Why doesnt the Society taking action against firms which call themselves a 'solicitors' firm' but have a policy not to take in articles or give them a level higher than advocates. This to me is the gravest of offences against the Society. You want the tag of being 'solicitors' firm' and so have a partner or their kith and kin (elevated immediately to a partner) become a Solicitor and then turn it into, in the words of the most famous senior counsels in India (verbatim), a sweat shop.

- A Solicitor

@1 - I quite agree. I am myself an articled clerk. Seems like the whole concept of Solicitors is slowly losing the importance for big firms. Quite sad.

Agreed... but the problem i have faced was quite different from the "not to take articles or give them a level higher then an advocate"... not a single firm from my City was ready to take me as an Article clerk in their firm... more shocking thing is that they were not having a single article clerk at their firm!!!! they had given damn ridiculous excuses...just wanted to tell that there are many students like me who are facing such problems... :-(

I understand (and I maybe wrong) that to be a solicitor in Mumbai, this exam has to be taken (seems like the Bar exams in USA). But the Advocates Act provides that there shall be one class of lawyers – advocates. So …
- What is this “qualifying” exam? What benefits does it offer / what doors does it open?
- Are advocates registered with the Maharashtra Bar prohibited from doing transactional / commercial advisory work which solicitors do?
- Students from the national law universities join Mumbai firms as associates and don’t take the exam. What’s the deal there? Is it for lawyers studying in Maharashtra only?

(Interesting thing on this note – apparently law students of Delhi have to do a mandatory 3 month internship in final year)

#1 and 2 : the evry fact that you people are not aware about the lack of any legal recognition of Bombay Solicitors and mopre importantly their lack of any ownership over the title solicitor, speaks volumes about the levels of training required for this exam! Anywyas, the era of learning by rote is long dead in the area of legal education. the interests of Indian legal market is being very well served by 5 year trained lawyers who have had the advantage of being trained to use theri analytical skills

An extract from a law firm's website:
"In Mumbai (Bombay), the British solicitor-barrister system is in vogue. To become a solicitor, a candidate has to complete three years of clerkship with a senior solicitor and then pass the solicitor's examination conducted by the Bombay Incorporated Law Society. Clients in Mumbai (Bombay) prefer to deal with solicitors, and many firms do not allow non-solicitors to become partners."

So is that the only thing? Its "in vogue". Qualifying the exam opens door to an otherwise closed partnership / it leads to jobs for some people? National law people are making partners without qualifying the exam I believe.

When the Advocates Act have already done away with solicitors and barristers, then the law firms should also not give special status to solicitors ... the Bombay Law Society is just like any other society under Societies Registrations Act .... so it cant surpass the recognition and regulations of BCI and the Advocates Act , and the law firms know this. The society has no power to take action against firms for naming them as solicitors , even if they are not solicitors.

However, I definitely value a solicitor who has passed this "unnecessarily tough exam" , but it is absolutely ridiculous to spend three years with less pay and hardship to pass an exam which the rest of India do not recognise. In future, any national law firm or foreign law firm will not even care to keep articled clerks and waste their time and resource on them.

#5 do you work for a firm which is an advocate & solicitors' firm. If yes, tell them to get rid of the tag solicitor then! Why use it if you dont want to give the practice the due credit.

this exam is a huge joke. there are normal lawyers from NLS/NALSAR/NUJS etc who are rising faster in the career ladder in firms that are better than these decrepit bombay firms.

i can't believe ppl still give this exam

#9 I agree with your analysis that lawyers from the colleges mentioned in your message are rising faster in corporate law firms which I have earlier mentioned are sweat shops - in the words of the senior most counsels in India who earn much more than sweat shop equity partners.

But all you 'bacha or baba log' who join these firm know that they use the tag ABC, Advocate & 'Solicitors' firm. I am in the future most probably going to write to the society stating that these so called sweat shops which have youngsters who just put in hours by doing due diligence (nothing more than expensive stenos who are anal on commas etc) which in their words is a higher understanding of laws than 'interpretation of statues' and knowing DTAA, Income Tax Act, Companies Act, SEBI and FEMA laws, Property laws etc as their back of their palm.

A Solicitor - Papa

Apologies for the typographical errors, was charged up in trying to prevent child laborers from being exploited.

1. the solicitors exams r given by all those baba logs whose parents are themselves lawyers or u know, the rich kinds who can sustain their kids after 5 / 6 ys of getting their law education for a completely archaic useless stamp which has no relevance in the present context.

2. Everybody knows who are the lucky few who pass the solicitors exams.. the lucky few who have influential parents who have access to the question.. its an open secret.. I know thre r a few who actually study and pass the exam and i have tremendous respect 4 them.. though why any1 wud waste their time takin such an useless exam is a psychological debate for another time.

