Lawyer Salary

Hey guys,

I'm interested in doing family law at a small-medium firm. My grades are rather okay but I'm particularly interested in this Raffles Place firm with this long-hair, bearded lawyer/partner who does tremendous amount of pro bono work.

Any insights on any culture and pay of this firm?

Thanks in advance!

(to the confused young lad above, i'll read and reply you tml hahaha)

Originally Posted by tea

Hello! I'm a Y1 Law student at SMU and an avid follower of this thread. I've really valued all the advice given by school seniors and working professionals so far and would like to submit my own dilemma for direction and enlightenment.

Some background: I'm a person with no specific interests in life, and I draw a blank whenever someone asks me what I want to do/be in the future. I'm in Law because
- I never expected to get in and was too excited to think twice when I did
- I've always enjoyed reading and fared better with words (as opposed to numbers)
- I wanted financial security, and a straightforward career path which risked no further indecision
- I was deliberating between NUS & SMU, so this gave me a perfect reason to choose SMU (I didn't apply for NUS Law).

After studying Law for about half a semester however, I came to realise that this degree/career may not really be the one for me. Here's another bulleted list detailing why:
- There's basically no use of creativity (at least not in the life-changing ways I would like) due to statutes/stare decisis
- Readings are boring and endless, apart from some especially messed up criminal cases
- I feel restless arguing over petty things like a particular word in the statute
- I want to play in my last few years of education, not suffer
- There's a glut of lawyers I'm not sure I can beat
- ...which raises the issue of (decreasing) salary
- I want to travel a lot in my future job, but the legal profession seems to be very local- and desk-bound

But of course, where there are pros, there are cons (to transferring):
- Complications with the Tuition Grant
- ...which will force me to fit 4 years' work into 3.5 or less
- Starting one semester late, meaning no friends/hall/basic knowledge
- I'm planning to take Business, but I'm terrified of the mathematical aspect of it
- SMU's new School of Law building AND Law library will be opening next sem!!! It'd be a waste if I leave right before I get to enjoy these new facilities
- I appreciate SMU's defining programmes e.g. their career training workshops, compulsory community service/internships & high number of overseas learning opportunities (86% of their students go overseas compared to NTU/NUS' 70+%, if I'm not wrong) but have not experienced all of them yet (of course I can do the same in NUS, but competition seems tougher + internships/community service being optional may cause me to slack off instead)

Anyway, for those of you who couldn't be bothered to read everything, I hope you can nonetheless provide answers to the following questions:
1. I've read articles that posit that the glut will not adversely impact the chances of local law graduates, just foreign ones (from less renowned schools) - to what extent is this true?
2. Can the law degree really open many doors? The way I see it, companies will be better off hiring actual business graduates than law ones due to their education and experience in that area.
3. Are law firms really biased against SMU graduates? What explains our slight edge in the Graduate Employment Survey, then? (I'm just curious!)

Thanks in advance everyone!

(1) BS. You'll find a job, just that it won't be a cushy job with the bigger firms, unlike the past where most of the local students were absorbed into the bigger outfits unless they chose to venture elsewhere.
(2) In my experience, no. It is relevant to other disciplines, but it is not MORE relevant than a specialised discipline (e.g. finance/business degree)
(3) No. Maybe they were slightly more wary during the first few SMU batches, but not anymore. Also, don't trust the employment surveys for law.

Last word of advice, if you want to change disciplines, do it NOW. You don't want to wait until you are in practice and realize you hate your job but can't bear to take the hit on salary to move into a non-law job (if you can find a suitable role). There may be some short term difficulties but it is better to resolve this now rather than later.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hey guys,

I'm interested in doing family law at a small-medium firm. My grades are rather okay but I'm particularly interested in this Raffles Place firm with this long-hair, bearded lawyer/partner who does tremendous amount of pro bono work.

Any insights on any culture and pay of this firm?

Thanks in advance!

(to the confused young lad above, i'll read and reply you tml hahaha)

I know who you're talking about, but not nice to say here lah. You do know that he does exclusively crim defence work and not family law right?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Beyond the Big4 space, you won't find a unified scale of salaries. Some of the mid tier firms pay significantly more than others (some even pay more than the Big4). This would range between $4,000 and $5,800 in local outfits? I'm discounting international firms as you don't seem to be looking within that space. The smaller firms are a black hole I'm afraid. Salaries start as low as $3k. Some have 5.5 day weeks for 3.5k.

