The challenge of globalization to legal theory that I wish to highlight is rather less fashionable. This is the matter of conceptual clarification, more particulary the construction of a conceptual framework and a meta-language of legal theory that can transcend legal cultures.
Similar considerations apply to the sociology of law. For example the sociology of legal professions, having made great strides al local levels, especially in Pakistan/India, has foundered on the absence of a meta-language for even the most elementary desciption of legal functionaries and personnel. It is obvious that words like 'lawyer', 'private practioner', 'notary', or'advocate' mean significantly different things, both formally and functionally, in different legal systems, even within the common law family. To date the comparative sociology of legal professions has barely begun to develop a conceptual framework for making valid comparisions.
The problem of how far law as a phenomenon is so culture-specific as to defy detailed comparision between legal systems and cultures is itself a central, and somewhat underworked problem of legal theory. Jurisprudence is not a subject apart, globalized add Post-LLB tended to criticism on that, of local maps...

The conceptual illumination can maneuver as per tapered manifestations as well as levelheaded and rationale slanting. The predicament with constricted views is that it proceeds on a solitary model and abhors a holistic approach. The theme pertaining to multifaceted social issues can neither be solved by taking recourse of Jurisprudence nor by considering a single class. It requires a holistic as well as pragmatic approach. The initiative of agitating and nauseating on the basis of inconsequential and single approach concept can bring at best unbaked and sardonic annotations and zilch. The endeavor and resources should be headed for substance rather than form. The ultimate sociology of law is that justice must be done, it must be seem to be done and it must be felt to be done. If it is facilitated by a legal professional, it is immaterial whether he is an “advocate” or an “attorney”. Be rationale please