3. And all you ppl who have passed the solicitors exam or aspirants.. please tell me by ur exalted lawyerly skills.. where on earth is it written that u can only be called solicitors if you qualify an exam passed by a well registered society.. thak u keep claiming it as some sort of birthright.

4. As 4 ppl from the laws schools .. they r faring well becoz wat the law schools teach u are the skills of analysis, logic and reasoning and that is all that is required for the practice of law.. and not by learning law statutes by rote as is required to pass the solicitors exam.

5. its a misconception that solicitors dont do due diligences.. they do.. even after finishing their sols aftr slogging their ass of.. if they have to join a law firm they join as A0s and go through the same paces.. the amount u learn by working in a law firm as an associate 4 3 yrs is way mor than wat u learn as an article clerk (its a joke). And well the law schoolites have already become partners of most firms in record time.

6. And there is a reason why the big law firms like AMSS, Luthra, Khaitan, AZB, Trilegal etc atre doing so well as opposed to the Crawfor Baileys, Mullas and Wadia Gandhys.. becoz they embrace the law school phenomena opver the archaic concept of solicitor.. last hrd wadia gandhy is also lining up at the law schools and have been doing really well becoz of thm.

I belong to a family which doesn’t have a single professional (whether it be lawyer or otherwise), yet I am a Solicitor. Having said that, at the cost of repetition, I reiterate that I don’t have any qualms or gripe against 5 year law schools or firms which employ (Jesus, should use the word consultant) them. My only complain is that it cannot be gainsaid that these firms which you mentioned in your email, baring none, use the tag ‘Solicitor’ next to their name and at the same time covertly 'abhor' the practice..

If you want to use the tag, give it the due credit. If not, then please refrain and restrain yourselves from using it. As simple as that!

Please counter the pen ultimate paragraph of this message. That’s it, in your words, stay relevant

A Solicitor

#13 this is #7, well I completely agree with u on the last point u made .... although I myself m from a 5 yr law school, I believe that the firms should give due credit if they are using the solicitors tag. But, its just a moral obligation on their part.

This is 'a Solicitor'. Thank you for understanding my point.

#12 - Boss your facts are screwed up...

I am from NLU, Jodhpur and I have no qualms in admitting that I studied my fair share...But the sols is a tough exam...Kudos to the people who manage to pass them....

And yes if you want to be a solicitor.....a recognised solicitor...you jolly well better'd have a certificate to show so....otherwise you're like the rest of us

if you have n LL.B., you're a lawyer - if you're enrolled with the Bar Counsil, you're an Advocate

nothing more, nothing less

And yes, Solicitors from Bombay are recognised at various places...They can appear directly before the Supreme Court without giving the AOR exam (I believe this is correct based on what I've heard from SC as well as Bom HC advocates)...Also, Bombay solicitors can qualify as an England and Wales solicitors by merely giving a few exams...

So there is a lot of covetedness associated with the title....I'd be privileged to have it...

I suggest that if you've been given a raw deal by the Sols, or if you didnt pass, I would recommend you not make the accusations you are making...Do you have any basis on which you're saying papers are leaked, etc.

I doubt cause you don't even have the guts to identify yourself on this post....

Can anybody u tell me what extra a solicitor adds to a firm which a normal advocate cant ? if that is the case then I believe NLS students would have attempted and I believe at least few of them would have cracked it ... if they can get rhodes and other prestigious scholarships which r famous worldwide then this sols exam could also have been cleared by few of them .

Gone r those days when such exams used to be very important .

ok sameer now that you have identified urself.. well what do u know.. u U ur Sameer the great.. i would have never guesses..all that i am trying to say is that even if i do give a name it wont matter because u wont be able to identify me.. so it was more a practical thing to do rather than absence of mt guts.. god lets not get petty on this. its a forum to air ur opinion and i am doing exactly that.

As for me having any basis of saying papers are leaked.. u will understand that i dont as in that case such practice would not have continued.. its an open secret which everybody knows.. ur statements and i quote "And yes, Solicitors from Bombay are recognised at various places...They can appear directly before the Supreme Court without giving the AOR exam (I believe this is correct based on what I've heard from SC as well as Bom HC advocates)...Also, Bombay solicitors can qualify as an England and Wales solicitors by merely giving a few exams... " are on the basis of wat u think at least.

Moreover try and understand .. the term solicitor is not defined by the Bar Council.. its just a registered society which claims that it has the god given right to impart such a title.. which some people fall for.. actually there is no legal basis for the same.

And finally as far as getting a raw deal is concerned please.. understand... that i have done my studies well and dont need to get affirmation as to my legal skills or get a psychological stamp to tell me that i am good at my job

#18 Just one question, are you working in a firm which ends with the tag 'Advocates & Solicitors'. If yes, then please tell your partner to get rid of the last tag. If you are that 'good' at your job, he will surely remove it. You have nothing to fear.

