To the Admissions Committee: I taught the applicant Constitutional Law and supervised their dissertation. I recommend them for your LLM.
The applicant lost a moot court on data privacy — not on the doctrine, which they knew, but on the technical substance of how data actually crosses borders, which their opponent understood and they didn't. Rather than shrug it off, they wrote their dissertation on India's data-protection framework, reading as much about system architecture as statute. Recognizing that the frontier of law now requires technical fluency is a rare and valuable insight.
I recommend them strongly for specialized graduate study.
To the Admissions Committee: I am a senior advocate who supervised the applicant in corporate litigation for three years. I support their LLM application.
The applicant drafted the written submissions in an intermediary-liability matter that turned entirely on the technical-legal interface — and twice I watched them out-argued not by better lawyers but by counsel who understood the technology and comparative regulation better. They've decided to become that person rather than defer, which is exactly why an LLM in technology law is the right step.
They second-chaired two disputes to judgment. I recommend them with conviction.
To the Admissions Committee: I supervised the applicant's research on comparative data-protection regimes. I recommend them for your LLM.
The applicant compared enforcement mechanisms across three jurisdictions and resisted the easy conclusion that one framework was simply 'best,' instead mapping how each fit its regulatory context. That refusal to flatten complexity into a ranking is the mark of serious legal scholarship.
They write with precision and reason comparatively. I endorse them highly.
To the Admissions Committee: I engaged the applicant's chambers on a platform-regulation matter and recommend them for your LLM.
The applicant was the one on their team who could translate between our engineers and the litigators — explaining to counsel what our content-moderation system actually did, and to us what the law actually required. That bilingual fluency made the matter move faster. It's exactly the capability their LLM specialization should deepen.
I recommend them enthusiastically.