May I offer you some advice? Don't waste your time agonizing over your chances and worrying about things that don't improve your prospects. Go out and make things happen. Find events that lawyers attend and register for them. SILE seminars are almost exclusively attended by lawyers, and it a great place for students to come and meet lawyers. If I see a student who's not bound by CPD requirements coming down as a matter of interest, and he/she makes the effort to start chatting and networking, I would be very impressed. Some of the more senior registrants are partners with hiring power, so those people would be very worth approaching.

Of course you've got to be subtle. Don't go there looking all desperate and beg for a job. Invest your time in slowly building these connections up. I'm sorry that times are so hard for you guys now, but you've gotta be strong and rise up to the challenge.

All the best!

Agree. Not that I recommend students to start brown-nosing senior lawyers, but in this line, relationships are everything. Ever heard people say that doing business in Asia is all based on guanxi? s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanxi

Do internships, get to know people (both the associates and the partners), do modules which give you exposure to practitioners, do pro bono work that lets you work with practitioners. Work hard, don't need to wayang but show them that you have a good work ethic and decent work product, and more importantly, that you have a personality that can get along and work with others.

Also, even though it is very competitive now, I must say that the law school culture in Singapore has always been one where peers share readily and help each other out. For all current and prospective students, please keep it that way...

Originally Posted by tea

Hello! I'm a Y1 Law student at SMU and an avid follower of this thread. I've really valued all the advice given by school seniors and working professionals so far and would like to submit my own dilemma for direction and enlightenment.

Some background: I'm a person with no specific interests in life, and I draw a blank whenever someone asks me what I want to do/be in the future. I'm in Law because
- I never expected to get in and was too excited to think twice when I did
- I've always enjoyed reading and fared better with words (as opposed to numbers)
- I wanted financial security, and a straightforward career path which risked no further indecision
- I was deliberating between NUS & SMU, so this gave me a perfect reason to choose SMU (I didn't apply for NUS Law).

After studying Law for about half a semester however, I came to realise that this degree/career may not really be the one for me. Here's another bulleted list detailing why:
- There's basically no use of creativity (at least not in the life-changing ways I would like) due to statutes/stare decisis
- Readings are boring and endless, apart from some especially messed up criminal cases
- I feel restless arguing over petty things like a particular word in the statute
- I want to play in my last few years of education, not suffer
- There's a glut of lawyers I'm not sure I can beat
- ...which raises the issue of (decreasing) salary
- I want to travel a lot in my future job, but the legal profession seems to be very local- and desk-bound

But of course, where there are pros, there are cons (to transferring):
- Complications with the Tuition Grant
- ...which will force me to fit 4 years' work into 3.5 or less
- Starting one semester late, meaning no friends/hall/basic knowledge
- I'm planning to take Business, but I'm terrified of the mathematical aspect of it
- SMU's new School of Law building AND Law library will be opening next sem!!! It'd be a waste if I leave right before I get to enjoy these new facilities
- I appreciate SMU's defining programmes e.g. their career training workshops, compulsory community service/internships & high number of overseas learning opportunities (86% of their students go overseas compared to NTU/NUS' 70+%, if I'm not wrong) but have not experienced all of them yet (of course I can do the same in NUS, but competition seems tougher + internships/community service being optional may cause me to slack off instead)

Anyway, for those of you who couldn't be bothered to read everything, I hope you can nonetheless provide answers to the following questions:
1. I've read articles that posit that the glut will not adversely impact the chances of local law graduates, just foreign ones (from less renowned schools) - to what extent is this true?
2. Can the law degree really open many doors? The way I see it, companies will be better off hiring actual business graduates than law ones due to their education and experience in that area.
3. Are law firms really biased against SMU graduates? What explains our slight edge in the Graduate Employment Survey, then? (I'm just curious!)

Thanks in advance everyone!

Having read through your post i sadly conclude that in my view you are in law school for all the wrong reasons and i would advise you to consider making a switch while you are still early in. I have been through the local law school and found myself right smack in the middle of the glut so i speak from my observations.

Unfortunately many of your motivation for choosing law holds true anymore. With the glut, the competition in the job market is very real and starting pay has been going down. It is not the stable job you are looking for. For that look at the teaching profession instead. Loving to read is unfortunately not a strength unless you love to read particular kinds of stuff like law articles and case reports , which i think you don't. Strangely you didn't give a shot at NUS Law which is to me an indication of lack of true interest in the subject. Of course you may gain an interest later but seeing how you comment on state decisis and only found certain criminal reports interesting, your interest in law is probably no higher than the kopitiam uncle.

I think the glut definitely hurts the local grads. Hearing from my juniors (your seniors) involved the TC treasure hunt, it is difficult to secure a TC for at least half of them. Of course local grads still stand a better chance so by end of Y4 the TC secured rate is much higher. Many firms try to have a mix of local and overseas grad so don't kid yourself. What's more at the retention stage the local vs overseas distinction is overlooked and it is who is a better employee.

