Republished from A First Taste of Law archives.

[Deepak is a good friend of mine, and a spectacularly good lawyer. His influence on NUJS mooting culture is the stuff of legends. Recently a comment of mine on Facebook generated a lot of heated debate – some of which was out of misunderstanding of my statement (some people on social media are very quick to judge others without bothering to know the context). Deepak for some reason believes that I have some sort of influence on college going kids, and wants to make some counter arguments about some things I had to say. I will write a reply soon, but here is some food for thought. I am glad that my status message on Facebook wall seems to be sparking a healthy debate about such important things. – Ramanuj Mukherjee]

In mid-July 2011, three young graduates from NUJS moved into an apartment opposite August Kranti Maidan in Bombay – Ramanuj (Ramu), Abhyudaya and me. By early 2012, all of us had quit our corporate law jobs and were chasing our dreams. While Ramanuj and Abhyudaya started iPleaders, I went on to do an LLM at Cambridge and am now interning with the Appellate Body of the WTO. During our time as housemates, we developed very close friendships and yet, fiercely disagreed on a number of points. Sometimes, our discussions on random topics would go on for the whole night.

During our time together, I had the benefit of discussing with Ramu his ideas about legal education, his thoughts on revolutionising it, our future plans and a lot more. Today, Ramu has written a Facebook post which tells the law students to ‘shoot for the sky’. He tells them that grades are not important. He tells them attending lectures is a waste of time. He assures them that even grad schools don’t care about grades of the applicants, asks ‘anyway, who cares about grad schools?’ and goes on to state ‘for me a LLM or MBA abroad is just an excuse for a very expensive holiday’.

I spoke to Ramu about his comments and expressed my disagreement over some of them. He clarified that his position on many of the points of discussion were not as extreme as I gathered from the post. For instance, he clarified that when he referred to lectures as ‘useless’ he was not referring to all lectures. More importantly, he clarified that his comments were in the context of a particular student’s behaviour. However, I would like to respond to the statements made my Ramu, given his massive influence over law students in India. In addition, I would like to respond also to some more extremist positions that Ramu has disassociated himself from, since his comments could possibly be (mis)understood as supporting those positions.

At the very outset, I need to clarify this post is not to criticise the career decisions that have been made by Ramu or to take away from the huge success that his venture has achieved in a short span of time. There were very few of my classmates in NUJS who commanded my genuine respect and Ramu has been one of them – simply for achieving success, and motivating others to do so, despite starting with a worse hand than the average N-school student. So this is a healthy debate, like the ones we used to have in our Bombay apartment (which I dearly miss) and I hope the readers will see it in that spirit.

Purpose of legal education – or of life

One of Ramu’s favourite questions during our nocturnal debates, which he used to throw at the housemates and any unsuspecting visitors, was ‘what is your purpose in life?’ Ramu has always been clear that the purpose of his life was to change the way the conventional legal education system worked in India. However, what one needs to appreciate is that it is for each individual to arrive at her own purpose in life and that not everyone, at every stage has a crystal clear idea of a purpose.

The same goes for legal education. Students enter law schools with all sorts of purposes. These purposes undergo a process of refinement as a student progresses through law school. It is incorrect to assume that one purpose or one set of purposes is superior to another purpose or set of purposes. As free agents, each student needs to discover her own purpose for legal education and make the best use of the facilities offered by law schools in light of that purpose. Hence, it is wrong to assume that revolutionising legal education or practice (or anything else for that matter) is the singular legitimate purpose of legal education.

In our subsequent discussion, I realised that Ramu and I agree on this diversity of purposes. Yet, it is important to highlight this diversity as the key premise on which rest of my points lean.

Lectures

Ramu characterises attending lectures in law schools as a waste of time. He clarified in the subsequent discussion that he was not referring to all lectures. During my undergraduate days, I took a mid path on this. There were a lot of lectures that I believed were colossal wastes of my time. I have walked out of those lectures and told some of those teachers the exact reason why I walked out. I have always maintained that the mandatory attendance requirement in Indian law schools is comparable to a restaurant that serves bad food and forces the customer to remain at the table till the last morsel of that food was eaten.

On the other hand, there were teachers who provoked my thought. I remember coming out of a class in ADR and writing an article based on a debate I had with the teacher. The discussions in that class eventually motivated me to start an arbitration blog (lexarbitri.blogspot.com). Similarly, several interactions, within and outside the class, with my teacher in international trade law culminated in him kindly inviting me to co-author several pieces with him. That teacher certainly had an influence on my later decision to take WTO law as one of my subjects in Cambridge and to intern with the WTO. At the masters level, I was fortunate to be taught by some stalwarts including Prof. James Crawford. These are only a few examples.

