‘A’ is affluent and well connected primarily, due to his father. He may even be the progeny of a lawyer. He is a fresh law graduate from a B or C-grade law school, as he could not crack the entrance exam for the premier law schools.

After passing out, ‘A’ will be found either in a first or a second tier law firm and never beneath that because either he himself, his father, friends or any other close or distant relative has enough contacts to pull some strings and get him placed where he is.

He has also interned in good law firms and the credit goes to his affluence and not his merit. Internships in first and second tier law firms have become coveted possessions and the amount of string pulling and politics that goes into getting them is downright ugly. It is also true that first or second tier law firms in fact want some of such law graduates like our dear ‘A’, as they are able to recover fifty times the amount paid to him in salary through the clientele that the firm gets through his contacts. ‘A’ is in factsometimes hard pressed by the firm to bring in some clients to justify his uselessness in the firm. ‘A’ can be found in huge numbers in high courts but rarely will he show his presence in the lower courts, simply because high courts are much more comfortable and lend prestige and dignity to the practitioner. However, pointless his practice may be. Further, he has the requisite contacts to get associated with independent lawyers in the high court and he can easily maintain his expensive existence over there.

‘B’ is from a middle or upper-middle class background and has a law degree from a decent law college. He has been an average or above average student during his academic life.

Rarely will ‘B’ have the resources to land a plush job through contacts of his, his father’s or his distant relatives, friends etc. ‘B’ has mostly interned in lower courts or in tier three and below law firms. He has worked hard his entire academic life and especially meticulously and industriously, during his internships unlike ‘A’, because ‘B’ is uncertain and concerned for his future employment.

‘B’ will be found mostly striving, struggling, perspiring and adapting in the lower courts and sometimes in high courts, where he genuinely believes that the legal proceedings are commenced or initiated. Therefore, it is the closest he can come to the truth and learn the ropes and strings of law. He has been taught that real law is litigation and if he survives for five to eight years, then he will be minting money. ‘B’ may also have a sincere belief that the real law is criminal law and therefore, logically he wants to be a criminal lawyer. ‘B’ is idealistic initially and thinks that the practice of criminal law is noble.

‘B’ has a genuine belief that surviving and learning in the lower courts is much more beneficial for him and that litigation is the real law and corporate law is pseudo.

Many a times ‘B’ can also be found in tier three and below law firms, since he does not have clientele generating capacity that ‘A’ has. Neither has he passed out from the national law schools.

However, after a few years or sometimes even months when ‘B’ realises that the daily bread and butter through litigation is earned mostly through how well-connected the person is and from such connections, clients are found. ‘B’ either starts building contacts or is always on the search for the ever elusive ‘panel’, which means that he wants to be the designated or authorised lawyer for a company or organisation wherein he would have an assured number of cases every month and a steady source of income.

‘B’ may join a decent law firm, since he has the prerequisite experience; he may even go to the extent of joining an LPO. Also, ‘B’, if he turns out to be a risk-averse person, he may opt for the post of a legal officer in a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) or a Multi National Company (MNC). These are some of the alternatives to his idealistic litigation practice and those alternatives, which he had abhorred in the past. The question remains, ‘has his potential been destroyed?’ or ‘has his existence been altered to suit not him but the society?’

‘C’ is from a lower or lower middle class background and may have a degree from a decent law college. He may be just another run of the mill lawyer, who took admission in a law college because it was the easiest thing to do and it ‘may’ also turn out to be rewarding monetarily.

He will most certainly be found in the lower or district courts either, because he does not have the string pulling connections like ‘A’ or his oratory skills are not sufficient for existing in high courts.

Now ‘C’, as you can infer yourself, will be due to belonging to economically unfair circumstances (unlike ‘A’ and ‘B’) will be associated with others of the same calibre and thereby becoming incompetently competent everyday.

‘C’ will usually have a dearth of work. Therefore, he will not be preoccupied or concerned with the direction in which his future is heading and will be found on most weekdays relaxing in the court. Most often, he spends his time socialising, entering into endless but pointless discussions with colleagues in similar circumstances, relaxing and lazing around in the bar room, library or canteen.

However, after sometime when he realises the futility of his legal existence and maybe due to the pressure from friends, family (and maybe his conscience) he will start taking up cases for petty fees and may even think about becoming an Oath Commissioner (and maybe a Panel lawyer like ‘B’) to ensure a steady source of income. This action, although of economic benefit to him and socially beneficial for the nation, completely destroys the zest and zeal, which he may have had at the beginning of his career or that fervour which may have been latent but needed only a spark to ignite.

So, these are the three hypothetical fresh law graduates. Now that the reader has a brief understanding of what he may have observed, may have very well been or is one of the many A, B and C. It is stated that the exceptional and meritorious A, B and C, who defy conventions, stereotypes and break the aforementioned moulds, have not been mentioned here, since these are fine legal specimens whose numbers are few and their existence should be cherished.

In the end, I will make an admission, mea maxima culpa; although I have a hold of the dilemma and the factors leading to it, I still cannot, even after due deliberation, find a feasible solution to make the choice easier or simplified for any of you or myself. The reason for this lack of a solution emanates from the fact and harsh truth that A, B and C belong to differentiated strata of the society, due to differing economic situations.

This inevitably means that the social inequality (primarily monetary) becomes the decisive force in inducing or forcing a choice in the dilemma. However, it may be contrary to your belief or existence, but bear in mind that you can mould the dilemmas of choice in your favour with the intensity of your efforts; as succinctly put by Paulo Coelho in ‘The Alchemist’, “And, when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it.”