I see law degree as more valuable as a business one of course. But that really depends on how well you do in your law degree and how much knowledge you have. If you go to the bank interview without knowing nuts about how a bank works behind the counter, the relevant laws, the relevant specialities and some solid interest in finance, you are not going to win the biz kid. If you end up with a law degree less than distinction or second upper i doubt the investment banks will yake another look at your resume. Cruel because law sch is damn tougher than biz or acc but true.

I don't think there is a bias against SMU. Every hiring partners have their own critieria, may sometime irrelevant one (sorry as long as they dont say it out you can't tell)( no judicial review for this Wednesbury unreasonableness, lol) . That said i think SMU build a reputation of being good at marketing themselves but turned out not as good as they sound. That got some partners cautious. NUS Law curriculum is more individuaistic i would say so little group work. That means it is damn tough to get a decent grade unless you know enough to smoke an exam or research paper on your own. I guess that's the difference. Doesn't mean nus is just better. Lol.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Having read through your post i sadly conclude that in my view you are in law school for all the wrong reasons and i would advise you to consider making a switch while you are still early in. I have been through the local law school and found myself right smack in the middle of the glut so i speak from my observations.

Unfortunately many of your motivation for choosing law holds true anymore. With the glut, the competition in the job market is very real and starting pay has been going down. It is not the stable job you are looking for. For that look at the teaching profession instead. Loving to read is unfortunately not a strength unless you love to read particular kinds of stuff like law articles and case reports , which i think you don't. Strangely you didn't give a shot at NUS Law which is to me an indication of lack of true interest in the subject. Of course you may gain an interest later but seeing how you comment on state decisis and only found certain criminal reports interesting, your interest in law is probably no higher than the kopitiam uncle.

I think the glut definitely hurts the local grads. Hearing from my juniors (your seniors) involved the TC treasure hunt, it is difficult to secure a TC for at least half of them. Of course local grads still stand a better chance so by end of Y4 the TC secured rate is much higher. Many firms try to have a mix of local and overseas grad so don't kid yourself. What's more at the retention stage the local vs overseas distinction is overlooked and it is who is a better employee.

I see law degree as more valuable as a business one of course. But that really depends on how well you do in your law degree and how much knowledge you have. If you go to the bank interview without knowing nuts about how a bank works behind the counter, the relevant laws, the relevant specialities and some solid interest in finance, you are not going to win the biz kid. If you end up with a law degree less than distinction or second upper i doubt the investment banks will yake another look at your resume. Cruel because law sch is damn tougher than biz or acc but true.

I don't think there is a bias against SMU. Every hiring partners have their own critieria, may sometime irrelevant one (sorry as long as they dont say it out you can't tell)( no judicial review for this Wednesbury unreasonableness, lol) . That said i think SMU build a reputation of being good at marketing themselves but turned out not as good as they sound. That got some partners cautious. NUS Law curriculum is more individuaistic i would say so little group work. That means it is damn tough to get a decent grade unless you know enough to smoke an exam or research paper on your own. I guess that's the difference. Doesn't mean nus is just better. Lol.

Broadly, I do agree with your admonishment of the little kid. However, your English is oddly poor for a law student. I also take issue with your disparaging remarks about business school.

I took both law and business degrees under the 5 year double degree course in NUS, and in my personal experience, business was the tougher degree. Law was simple once you found the shortcuts. We had almost exclusively open book exams, so doing well on exams was simply a matter of navigating your muggers well and copying pre-prepared answers quickly. I aced most modules without much effort.

Business school however was a different ball game. It covered a huge variety of difficult topics such as management science, statistics, programming, economics and mathematical finance, each at a relatively advanced level. Each topic had its own unique demands and modus operandi for mugging. The need to readjust your mental capacities to tackle different subjects was challenging. Law exams really only ever used the IRAC principle.

And in Business school, you didn't have control of your own grades, due to the exposure that one might unfortunately suffer if grouped together with lazy or incompetent group mates. You sometimes had to put in the extra mile to carry the team. It was in no way easier than a law degree.

And at the end of the day, what does the average 2nd upper biz student get? A generic job starting at $3.5k. The average LLB 2.1? A significantly higher $5.5k starting pay at a big4. Within a few years, the bba grad will hit 5k and the law grad will hit 10k. I think law is a good degree to take. Easier to study for, shorter hours of study and much better financial rewards career-wise. Certainly if you compare a generic lawyer to a top first class BBA student who lands a Goldman IB job, law seems to fall short, but that's by no means a fair comparison. Unless you're an absolutely brilliant individual, you have to hedge your risks and plan on the assumption of an average cohort standing. If you do so, law comes out pretty much tops on all counts, regardless of which other degree you benchmark it against.