It is dangerous to make general statements characterising lectures as a waste of time. This would inculcate a feeling in the students that lectures are useless and lower their expectations from lectures and lecturers. Students should feel entitled to good lectures, and demand amends when bad lectures are served. Taking classroom teaching lightly or avoiding lectures is not the solution to bad lectures.

Grades

Ramu tells the students that nobody asks how much you scored in law school. To the contrary, every time I have applied for a job or an internship, I have been asked about my rank. A friend of mine who had done almost all the moots I had done, published as much as I did, ran a popular legal blog and (I will admit grudgingly) has better research skills than me was rejected for an LLM at Cambridge. The only perceivable difference was class rank.

The reason why Ramu has not been asked about his grades is because he is his own employer. Other employers and grad schools are certainly sensitive to class ranks. It is true that as one progresses in the profession, the relevance of the rank diminishes (I don’t know what Fali Nariman scored in his law degree). But for those first few crucial steps in the profession (except may be, for those choosing to litigate) rank continues to be an important factor. It is true that other achievements may, to some extent, make up for academic performance. However, there is no guarantee of the same and a lower ranked applicant starts with a handicap compared to his higher ranked counterpart.

Theory v Practice

In our discussions, Ramu used to emphasise the dichotomy, and a perceived disconnect, between theory and practice of law. I think, it is this perception that informs Ramu’s position on lectures being useless. It is true that our lectures in law schools do not teach us to draft non disclosure agreements or share transfer agreements. But I believe that building strong theoretical foundations of all areas of law is an essential undertaking that law schools undertake. I learnt how to draft a share transfer agreement on the job. But the theoretical distinction between offer and invitation to offer that I learnt in law school was something I found immensely useful in an important real life situation. Theory informs practice. It is the ability to engage with the abstract that distinguishes a lawyer from a robot or iPhone app that can churn out standard form contracts.

Does this mean there is no value in learning, as a student, the art of drafting or other relevant ‘practical skills’? Of course not. Having these skills gives a head start in several career paths that law students can choose. This is why I believe the iPleaders courses have a value addition to offer. But no amount of practical skills can substitute for strong theoretical foundations of law.

Is LLM a vacation?

I cannot fathom where Ramu gets the notion that LLM is an expensive vacation. For me, it was not. Listening to some of the best academics in my field, interacting with some of the best students in my discipline and other disciplines, and being a part of eight centuries of intellectual heritage were all extremely enriching experiences for me. It is also a whole lot of hard work. It has opened a lot of doors for me which were otherwise inaccessible. But above that, the pure joy of learning is something I value. Thus, I strongly object to Ramu’s comment that an LLM is a vacation.

Why the beaten track still holds value

A law degree is almost unique in the variety of choices it offers. It goes without saying that judges, practicing lawyers, academics, in house lawyers, etc. provide valuable services to the society. So does the novelist or politician with a law degree. The value addition on the part of legal entrepreneurs like Ramu is attested to by their success in the market place.

The career goals that students have will obviously affect their activities and priorities in law school. Unless one is absolutely certain that one wants to be self employed and does not want to do further studies, it is best to keep things safe by maintaining a good academic performance. But above all, learning the law is an exciting intellectual journey that law students should not miss out on.

One of the best things about Ramu’s success story is that he never let anyone tell him what he should do. I don’t think he imitated anyone. It was about him figuring out what his goals and priorities were and working like a maniac towards those goals. In a broad sense, that is worthy of imitation. However, it would be dangerous to imitate Ramu or any other person when it comes to the specifics. Ramu’s goals were his own. Similarly it is for each student to figure out their own goals. Whether a choice falls within the labels of conventional or revolutionary should not impact its worthiness. Those of us who make one set of choices do not, by that fact, gain an entitlement to ridicule those who make other choices. [Note from Ramanuj: while I have been at the receiving end of many a ridiculing sessions for the choices I made such as starting a business on my own and even studying law instead of medicine, I have never in my good senses have ridiculed anyone else for the choices they have made. I do not think Deepak wants to imply that I had ridiculed anyone, although it may seem so. I am sure he will clarify this in the comments to this post if that is not the case.] Only time can tell which of our choices will pay off and which will not.

I leave the impressionable younglings with my favourite quote from Aamir Khan: “Beta kabil bano kabil, Kamyabi to sali jhak mar ke tumhare piche ayegi” (revealed in the subsequent discussion to be one of Ramu’s favourite quotes as well).