Assumption would lead me to believe that you are in one of the larger corporate firms in Mumbai or Delhi which have such a tag. If you want to counter me, please confine yourself to the reason why firms use the tag and at the same time do not give it the due respect. The answer is 'money' and 'foreigners' would recongnize them better than a firm which consists of mere 'advocates'. This is not fair and certainly not equitable.

Either a firm gets rid of the tag 'solicitor' (in which case I have absolutely no problems) or retain but give 'solicitors' credit. As simple as that!!

#18 the blacks law dictionary defines solicitors "a legal adviser who consults with cliends and prepares legal documents but is not generally heard in court". That is what my understanding of the term "solicitor" is limited to - one who is not a litigator.

All that i am trying to establish is that a "solicitor" is a form of a law practioner as opposed to one who advocates in court and a person does not have to pass an exam conducted by a registered society to be called as that.

You become a solicitor in the UK by passing the QLTT which is compulsory for all law practitioners. However in India, there is no such rule or law which prescribes that u need to pass the so called solicitors exam to become a law practioner or be called a solicitor. Such a practice is not prelevant anywhre except in Mumbai whre .. well .. it is considered as a matter of prestige.. which it is.. but it should be limited to that.. one cannot claim the right over the title of solicitor just because of passing such an exam. What if tomorrow a registered society comes up and starts conducting an exam, on passing of which they start conferring the title of "advocate" does that mean a person has to pass that to be called an advocate.

I have immense respect for people who pass the Bombay sols (its way tougher than the QLTT i have been told) .. but that should not in way indicate that one has personnal fiefdom over the title of "solicitors" in India (Tell me does the Solicitor General of India have to pass the solicitor exam in order to call himself that) nor should it indicate his superiority or competence of the individual concerned.

And i will appreciate reasonable counters and not populist rhetoric in response to my above contentions.. till then i rest my case.

We had a "solicitor" in my previous firm having "almost all the degrees in law" ....but really useless he was .....couldn't draft or argue.... What's the use of such qualifications ?

The point here is that success is always based on merits and not on degrees....... e.g. a senior counsel currently was a clerk in bombay high court in whose chambers all the SOLICITORS stand in queue for his advice............. No intention of degrading solicitors here......but please dont make hue and cry about it..........

Do you all Solicitors think that if AMSS or AZB drop "solicitors" from their name, there practice will be affected ?........no ways............. its the quality and merits that works..............

#21 Coming from a person who cant even draft simple complete 'English' sentences, the allegation against the poor fellow seems a bit drastic, don't you think?

Welcome to the generation of 'U', '...' and etc.

Please note that the measure of any firm is in the quality that it delivers and the clientele that it attracts and maintains, and not the qualification that the lawyers have.

Having only recently passed out from a 5 year law-school, i cannot claim to know how or why the AMSSs and the AZBs assumed so much importance in the PE or M&A space, but the fact is that from what little i have seen, the larger firms today seem better equipped to handle this area of work. However, in areas like conveyancing and litigation, it appears that the said larger firms have little to no presence (and we can only assume that this part has been forgotten in this conversation since the billing and visibility in these spaces is comparatively lower).

However, to generalise this way or that in a LLB v. Solicitor debate would be entirely wrong. At the end of the day, when the stakes are high, i doubt any client will say that even though one lawyer seems the best at his work, i will settle for second best on the basis of a piece of paper of lack thereof!

@#12 Without commenting on any other of your points, your point no.6 is completely baseless!

# 20 is absolutely correct. Let the Society continue with their exam but it must not stop an advocate (who is not a member of the society) to use the title Solicitor if he is "a legal adviser who consults with cliends and prepares legal documents but is not generally heard in court". The society exam pass outs may start thinking about a special tag like Associate of the Bombay Incorporated Law Society etc.

Let's be honest here.. Fact remains that most of the people who appear for the solicitors' exam are people who have studied in GLC or one of the other law colleges in Bombay. It is a well known fact that in GLC, the quality of education is laughable. So, the only advantage of studying in GLC is that you get to intern with law firms while you study. A lot of the older firms prefer to take long-term interns rather than the 1-2 month variety (which decend from the out of town colleges 2/3 times a year anyway). So all in all, it just makes sense for the Bombay students to sign articles with a solicitor (that way there is a higher chance of that person being interested in mentoring you) and study for the exams. From personal experience, I can safely say that I learned a whole lot more from my articleship and subsequent studies than I did from GLC. Maybe I was one of the few lucky people who got to train with a great firm, known for taking a lot of interest in their article clerks. I have worked with a lot of lawyers who have passed out from the national colleges and in my view, most of them don't need to go through that extra year of studies since their colleges actually prepare them well.