So to the little kid who's complaining about how boring the study of law is, I say please leave and give some other more deserving individual the chance. If you're having such a hard time studying and find yourself unable to enjoy life, you're probably not a talented law student anyway, and you probably won't find yourself doing very well in school or at work.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Broadly, I do agree with your admonishment of the little kid. However, your English is oddly poor for a law student. I also take issue with your disparaging remarks about business school.

I took both law and business degrees under the 5 year double degree course in NUS, and in my personal experience, business was the tougher degree. Law was simple once you found the shortcuts. We had almost exclusively open book exams, so doing well on exams was simply a matter of navigating your muggers well and copying pre-prepared answers quickly. I aced most modules without much effort.

Business school however was a different ball game. It covered a huge variety of difficult topics such as management science, statistics, programming, economics and mathematical finance, each at a relatively advanced level. Each topic had its own unique demands and modus operandi for mugging. The need to readjust your mental capacities to tackle different subjects was challenging. Law exams really only ever used the IRAC principle.

And in Business school, you didn't have control of your own grades, due to the exposure that one might unfortunately suffer if grouped together with lazy or incompetent group mates. You sometimes had to put in the extra mile to carry the team. It was in no way easier than a law degree.

And at the end of the day, what does the average 2nd upper biz student get? A generic job starting at $3.5k. The average LLB 2.1? A significantly higher $5.5k starting pay at a big4. Within a few years, the bba grad will hit 5k and the law grad will hit 10k. I think law is a good degree to take. Easier to study for, shorter hours of study and much better financial rewards career-wise. Certainly if you compare a generic lawyer to a top first class BBA student who lands a Goldman IB job, law seems to fall short, but that's by no means a fair comparison. Unless you're an absolutely brilliant individual, you have to hedge your risks and plan on the assumption of an average cohort standing. If you do so, law comes out pretty much tops on all counts, regardless of which other degree you benchmark it against.

So to the little kid who's complaining about how boring the study of law is, I say please leave and give some other more deserving individual the chance. If you're having such a hard time studying and find yourself unable to enjoy life, you're probably not a talented law student anyway, and you probably won't find yourself doing very well in school or at work.

I was the poster and i apologise for the poor English. I type on my phone and unfortunately i don't own a cool Galaxy Note or IP 7 plus. I don't have time to proofread because i already have many Agreements to proofread. All errors remain my own. I just want to state that i am happy with my post as long it brings across my message well enough.

I disagree with your analysis because i feel that you failed to give sufficient weight to the changing legal landscape. The legal market has changed so much that the average law student does not necessarily secure a legal services job. The pay has been on the down side. Employers do recognise that you need technical skills and not get awestruck because you are a NUS or SMU law grad.

I have taken my fair share of business school modules in Financial accounting and Finance. In fact i take a personal interest in them. I don't think they are as difficult as you put them to be. I aced them with relative ease. In fact, the feedback i got from my biz school friends is that you can survive easily without grasp of complicated concepts in biz sch as well.

Lastly, i relied on my fair share of muggers but i think you downplayed the importance of understanding the content of the muggers before you bring them into exams. Further i draw your attention to Nus plagarism policy when you said you just copied in the stuffs from seniors muggers.

Oooo boy if you're only in year 1 and you hate law school already, I can guarantee that you will absolutely hate legal practice.

Law school was the most fun part about being in the law. And yes, I'm talking about the studying bit, not the playing / socialising part.

Legal practice will likely suck the life out of you, so you better not even dip your toe in that pond.

Everything that you seem to be looking for in your university life could perhaps be better met by studying Arts. Have you considered a transfer to FASS or School of Social Sciences? There's nothing wrong with cutting your losses and jumping now.


The only thing I take issue with is you saying that there's no creativity in the law. The academic study of law is very fun, but it's a strange thing. It rewards hardworking thinkers and those with intellectual stamina. People who enjoy reading and re-reading the same paragraph / wall of text to decipher the meaning and seeing how it all fits (and arguing with friends about what it all means!). Those who go to bed with their heads swimming with thoughts.

Legal education and knoweldge builds upon itself, and builds upon your mind in layers. So your appreciation of how the law works in Y4 will be very different from that in Year 1 when there are so many gaps in your understanding.

That's why they say that law is a whole structured way of critical analysis and thinking. "Thinking like a lawyer" isn't just a cliche platitude.

