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?
Conflicts of interest are the Achilles’ heel of any system that prides itself on impartiality. The challenge here is that Mr. Karia, having operated at the highest levels within SAM, will undoubtedly have had dealings with a wide array of clients and cases, many of which could conceivably come before him as a judge. The question then becomes: how do we ensure that his decisions remain above reproach, that they are free from even the appearance of bias?
In an ideal world, the solution would be straightforward: rigorous recusals, clear guidelines, and perhaps even the preemptive declaration of conflicts. But we know that the real world is messier. Relationships formed over years of professional collaboration don’t simply vanish the moment one dons the judicial robes. The bonds of trust and mutual interest that are the lifeblood of the corporate world can linger, consciously or unconsciously, influencing decisions in subtle ways.
This is why transparency is absolutely critical. The judiciary must not only be impartial, but it must be seen to be impartial. Any perceived conflict of interest, whether real or imagined, can erode public confidence in the system. And once that confidence is lost, it’s incredibly difficult to regain.
So, while we can and should congratulate Mr. Karia on his elevation, we must also insist on the highest standards of scrutiny and accountability as he steps into this new role. The mechanisms for identifying and addressing potential conflicts must be robust, transparent, and unyielding. For in the end, the credibility of our judicial system hinges not just on the competence of those who serve, but on their unwavering commitment to justice, free from any shadow of doubt.
Firstly, the argument that someone coming from a law firm will naturally be familiar with the courts misses a fundamental point. It’s not about mere familiarity; it’s about the depth of experience that only comes from the relentless grind of courtroom battles, day in and day out. Senior advocates, for all their transitions to the bench, have spent years honing their skills in the crucible of courtrooms, facing the unpredictability of live cases, the intricacies of argumentation, and the pressures that simply don’t exist in a boardroom or an advisory role. The concern isn’t that law firm partners are unaware of courts; it’s that they haven’t lived the life of an advocate, where the stakes are immediate, and the lessons learned are hard-earned through direct engagement in the adversarial process. That difference is significant.
Secondly, while you’re right that perception issues can exist even for senior advocates, equating this with the concerns raised about law firm partners is to oversimplify the matter. Senior advocates, by the time they’re considered for the bench, have built their reputations over years—if not decades—of public service, with a track record of arguing cases across a wide spectrum, often on behalf of the government or in the public interest. Their loyalties and competencies are tested in ways that are transparent and visible to all. On the other hand, law firm partners often operate in the more private, transactional world of corporate law, where their work, while important, is far less scrutinized by the public eye. The transition from representing private interests to suddenly embodying judicial impartiality is, therefore, far more abrupt and potentially problematic.
As for the point about domain knowledge, it’s a compelling one, but let’s not conflate domain expertise with judicial acumen. Yes, the complexity of modern business requires a nuanced understanding of corporate law, but that doesn’t mean that the best judges are those who come directly from corporate law firms. What we need are judges who have both the expertise and the broader perspective that comes from years of diverse legal practice—across different areas of law, in various types of cases. Senior advocates often bring this broad experience to the bench, while law firm partners, focused as they are on specific corporate issues, might lack the breadth necessary to fully grasp the wide array of matters that come before a judge.
Lastly, while we can all respect the decision of someone to take a significant pay cut to join the bench, we should be cautious about equating personal sacrifice with judicial qualification. The decision to become a judge should be motivated by a commitment to public service and a deep understanding of the law, not merely by a willingness to forgo a higher salary. That someone has agreed to earn less does not, by itself, speak to their suitability for the bench. What’s crucial is whether they have the experience, temperament, and wisdom to make just and fair decisions in a complex and often contradictory legal landscape.
In the end, while we may differ in our views, I believe it’s essential to maintain a high standard for those who sit on the bench—one that includes not just domain knowledge, but also a deep and broad legal experience, tested and proven in the courts. This isn’t about tradition for tradition’s sake; it’s about ensuring that our judiciary remains strong, impartial, and above all, truly capable of administering justice.
A note to the moderators- why are you holding back the commentary around this development and marking them trollish? Just censor the problematic bits and publish!
