Reclaiming The Soul Of Legal Education: A Case For Litigation-Centred Training

In today's rapidly commercialised academic environment, legal education, more particularly in private law colleges, is increasingly drifting away from its foundational purpose. Under the growing apparent influences of corporate houses and market-driven metrics, many institutions are orienting law graduates almost exclusively towards corporate legal roles. While corporate law is undeniably a legitimate and necessary domain, the disproportionate emphasis on it has come at a heavy cost: the erosion of litigation skills, professional confidence, and the broader public mission of the legal profession. This trend not only weakens the individual lawyer but also does a profound disservice to the field of law itself.

At the heart of the legal profession lies the ability to litigate. Litigation is not merely one career option among many; it is the crucible in which legal reasoning, advocacy, ethical judgment, and professional independence are forged. As we know the courtroom trains a lawyer to think on their feet, to argue persuasively, to interpret law dynamically, and to stand fearlessly for clients and causes. These competencies essentially form the very backbone of legal excellence. Historically, even the most successful and celebrated corporate lawyers, policymakers, judges, and legal scholars began their careers in litigation. It is this grounding that later enabled them to navigate complex corporate, constitutional, or international legal terrains with authority and confidence.

Unfortunately, contemporary legal education—especially in private institutions—often sidelines litigation training. Students are groomed early to see corporate law firms as the ultimate goal, while courtroom practice is portrayed as risky, slow, or financially unrewarding. As a result, students graduate without the confidence to draft pleadings independently, conduct examinations, argue cases, or even understand court procedures in depth. What they gain instead is a narrow skill set tailored to compliance work, documentation, and routine corporate tasks.

This approach produces graduates who enter corporate houses not as empowered legal professionals but as subservient functionaries. Many such graduates are confined to limited roles such as vetting documents, following instructions, and performing clerical or semi-clerical legal work. Their responsibilities remain restricted, their decision-making power minimal, and their professional growth stunted. Contrary to popular perception, this often translates into modest salaries, little recognition, and limited long-term career mobility. Far from being leaders or strategists, they remain at the margins of legal practice.

In sharp contrast stand those who begin their careers in litigation and later transition into corporate law. These professionals are in exceptional demand. Their courtroom exposure equips them with a deep understanding of law in action. They understand in the process how statutes are interpreted, how disputes evolve, and how legal strategy is built. When such litigators enter the corporate sector, they bring with them not only technical knowledge but also strategic insight, negotiation skills, and professional authority. Consequently, they command higher salaries, greater respect, and positions of leadership. This reality exposes the fallacy underlying the current corporate-first training model.

The question, then, is why private law colleges persist with this misplaced orientation. The answer lies largely in the politics of placement. For private institutions, placement statistics are a key selling point. Corporate placements are easily quantifiable, marketable, and attractive to prospective students and parents. Litigation, by its very nature, resists such numerical simplification. A graduate who chooses litigation may not earn immediately, may work under a senior advocate, and may take years to establish an independent practice. These outcomes do not fit neatly into placement brochures or ranking frameworks.

As a result, institutions push students towards corporate roles not necessarily because they serve students' long-term interests, but because they serve institutional branding. Litigation becomes an invisible success story, while corporate placements become a public relations exercise. This mindset reduces legal education to a placement-oriented training programme rather than a professional, ethical, and intellectual formation.

This trend must be urgently corrected. Policymakers, academic leaders, curriculum designers, and law teachers—especially in private colleges and universities—must be sensitised to the long-term consequences of their choices. Encouraging students to enter litigation is not a rejection of corporate law; rather, it is an affirmation of holistic legal training. Litigation should be presented not as a fallback option but as a prestigious, empowering, and foundational pathway.

Concrete steps are required. Law curricula must give greater weight to clinical courses, moot courts, trial advocacy, drafting, internships with litigating lawyers, and regular exposure to courts. Faculty members must actively mentor students interested in litigation instead of discouraging them with narratives of uncertainty. Institutions should develop alternative success metrics that recognise litigation careers, judicial services, public interest law, and independent practice as markers of achievement.

Ultimately, the legal profession exists to serve justice, society, and the rule of law—not merely corporate balance sheets. When law colleges prioritise short-term placement numbers over long-term professional competence, they weaken the very institution they claim to serve. Reclaiming litigation as the core of legal education is not a nostalgic return to the past; it is a strategic investment in the future of the legal profession. Only by restoring confidence, independence, and advocacy skills in law students can we ensure that the law remains a living, dynamic, and socially responsive discipline.

The Author Is A Professor at Brainware University, Kolkata. He is an expert in Policy Studies, Critical Legal Discourse, and Administrative Law.

Views are personal