In the last exam in April 2012 roughly around 285 candidates appeared – a new record, while in January 2012 that figure was at only 196, with historical pass rates of only between 2 and 7 per cent.
However, despite the increase in numbers, pass rates have stayed steady at around 6 per cent, explained Bombay Incorporated Law Society (BILS) examiner in charge Dawood Mandviwala.
“It [the numbers] is going on increasing… but we want to maintain the standard,” he said, adding: “Even if a person doesn’t pass, but only appears for the exam, he will be better off. The subject is so vast.”
The exams will begin on Monday (14 October), with subjects being examined on alternate weekdays for two weeks.
Becoming a solicitor in Mumbai requires an articled clerkship under a qualified solicitor for three years, and passing the exam set by the BILS by scoring at least 360 out of 600 possible marks in six different subject papers.
Around 850 budding solicitors are currently undertaking clerkships, said Mandviwala.
Previous stories on Bombay solicitors
Sample papers and more information
Photo by arquera
Comments
Kindly inform your managing partner to drop the tag of 'solicitor' from his firm name. Please inform us of the name of the firm where you are working.
- BILS
So true.. Yet they do not match up to standards. It is just an addition on their CV. Quality does not match up to NLU students.
Most people who don't need to run around with their NLU degrees stuck to our foreheads and gloat about not needing to is because they live in an incestuous web of mediocrity (old moneys).
Apart from the fact that BILS is not run in a very organised manner, giving the exam and studying for it, surely makes a difference to your skills as a lawyer, at least i can personally vouch for that.
Frankly the 'solicitor' tag gives next to no benefit and it takes away precious years of an aspiring solicitor. So putting in effort into this is plain silly
Secondly, if I draw an analogy to your jumping from a cliff example, I am confused, are you saying that people who give a tough law school entrance and make it to premium law schools like nls are stupid because they did not select going to a simple law school that does not require entrance exam? And because you went to some xyz law school and didnt waste your time sitting for the entrance exam, you are smart?
Secondly, if I draw an analogy to your jumping from a cliff example, I am confused, are you saying that people who give a tough law school entrance and make it to premium law schools like nls are stupid because they did not select going to a simple law school that does not require entrance exam? And because you went to some xyz law school and didnt waste your time sitting for the entrance exam, you are smart?[/quote]
i was only replying to the earlier comment that people who have never attempted the solicitor exam should not comment on it. if that were true, newspapers would largely be out of business, law students would be barred from writing any project and Kian would have to wind up this website.
People who do not give CLAT may call it stupid or great, I have no issue with their doing so despite not having given it.
Because 273 first timers is definitely not the case.
Btw, good luck to all who are appearing.
PS: I am not from any NLU.
Firstly, if you see the syllabus for solicitors, it has almost nothing to do with transactional law practice. So saying that their SSA and SHA mark-up was substandard is like saying a general practitioner doctor's surgery skills weren't great.
Secondly, substandard drafting and transactional skills are seen even in the N school grads. These skills come more from experience and aptitude than based on law school or solicitor's qualification
Firstly, if you see the syllabus for solicitors, it has almost nothing to do with transactional law practice. So saying that their SSA and SHA mark-up was substandard is like saying a general practitioner doctor's surgery skills weren't great.
Secondly, substandard drafting and transactional skills are seen even in the N school grads. These skills come more from experience and aptitude than based on law school or solicitor's qualification[/quote]
What I am trying to say is that being a solicitor doesn't make any difference to clients these days. It's not that solicitors are bad in transactional practice or non-sols good in transactions. I think the purpose of studying this huge syllabus and passing the tough exam is to provide a substantial value addition to the clients. If that is missing then its a futile exercise IMO. And yes, I think its extremely important for a solicitor to be a good documentation lawyer and transactions definitely cater to documentations followed by negotiations.
If yes, I rest my case and you can shut your base.
I can prove you wrong that none of the Shroff brothers are Solicitors. Why are you lying?
Kian - there is a book of Solicitors which contain their name.
If the BILS is a private archaic body, why give a toss and rant here - every year? Why the need to get off your high horse?
Come on, just because you took the CLAT and went to a law school while the hoi polloi went to a law college, naturally you think you are smarter than the rest!
Such wishful thinking. CLAT still does not attract the best and the brightest India produces. And we are not even counting the engineering and medical types.
Hundreds prefer to go to really elite, legendary institutions like St Stephen's College, Presidency College, St Xavier's college, Sri Ram College of Commerce, Lady Shriram College - and later do an LLB from Campus Law Centre or GLC. And these lawyers are more likely to have a greater grasp of the issue at hand, and much wider range of thinking.
That's why the magic circle and white shoe firms routinely prefer guys (and girls) with non-legal background and make them take a conversion test so that qualify for enrollment.
BTW, Lord Denning, arguably the finest legal mind of the 20th century - graduated in Maths!