So I don't think I see as much concern on these points as you do. But we both have our own views. Let's respect the fact that someone with 7.1 cr of earnings has agreed to be a judge instead of going independent, becoming senior and multiplying his earnings or even earning as much as he did, simply by remaining where he was. Haven't heard something negative on him so by all accounts, he's capable guy and probably, he'll carve a path open for future elevations on bench from law firms.
Faculty exodus will be an issue, which is not bad after all. Good faculty will be paid well, as it should be. Even the private universities will be "forced" to raise faculty salaries.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/5000-students-and-30-courses-in-8-years-southampton-university-draws-up-plan-for-india-campus/cid/2045024
Till then, students may go for work experience
The answer, I suspect, lies in something far more profound than money. For those at the pinnacle of their profession, the motivation often transcends mere financial gain. It becomes about mastery, about influence, about leaving a legacy. When you’ve reached the point where your financial needs are more than met, what propels you isn’t the next crore—it’s the desire to shape the landscape of your field, to set new standards, to be the best.
But there’s also a cautionary tale here. The pursuit of ever-greater financial success can become all-consuming, potentially blinding even the most brilliant minds to other, perhaps more enduring, forms of achievement. The ability to command vast sums in M&A or dispute resolution is impressive, but at what point does the relentless chase for more obscure the larger picture—one that includes public service, ethical leadership, and contributing to the common good?
This brings us to the heart of the matter: when does financial success become a gilded cage, trapping individuals in a cycle of perpetual ambition? And more importantly, what happens when that drive is channeled into roles that demand a different kind of motivation—roles like the judiciary, where the stakes aren’t measured in profits, but in justice?
So, while we can marvel at the financial achievements of these individuals, we should also ask ourselves: what do we truly value in our leaders, in our judges? Is it their ability to accumulate wealth, or their capacity to serve the greater good, to embody the principles of fairness and integrity that our society depends on?
Motivation, in the end, is a complex thing. But if the drive to accumulate more wealth is all that remains, then perhaps it’s worth reconsidering what true success looks like—both for these individuals and for the institutions they might one day serve.
Yes, only a select few partners reach that level of earnings, and it’s undoubtedly a marker of their success in the corporate world. But financial success in a law firm, while commendable, is not the same as the qualities required to sit on the bench. Earning 7 crores is a reflection of one’s ability to navigate complex business deals, manage client relationships, and drive firm profits. It speaks to expertise in a particular domain, certainly, but it doesn’t necessarily translate to the judicial wisdom, impartiality, and breadth of experience that we expect from those who hold judicial office.
The judiciary isn’t a reward for corporate success. It’s a position of public trust, one that requires a different set of skills and experiences—skills that are often forged in the rough and tumble of courtroom advocacy, where the stakes are more than financial, and where the consequences of decisions reach far beyond the balance sheets of corporations.
So while we can acknowledge the financial success of those at the top of the law firm ladder, let’s not confuse that with the qualities that make a great judge. The bench demands more than just expertise in a niche field; it demands a deep, broad understanding of the law, a commitment to public service, and the wisdom to apply the law fairly and justly. And that, “Hot Shot,” is something that 7 crores a year alone cannot buy.
1. No results to show: I worked for about 3.5 years on a Research Project. There was no final report or anything of that sort. The project is headed nowhere now, and all the work we did was for nothing.
2. No papers: If you're an upper caste male, not poor and not having health issues, there is no reason you shouldn't have at least 1 paper/year. I have only 2 papers after I finished Masters, in almost 6 years.
3. No callbacks: I have applied to most good tier 4 colleges, colleges that are worse than tier 3 NLUs. No callback from any of them. I don't even apply to NLUs because I know there's no point without a PhD.
4. A worthless job: The position I'm currently in- noone considers that to be a teaching position. I'm not getting any teaching experience here. There is hardly any value addition to the skills as well.
5. PhD going haywire: Sometimes I feel I shouldn't have opted for a PhD from a good NLU. Galgotias or Amity will ensure you get a PhD, and maybe a job after that. The NLUs are very sub optimal in all sense, except that we may get better supervisor.
1.Are they hiring in their competition practice.
