Kian, is this the 1st limerick-comment you've seen on your site?

I Like it !

Lousy Rapper .... Bring it on!

TT, you do not have any locus standi on the subject of pay.

[quote name="TT"]LMFAO: Even drivers get paid more! Bring in foreign law firms now![/quote]

Dude !

I respect the spirit with which you have voiced this opinion. But, you should know that litigation practice (a profession driven by perspectives and not 0's and 1's) isn't the same as selling mobile-phone connections, where you can have performance-linked salaries. The law firms, some of which also practice litigation do that, in a way already...

Clients approach an "independent counsel" (the category of lawyers to whom this benefit concerns) for arguing/ drafting a case or advise. The selling point in this scenario is only that lawyers perspective on the subject (not his juniors, who is completely responsible for his significance in the scheme of things and must climb from level 0). Juniors/ apprentices learn on the job and are traditionally expected to build their own practice, alongside.

There is however a very unfortunate mutation of this practice that is taking place now. Younger counsels (the better known ones, in particular) expect 100% commitment to their chamber (like a law-firm) and also pay rather poorly (even though they earn well themselves).

I find this rather strange and very unfortunate, considering that we generally associate poor pay (and shabby treatment) to the old school of lawyers. The younger, better known ones are sadly more insecure than their senior counterparts and a lot more whimsical !

I've digressed !

The point in short is that this Rs.5,000 is an addition to what a junior counsel at the bar would earn from his chamber and independent billings.

Rs.5,000 can surely not cover rent and food, but it can make things easier for those who aspire to practice litigation...

[quote name="WTF?!?!"]The BCI should itself be sued for this horrendous admission of their own screwed-up assessment of competence of 'qualified' law graduates!!

5K pm for 5 Years?!?!?! Do they want young lawyers to live independent lives or not?!

My office peon wrinkled his nose when offered 6K.. "Kya Sir, I have to live a life you know..". My driver gets 12K (+OT of maybe 2-3K extra pm).. my maid at home gets 7K..


Jeeezzus!

Suggestion: (a) Make it mandatory for every senior to have at least 'x' juniors ('x' being a function of the senior's years in active practice + amount of tax-filings) (b) fix a stipend (base, 'living wage') of about 20K (c) performance-linked pay of 2 to 5% for matters billed and recovered, where the junior has delivered a pre-defined set of contributions (continuity of handling a matter, relevance of research, file maintenance, punctuality, etc)..

And if/once that happens, we may stop dreaming![/quote]

Dimwit, you've sadly missed the point. It's Rs.5,000 toward an undertaking to render public-service, for those five years. An opportunity for many to learn, improve and showcase their abilities for more lucrative assignments, in my view. In a profession where good chambers are only a few and opportunies are even fewer, I welcome this change. Most commenters here have failed to also appreciate that this initiative will foster competition and ensure better quality legal-aid for deserving litigants..

[quote name="Kaoboy"]Really? One more subsidy? Why should the Bar Council be paying s monthly stipend for 5 years? And how does the Bar Council propose to finance this? If you can't take the heat, don't go out in the sun. Nobody forced you to become a lawyer, and if you can't support yourself, too bad - find something else to do. No reason why the Bar Councils should be encouraging this sort of NREGA type misplaced welfarism. Doesn't do any good either to lawyers or the profession. The money, if they really have it, can be invested in improving the functioning of the Bar Councils to render them more professional and modern.[/quote]

The 'Jolly LLBs' of the day badly require this dough ! You , my friend must be from one of those uncle/daddy firm families (that have plagued our nation for so long ) and don't need the money !

The fact of the matter is that in today's days day and age, there is a paying-job for every deserving-candidate, even in litigation (a practice area which is run both by professional /semi-professional organisations, private individuals and families) and there is an acute shortage of lawyers capable enough to deliver and justify good salaries (esp. In their initial years of practice. Of this lot of lawyers, there are some who wish to try nevertheless and are willing to learn. Of those, there are
[quote name="Puke"]It is absolutely disgusting how lawyers don't pay their juniors. I won't even say enough, for some lawyers don't pay anything at all. Non payment of stipend acts as a deterrent and dissuades law grads from taking up litigation. As a consequence, a new trend has emerged where graduates prefer to look for corporate jobs for a few years and waste their precious time in search for money.

To impose paying a junior would only lead to lawyers avoiding juniors in the first place. The need of the hour is for lawyers with established practices to pay their juniors out of their own volition. The whole argument about a lawyer being a traditional guru granting wisdom is ancient and leaves the option of litigation for those from affluent backgrounds.

Puke.[/quote]