NUJS Kolkata students received at least 20 job offers for students from its 2014 graduating batch, after up to six law firms made a mix of campus and pre-placement offers (PPOs) around 30 April.
Amarchand Mangaldas was the largest recruiter, making two PPOs and five on-campus offers to NUJS students.
Luthra & Luthra made a total of five offers, while Trilegal made three offers, including PPOs.
J Sagar Associates (JSA) visited the NUJS campus to hire two students to begin in 2014, and Khaitan & Co made three job offers for its Mumbai and Bangalore offices.
The above figures were confirmed by each respective recruiting law firm.
AZB & Partners may also have made offers to students, which Legally India was not able to authoritatively confirm at the time of going to press.
A member of the NUJS’ campus recruitment committee (CRC) declined to comment, citing committee policy and an administration gag order.
This year, NLSIU Bangalore fourth-year students secured 24 jobs on their day zero, while NLU Jodhpur placed 11, according to their respective recruitment committees.
Around July 2011 at NUJS the above firms, excluding Khaitan & Co, had hired 25 students going into their final year to start in 2012, with other firms bringing that early-recruitment-season tally up to 41. Last year, NUJS’ CRC had also declined confirming day zero figures against a backdrop of a slackening economy and a larger supply of law graduates, as reported in Mint.
Day Zero offers made to start in 2014, to date
| Total | NUJS | NLSIU | NLU Jodhpur | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luthra | 18 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Amarchand | 10 | 7 | 7 | 3 |
| Trilegal | 10 | 3 | 5 | 2 (excl. 3 subject to internship) |
| AZB | 3 | 1+ ? | 2 | |
| Khaitan & Co | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
| JSA | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| TOTAL | 20+ | 24+ | 11 |
Click here for all previous Legally India coverage of law school’s campus recruitments.
Comments
Great stuff!
And whatever other three NLS jobs there were (2 mckinsey and 1 more from somewhere else?)
Any clue on the more sought after vacation schemes for NUJS?
The table currently is also a little inconsistent vis-a-vis offers / acceptances (NLS I believe, acceptances were a little lower than the figures in the tables). We'll update a full table with figures from firms shortly.
nujie baba to the rescue. Kian, please deposit the agreed sum in my swiss bank acc.
AMSS - 3 PPOs + 4 Campus Jobs ( out of 4 campus offers)
LUTHRA - 5 PPOs (after pre-day zero interview) + 0 campus offers
TRILEGAL - 0 PPOs + 3 Campus Jobs (out of 3 campus offers)
JSA - 0 PPOs + 2 Campus Jobs (out of 2 campus offers)
Khaitan - 0 PPOs + 1 Campus Job ( out of 2 campus offers)
AZB - 1 PPO + 0 Campus Jobs
Lakshmi Kumaran and Sridharan - 1 PPO + ( havent recruited from campus yet)
Talwar Thakore and Associates - 1 PPO + ( havent recruited from campus yet)
Allen and Overy - One Training Contract (already having completed relevant Vac Scheme) + One Vac Scheme Pending (out of 2 campus VS offers)
Herbert Smith Freehills - 2 Vac Scheme Offers (both pending)
Confirmed, INDIVIDUAL Jobs (excluding overlaps and vac schemes) - 22
Total campus offers secured so far (excluding ppos) - 15
Total offers (including ppos, overlaps) - 26
The last number IS WHAT OTHER RCCs seem to publish.
Your article mentions number of job "offers", kindly confirm the number of students who have ACCEPTED the offers.
Almost half the batch... When will history repeat itself?
Shocked and Appalled. I am stunned by your tone in your comments. You are an editor of this legal newspaper. I wouldnt expect the editor to pass judgments. Ideally your job is to report facts.
If you are not able to procure data like the other newspapers then ideally its time for you to introspect and figure out why yours isn’t as trustworthy as others like B&B. I follow both legally india and B&B and have never seen B&B stoop to this level! Calling the policy of the NUJS RPC as ridiculous is just not done and speaks volumes of how petty you and your newspaper is.