2. Considering, I am in my 5th year. Should I go for an internship at Luthra.
Anyone please.
i. Supervisors and Research committee members are strict, which is good in an ideal environment but adds up years to your PhD
ii. Financial upport is absent or negligible. Unless one has JRF, one is not able to sustain themselves.
iii. No value of the NLU tag or anything. You don't even get interview calls from colleges recruiting.
iv. Takes a long time to set up things. Like external sitting over PhD thesis for an year. Externals are big people so universities also don't say much to them.
v. Colleges like JGLS provide financial as well as logistical support for publishing. Here, you have no financial incentives. Logistical support is there, but very patchy. However, I don't personally think fianncial incentives are good for academia in general.
It will be fascinating to see what happens now. Is Sibal going to be pushed out? Are the numbers still in his favour? Will Adish Agarwala fight again with BJP backing, or will a new face emerge? Maybe someone with more stature? Some interesting names floating around.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jagdeep-dhankhar-kapil-sibal-kolkata-doctor-rape-murder-adding-salt-to-veeps-fresh-fire-at-kapil-sibal-over-kolkata-horror-6466019#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll
**"**Amid a wave of targeted attacks on minorities, at least 50 Hindu educators have been compelled to leave their jobs. India Today accessed a list of teachers who have quit under duress. However, the actual number of forced resignations could be much higher."
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/hindu-teachers-principals-forced-resignation-bangladesh-viral-videos-taslima-nasreen-2591679-2024-09-01?utm_source=twshare
Only in exceptional cases do they offer a callback.
I'm supposed to admire this generation for that???
Anybody has an idea as to how to get through to internships at Poovayya? Have applied multiple times, even with consistent follow ups, never received a reply. Do they only take referrals? Or is there any other way to contact them?
Thank you.
My question is WHY that is the case. Moots don’t matter much for placements and I don’t think they carry much weight for LLM admits, unless you win Jessup or something. Also, many other committees also have power and influence. Look at Legal Aid. They host judges for conferences and they too get attendance exemptions and become close to the VC. But they don’t have any glamour and are not considered prestigious! Then look at Sports. They organise fests which are the talk of the town. But MCS reps are still higher in the hierarchy. Only Recruitment has equal glam and prestige. Why??? Why do we place this committee on a pedestal?
Going through something similar
But in general the ROI of a foreign degree kicks in much later in law, as compared to other graduate degrees such as an MS in engineering or an MBA etc.
- Go for an LLM later in life and let work ex cover up for poor grades. The other day I met someone who did an MBA abroad at the age of 45. Unlike in India, you won't feel ageism if you study abroad at a late age.
- Go for a short summer school or fellowship for practitioners. You will find quite a few such opportunities.
But I really like your honesty, because you identify the key reason why most LI readers aggressively troll people who go for LLBs or LLMs abroad --- sheer jealousy.
Look at the typical comments here. They say that Cyril Shroff doesn't care about foreign degrees and that even an LLB from GLC has a better chance of becoming a partner. They also say that those going for higher studies are rich and spoilt. And if one receives a scholarship like Rhodes, they mock them by saying that they must have written a woke SOP about fighting for human rights.
Now, let's feed the trolls and at these so-called criticisms properly:
- Yes, GLC has produced more partners and Senior Advocates than all foreign universities combined. But even Kendriya Vidyalaya has produced more IAS officers than Campion or Woodstock school. Does this mean one should decline an opportunity to attend Campion or Woodstock? Foreign universities offer you far superior faculty and infrastructure. In fact, even NLU toppers teach abroad and not in India. Also, these universities offer an excellent social environment where you meet people from all over the world and live in an advanced country.
- As for the woke SOP argument -- so what? You are trying to maximise your chances of obtaining something, so you make the best strategy possible. When you practice law, don't you do exactly that? What's wrong in saying that you were President of the Greta Thunberg Society in college and organised a climate change seminar??? Even if you actually burn a lot of carbon by wasting paper or driving diesel cars? You are applying for an LLM and not to be a priest at the Vatican!
Also how did you make for the low grades while applying for LLM
Balancing act
5 judgement hai mere pass ispe
NKO is replaceable, so, is AM.
As long as they have the power, there is already next in line wanting and desperate to take their position and do better than them.
World doesn't work like that.