First-generation advocates often find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to securing courtroom assignments. In many high courts and the Supreme Court, case rosters are influenced by informal relationships and long-established networks. Senior advocates and prominent law firms receive priority, while new entrants struggle to gain visibility. Without invitations to argue important matters, these lawyers miss critical opportunities to build reputations, hone advocacy skills, and attract clients.

The absence of transparent criteria for assigning cases exacerbates this imbalance. Clerks and court officers frequently rely on personal discretion rather than a merit-based process, and clients default to familiar names even when fresh talent is available. This perpetuates a cycle where first-generation advocates remain on the periphery, unable to demonstrate their capabilities on high-stakes platforms. As a result, the profession loses out on diverse perspectives, and justice delivery risks becoming insular and less responsive to the needs of a varied populace.