Excellent news. It always was hypocritical to demand 'reciprocity' from the UK and US legal authorities in waiving the mandatory QLTT and bar exams requirement where they subjected practising lawyers in their jurisdictions to take these exams and on top it, India doesn't have impose any such requirements on its own lawyers.

This test will improve the quality of lawyers, lessen the number of quacks at the courts and make our case for waiving the exam requirements stronger (even though personally speaking, arguing against the mandatory exams is stupid and altogether different since the exams there pertain to the local law in that jurisdiction and passing the Indian version of the Bar exam does not establish proficiency in their law.)

Should there be a mandatory requirement for senior lawyers to pay a decent minimum amount to their juniors .... which may be based on some score in the bar qualifying exam? E.g. if a junior has X%, and you want to take him on, please don't pay 5k a month .... have the heart to pay a decent salary when you charge some 10% from clients for your clerk / junior.

All the talk about improving quality of the bar by attracting national law school students would probably cease if this happens ... else eminent lawyers and judges can keep lamenting and using phrases like "nobody wants to join the Bar and they prefer being glorified clerks". Also, good lawyers from other law schools will also not be discriminated against once some bar exam score is there as a minimum benchmark. Many don't realize that national law school students can also be crap and local law school students can be brilliant.

[ i am from a national law school .... so please don;t fret and say i am biased this or biased that. and i work in a big law firm but i feel disgusted when i hear that X lawyer pays 5k to his juniors and the same lawyer talks about national law school students not joining lit ]

It is a welcoming step for increasing the lot of quality legal practitioners in the country .The number of law graduates passing out every year has touched a zenith. Screening out the best of talent as lawyers will once again retain the nobility of the profession and ensure quality output. But government should ensure job placements for other law graduates in non litigating field so that no talent is wasted.

Ms Sindhu Yadav,
Subject Matter Expert,
Choir de Law Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

If papers are the only answer to selecting good lawyers then one should have papers before every case because in every case questions different laws. At present students are under too much pressure of studying in law schools, why more and more burden is being added on students. I think the best way to do it is to have extensive interview when membership of Bar Council is given. As such this law will affect lawyers coming from smaller cities. The performance of an advocate can only be determined as per his court craft and not from how many books he had read. We are having papers for AOR also, so why one paper to start practicing and one paper for becoming AOR.

"However, it is pertinent that the govt also provides job opportunities and set up more courts with better facilities."

Job opportunities? To who? One hopes you meant rehabilitate them and not provide job opportunities. And obviously, this would apply prospectively.


And no, cutting out the quacks from the system IS a good thing. Please explain how it isn't. It does go a long way in solving the real problem. Not on its own, but it still is an essential ingredient in any legitimate plan to improve the quality of legal services. The abundance of quacks leads to issues becoming more convoluted, time consuming and leads to further litigation.

So yes, one reason for having the test is to serve that very purpose.

well, first off, there is a difference between rehabilitation and job opportunities. when I said job opportunities, it is very obvious that there would be certain procedure or criteria and merit for the lawyers to get into it. I am not asking the Govt to run a charity here, rather I am suggesting for more fields for us to graze.
well, I never said cutting out the quacks is a bad thing, I said its not the only solution. Besides, a quack is a quack, no matter how many tests, or how many papers you make him take, he/ she will find a way to cheat or do something about it.
Infact, all these system of exams and papers are time wastage. I would rather suggest a one one one interview or interview by a panel of senior lawyers and judges etc as the interviewer. It is more interactive, and a quicker process. Also. there are many students I know, who are very well spoken and smart, yet they never manage to get good grades on the other hand, there are some who are not well spoken and are very quiet, yet they score very good grades. So, how do we balance them and come to zero sum?? Not another written test huh?