there will definitely be some market for it among the smaller deals being done by Indian companies.

More than the qualification - it is the experience combined with the qualification that people bring from working in such jurisdictions which will be helpful.

There is no benefit to a qualification without the work ex.

I think it would be great idea for us to become US lawyers also.

I am thinking of taking NY bar pretty soon as I am told it will help me in practice.

I am NY qualified and work in a US law firm - let me tell you that the NY bar on its own WILL NOT help your practice - it is only the accompanying work ex which counts, if you are interested in corporate law. The NY bar is like an entry pass only to US track in US law firms - you forget everything within a month or less of taking the exam - the exam just requires memorization of material prepared by BarBri - much like a lot of rote learning done for CBSE exams in India… how I miss those days!

Hi

I’ve just finished a LL.M from a top ranked London college and am also eligible to take the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Test (QLTT) to become a Solicitor of England and Wales. However I have not taken the QLTT as yet. , since I see no point in taking it if I have to practice in India.

My view is that there is no point in becoming a dual qualified lawyer if you intend to work in India itself. In fact, even if you become dual qualified and intend to work outside India, the dual qualification is not going to help you get a job. It’s just an extra qualification on your CV.

What matters (as people have rightly pointed out above), is the kind of work experience you have rather than your qualification. The basic LL.B degree is good enough if you have enough relevant and specialized experience.

If you do plan to work outside India, then you would need that dual qualification. For example someone without a LL.B degree from UK would need to take the QLTT (if they are not going through the Training Contract route).

Kian, I don’t think becoming a dual qualified lawyer is going to make one a better lawyer in India. A good lawyer will always be good irrespective of whether he/ she is dual qualified.

I am a dual qualified lawyer working in an international firm (qualified in India & NY). I am enroute to getting my qualification in UK as well through the QLTT route. I have worked in India before so may be I am in a position to throw some light on the pros and cons of dual or multiple qualifications (as I understand). I understand that people may disagree with my views but these are generally based on my personal experiences.

Pros:

1. Enhances the CV. A qualification is mostly considered by firms to be an evidence of one’s calibre. Passing a tough qualifying exam such as NY or California def shows that you are intellectually sound. I stress again for people who think otherwise that I am not connecting foreign qualifications with quality of one’s practice as the most successful practioners don’t necessarily have multiple qualifications. But without any doubt in my mind I certainly believe it is some sort of measure of your understanding of law. Moreover, I have personal experience of international firms asking for foreign qualifications especially in case of Indian lawyers as our qualification is automatic and not a filtering process. Firms believe, and this is straight from an international firm’s recruitment partner’s mouth that if a foreign candidate is qualified in NY or likewise jurisdictions, they would consider him/her as strong as other domestic JD students from US (in terms of a position in US).

2. Depending on which jurisdiction you are targeting to practice, a qualification may be essential. You cannot practice foreign law unless you are entitled to do so. As an Indian lawyer working in the an international firm, more often than not you are expected to work on the firm’s local practice along with the work in the firm’s Indian desk or Indian practice group. This would not be possible [technically] if you are not entitled to practice in that jurisdiction. In such cases the firm will not be looking into candidates who are not qualified in the jurisdiction where they will be located.

3. Qualification helps in transactional practice: This is based on personal experience. I absolutely agree that with time one will forget everything that he/she must have read while preparing for his bar qualification unless he actually practices it and experiences it in action. But there are still some aspects that don’t dilute with time. While working on many US related deals, I was able to question the US clients, counterparties or colleagues on issues that raises my attention due to a background in their law. A good transactional lawyer has to ask the right questions. All I am saying is that it generally gives you an idea of how things work and should work. Also apart from enhancing one’s own CV, it also adds to the firms’ marketability. Firms pitch to international clients on the basis of all the good things they possess including the background and CVs of their lawyers. A dual qualified lawyer (especially to client from the jurisdiction where he is qualified) is a superior marketable asset. Hence it may also work towards client relations.

Cons.: I personally don’t think there are any negatives but some may justifiably contend that qualifications unless absolutely necessary are costly and time consuming.

I don’t see what’s the point behind this topic. Are you trying to say that ‘obtaining education more than you require’ is going to hurt you? If you have the funds and time, go for it.