by seeing how many people have entered into this profession it seems impossible for me to succeed. It's sad that professor in my college uses NOT A BOOK but those pdf notes available on internet to teach. Guide please!

If he was such a rain maker why couldn't he convince his whole team to go with him

And why did he run to CAM under another lala when that was the entire reason he shifted from SAM - power and autonomy

He just ran to the nearest house that would take him - survival

Bongs are generally known not to support each other that much… Being a bong and having seen Mumbai CorplLaw circuit closely for 16 years, I have rarely seen any bong going out of the way to help another bong unless they knew each other well from before… Honestly not much networking and/or referrals amongst themselves.… Gujju and Tam Bram lobby is much stronger

I think it has become trendy to be negative and troll. There are several diamonds in the rough and many teams around which have good work and decent culture. I have worked in couple of the teams that have come up on these threads and some of the ‘troll comments’ are so far from the truth that it is unfortunate more so because people are looking at relying on these. One needs to speak to the correct set of people and not rely on blind trolls on these threads, for proper guidance

Just be the most authentic version of yourself. Be truthful but not too brutal, kind but not at the expense of being harsh when needed. You aren't here to be our friend. You are here to teach, as far as you can, what you know. Please don't be a gatekeeper to any part of the legal profession. Don't the vague sort of thing where you form an impression based on a protected characteristic like disability that somebody isn't suited for something, and in general terms, say that "someone like you isn't suitable". Try to look past your preconceived assumptions and advise based on that. Obviously, if someone doesn't have the objective skills or ability (or abilities) to be successful at, let's say, courtroom advocacy, tell them so.

Also if you wanna justify, you need to change your thinking slightly. You are thinking being a teacher is the major part of being an academic. This is a very typical mistake based on which many Indian unis operate. You are as much a reader, thinker, researcher of, and writer about, the law. Continue your research and develop your teaching, accordingly. This means that your role morality is as much to speak truth to power as to do that to students.

I am currently pursuing my PhD. I am absolutely sure to get into academia despite knowing the lows and limitations. However, I don't want to join it just cause there's nothing else. I genuinely want to give my best to research and teaching, especially teaching. I don't want to be a passtime teacher. I want to help inspire and motivate and be the small change in a student's life. So, with your experience as a student, since we all have been one or are one. And your experience as a teacher, or administrator or parent or anything that's related directly or indirectly to academia, what advice would you like to give me ? What should be the dos and don'ts to help me justify my role as a teacher, professor and academic ?

Please give geniune replies, will help me with honest feedback.

Hello readers,

I currently finished an internship at ■■■■ I'm not a native of the city where the office was situated at and also bore extra costs of living and other travelling expenses for courts everyday when I would be sent to some lower court 50 kms away just to get a date, multiple times. This firm is known to treat their interns poorly, feedback from previous interns. As if we are labourers, atleast they have minimum wage. I was sick one day, and was told to carry case files to the court all by myself, while the seniors chilled in the office, had to skip lunch and almost fainted from the exertion, felt like I would pass out, but the seniors still yelled at me for not being enthusiastic and working further till the late night in the office. I was told to appear on their behalf multiple times as running around in the lower courts was too small of a task for them. I was on a unpaid internship. Timings were unbelievable, i was clocking 78 hours a week. Working 13 hours a day. Everyday only sunday off. The seniors would constantly make personal comments on me and would treat me like a sub-human. These kinds of internships are modern day bonded slavery. Stay away.

I’ve heard from a few recruiters that Mukul Agarwal and his team at Kco are actively hiring, especially at the A2 and SA levels. Does anyone have experience working with his corporate team or know what the work culture and growth opportunities are like there? Would appreciate any honest feedback or insights. TIA!

I don't work in Mumbai so can't help you. Would just like to add that it's advantageous to do litigation in a city wherever you are from since you would know the local language. I'm not saying that it is hard to get by without knowing Marathi. But even today various departments of the state government, police etc prepare documents in the local language. Also in almost all Civil/District/Family Courts (lower courts if I may), predominantly the local language is used. you can deal with local police too much more easily. But all this may not apply if your job only requires you to be in an office set up the entire day which is how most Mumbai litigation teams work I suppose. Also does not apply if you're doing mainly civil/commercial work.

Disputes is a kind of practise in firms where there aren't many opening around the year. you must have noticed this on linkdln job posts calling for Associates. But since all major law firms are there in Delhi I think the shift may be a little easier. Knowing your local courts also helps so don't move so often and stick to a place closer to home & where you can keep your expenses on rent and utilities to a minimum.

Many people often say that one should go for those branches of corporate law which are more "viable" in the long term, and hence I've heard that branches such as say capital markets is not very sustainable? I'd love if anyone can clarify the same from their knowledge/experience.