1) don't do it

2) if you decide to do it, don't update it here that you've done so and years later now you're working at a T1.

This one guy was caught after confessing to reddit that his scholarship was obtained through fraud. Please don't get caught via legally India post 😭

There's this chamber in Safdarjung that does White Collar Crimes. They have 4 associates and a chamber head. They're amazingly talented. Best place to intern, the head has good clientele and knowledge. 2 senior associates have good court presence and the two juniors are absolute monsters at research and drafting. If you're good enough you'll be paid stipend and the office is super chill.

Kapil is getting all the limelight. Clearly, he has the court's ear. I'm quite surprised with Chidambaram’s lackluster performance and demand since 2014. Have the criminal investigations kept him distracted? To answer your question, like Bollywood, I feel even the Supreme Court is no longer producing superstar lawyers like these or HS/GS (both of whom still appear regularly before various HCs and the SC even now btw!: did their office/ juniors give you that bs about them being only London based? You've been played! ).

In short - the profession has been democratized to the extent that you have a better chance than before of making a name for yourself even if you come from some obscure part of India without contacts. Yes, you still need talent and bucketloads of luck.

Great news and I endorse it on principle. We must push our brightest and best to the bench. However, I wish they brought him into counsel practice with a senior gown (kept him there for 6 months - 1 year) and then inducted him into the DHC as a judge. This new trend of plucking law firm partners and placing them straight on the bench seems wrong, and its repercussions will not be pleasant.

I didn't comment here earlier, but can't help saying that in India, such lawyers who are highly successful practitioners don't often display such affinity or love for obscure but important scholarly theories. At the same time, the point of the other person's argument seems to be that well-rounded education isn't being provided to them at present. They are being taught theories but not enough practical application including commercial and transactional or litigation application. Which isn't entirely a baseless allegation, from what I'm aware of their curriculum. It really doesn't have to be a zero sum game, no reason why it has to be either/or. There are over fifty subjects to be taught across five years.

1. Actually, I prefer Raz, Hart, Fuller, Dworkin and Austin.

2. Thinking of these things as a zero sum game is a very dangerous pathway to go down, and I am deeply shocked to see that you have gone so far down it - far enough down it for me to claim that you have undergone what I like to call a process of 'anti-theory radicalisation' (NB this may not be, likely isn't, an original phrase).

3. I will be unable to carry out the procedure of deradicalisation. I shouldn't either, as that isn't my job - it's way above my paygrade. That's for your professors and your Vice Chancellor to do. However, I can present you with some arguments that will hopefully assist them. You may have heard of the phrase 'well rounded'? You may have thought that it only applies to life before law school, but no. It applies here, too. Some of the best lawyers I know are people who can talk about problems in the criminal courts one moment (the hard yards of legal practice) and transition to critiquing R.P. Wolff's defence of philosophical anarchism the next.

4. Some of the greatest legal theorists of all times were legal practitioners for a while at least (or had some practical exposure). Dworkin, for example, worked in a prominent American law firm; Austin was a barrister; Hart worked with British intelligence before returning to Oxford to undertake postgraduate study. Therefore, I would remind you that being an academic lawyer is by no means incompatible with being a practitioner. Even today, this is the case. Alan Bogg is a prime example of this, teaching Labour Law at Bristol, while also practicing as a barrister at Old Square Chambers.

5. Some of the best (most high quality) private law theory scholarship comes from ex-practitioners who understand the value of theory.

6. To fully understand, and in order to meaningfully critique, the law, one needs to be able to put on multiple 'hats'. The practitioner must be able to swap her hat for the legal empiricist; the legal philosopher must be able to swap her hat for that of the practitioner. This is because lawyers are uniquely placed to shed light on the social context, for the law is partly shaped by, and partly shapes, it. In this way, as McCrudden argues, law can enrich the social sciences (e.g., philosophy), and the social sciences can enrich law. This cannot happen by you saying 'give me only industry-focussed courses'. There are tonnes of examples of good work by practitioners, academic lawyers and others, that show this process of mutual enrichment taking place and being of benefit to everyone in the legal community (I am happy to recommend certain readings to you on this matter, if you are interested). As far as I can see, the training you are receiving at NLS is preparing you well to have a nuanced, critical understanding of the social context, which you will require, whether as a practitioner, an academic, a judge, legislator or anything else.

How can I switch from a Corporate law team to a TMT team? As an A0 at a Tier 1 firm, how long should I wait before making the switch, and will my current experience be discounted if I apply to firms like Khaitan, Trilegal, or IndusLaw? Any team suggestions that wont discount the experience?

Bump. Same query. I practice in your neighbour city Bhopal. Tribunal based practice. Hate District Court like hell. Continuously think of shifting to Tier I city, because the work is not invigorating, and the pay is pathetic. But opt out of it everytime. The amount of struggle in legal profession is just too much. It's viable majorly for the local populace to get invested physically, mentally and financially to that extent.

PLEASE NO TROLLING

Require honest feedback on Luthra.

I am A3 – corporate (with a mix of real estate and some power/roads experience) - in a tier 2 firm/tier 3 firm and I am considering applying to the Delhi office of Luthra.

Are they hiring post all the exits? Which teams/partners are good in corporate transactions space?

It may be fun (and more most likely more sustainable) work, as most non-transaction practices tend to be, but you have to be cognizant that exit opportunities from a niche practice area such as PCP are very limited to non-existent. Infact, there aren't that many firms which you can move to once you start out in a place and the number of partnership places will also be limited.

Since work will often come due to the firm's brand name through UHNI clients, it will be a practice which benefits from the firm's brand name, and hence setting up your own shop down the line will also not be easy.

Just something to keep in mind.