I would like to find out the authority by which you seemed to have ‘demanded’ stats from the NUJS RCC. Yes, students have often objected to Indian law firms not being transparent, but at the time we have respected if any law firm has decided to not share data like others. It’s a free world at the end of the day. Everyone has a right to decide what they would like to share.
Again, you cannot demand info but just request for it and you have no opinion to pass on any judgment on the RPC or the NUJS admin policy.
Hope this comment would be published and your authority as moderator would not be misused as has been done previously.
1. Since when is an editor of a newspaper not allowed to pass judgments or have an opinion?
2. Since when is an editor not allowed to communicate such opinion separately from a news story?
3. Should an editor not be able to communicate such opinion in the comments, which are open to all, particularly when asked for reasons in the delay of NUJS figures by another reader?
4. Should I write a longer column about the policy instead, explaining in even more detail why it is in fact not just ridiculous, but also somewhat hypocritical, pointless, dishonest, counterproductive and more? Would be happy to explain more if you like.
5. We have no authority to demand anything, but we can make a rational case of why such information should be freely shared by RCCs and not hidden, which I argue is another symptom of the secrecy disease that afflicts many sections of this profession.
6. If I can write an opinion column or blog post or comment about a law firm's management policy, or a law school administration's conduct, then why not on an RCC policy?
7. After calling the policy ridiculous, we went ahead and reported the placement figures very fairly, after giving NUJS' RCC plenty of chances to engage with us and comment on the figures, which we had in any case. Nalsar's RCC commendably came around when we had the figures, at least (though only after seeing that we published NUJS' figures despite a 'no comment' presumably).
Do feel free to respond, though you do seem to bear a bit of a grudge against us judging by your language.
Also, please rest assured that we have never shied away from publishing comments critical of LI.
Best wishes,
Kian
Given your hubris, this is a humble request to you to set out what exactly you think an ideal RPC policy should be? Also conspicuously absent are figures of NLU Bhopal, are you shielding them deliberately? vested interest maybe? In my book they deserve to be compared on a level playing field as those who s policies you have openly condemned. Are you afraid of the adverse conclusions people would draw seeing the abysmal figures and the fact that NO foreign firms ever go there? This is curious indeed. Notwithstanding, please articulate your version of what RPCs should be doing given your vast experience of being a part of recruitment committees at Oxford, which might explain the hubris. Then a more informed discussion may ensue instead of your puerile responses in bits and pieces.
Given your hubris, this is a humble request to you to set out what exactly you think an ideal RPC policy should be? [/quote]
Completely agree on this one with NALSAR Alum. As I had mentioned earlier, it seems that all colleges are supposed to adhere to the framework of the RCC Policy as envisaged by Kian. We would be really glad if you could probably devise a model policy and publish it on LI so we can comply with the same. After all, we are not supposed to protect the interest of the batch or the college but are merely supposed to ensure that we are supposed to meet the ridiculous standards prescribed by LI.
.
At the risk of repeating myself here, being a part of the batch, i completely agree with the policy of not disclosing figures because it does have a valid reason behind it. You had in one of your previous posts pointed out the reason too. If you fail to find merit in that policy, then you are entitled to your opinion like many others. As I said earlier, it’s a free world at the end of the day. But it seems that you have ‘misused’ your power as the editor of the newspaper to call the policy ‘ridiculous’ and make headlines out of it. It speaks volumes of the quality of this website.
Also, I think many others would agree the lack of LI’s transperancy in covering law firms management policy. This has been questioned many times in the past and ‘in my opinion’ rightfully so. So to say that LI has been equally active in its quest for ensuring transparency in the law firms would be totally incorrect in 'my opinion'.
Also, Kian I would really appreciate if in the future you would clearly caveat your opinions rather than calling them blanket ridiculous.
Further, from the looks of it you seem to have a grudge against the NUJS students and not the other way round.
Cheers.
In the meantime, please allow me to criticise any of those policies, if I think they are ridiculous, in a comment like any other reader. We have yet to 'make headlines' out of this, but if you think it is such an important issue arguably we should at least write a column explaining how this policy doesn't work in anyone's favour (again)?
Best wishes,
Kian