If you stick it out and give it a shot, law will be more fun as it goes along. But you'll have to be prepared do some intellectual heavy lifting during your freshman and sophomore years.

The academic study of law rewards students who are willing to grapple with the subject matter, but it absolutely punishes lazy thinkers. I don't mean lazy thinkers in the perjorative sense. Some people are more 'hands-on' doers than others. Some people are more suited to intellectually lightweight disciplines. Doesn't make them any less capable in other aspects.

The practice of law however, is a whole different beast, bear that in mind...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I was the poster and i apologise for the poor English. I type on my phone and unfortunately i don't own a cool Galaxy Note or IP 7 plus. I don't have time to proofread because i already have many Agreements to proofread. All errors remain my own. I just want to state that i am happy with my post as long it brings across my message well enough.

I disagree with your analysis because i feel that you failed to give sufficient weight to the changing legal landscape. The legal market has changed so much that the average law student does not necessarily secure a legal services job. The pay has been on the down side. Employers do recognise that you need technical skills and not get awestruck because you are a NUS or SMU law grad.

I have taken my fair share of business school modules in Financial accounting and Finance. In fact i take a personal interest in them. I don't think they are as difficult as you put them to be. I aced them with relative ease. In fact, the feedback i got from my biz school friends is that you can survive easily without grasp of complicated concepts in biz sch as well.

Lastly, i relied on my fair share of muggers but i think you downplayed the importance of understanding the content of the muggers before you bring them into exams. Further i draw your attention to Nus plagarism policy when you said you just copied in the stuffs from seniors muggers.

Very uninformed. Foundational accounting for non-biz students is different from Foundational accounting for Biz students. The content is vastly different. You THINK you've taken a fair share of business modules and you know for sure business is easy? What a joke. I took full degree loads on both sides, averaging 24-28MCs per semester. You think accounting is all there is to business? Have you tried programming in excel VBA and writing Monte Carlo VAR codes with complex nested loops? Have you tried statistics?

Plagiarism? You make yourself sound like a fool (and I know you aren't). Law is a quasi science involving understanding basic legal rules and exceptions and applying them to the facts. Do you commit plagiarism each time you write the formula A^2 = B^2 + C^2? if I copy an essay written by someone, yes that's plagiarism. If I copy a paragraph from a set of notes setting out a basic proposition of law, calling that plagiarism is a stretch. Anyway, noone copies muggers wholesale. Common sense dictates that you can't afford to use the stock muggers without modification, or some fool will be churning out answers which are identical to yours.

Most students struggle with law because they have their priorities wrong when they study for exams. Professors superimpose their own academic interests on their students because that's what interests them. What they focus on is not necessarily what comes out in exams. And they tend to be myopic in scope during tutorials, whilst adopting a generalist approach when setting exam hypos. Blindly following a professor's focus is a surefire way to set oneself up for heartbreaking grades.

A student's duty is not to focus on the obscure points which their professors enjoy scrutinizing. A student's duty is to ace exams by obtaining a good bird's eye view of what matters within a specific area of practice. The next step is to tailor the mugger notes and halsbury resources to fit the structure of your thoughts and your navigational instincts. Then you practice hypos and train your hand to write affair as it can move. You train your penmanship as you own out your answers. You focus on overcoming all external risks which can affect your grades. You regularize your sleeping habits and find good sleeping pills your body responds to if you're predisposed to insomnia. Exams are not about studying hard. They are about developing an immaculate battle plan and managing risks. Every successful law student knows that the battle is won before the exam starts, NOT during the exam.

And I haven't been a law student for years. I do empathise with you, because when I graduated 6 years ago, jobs were abundant. Any fool with a borderline 2.1 from NUS law could get 4 offers from 4 Big4s. Times have changed, but that doesn't change the reality that our exam structure hasn't. The straightforward secrets to acing law exams have always been around, and anyone who applied them with a good degree of common sense would get a really strong second upper with very little effort. That's why it pains me to see people mugging their asses off and erring inferior grades.

Sorry if I've offended you. I was trained by an anal retentive mentor, and when I see junior lawyers writing poorly, it infuriates me. Operational hazard. I'm sorry.

My two cents on the Singapore Legal Sector (I speak only on the non-contentious side of things). It is not surprising to see Singapore firms doing Singapore work struggle to achieve further growth. There are several reasons for this.

First, the size of the domestic legal market is usually a function of the size of the domestic economy, unless the jurisdiction's laws are used in international work (for e.g., the law of England and Wales, and to a smaller extent NY law). This is because a country's law firms are usually licensed to only advise on that country's rules. Therefore, it isn't surprising that there is limited room for Singapore corporate practices to grow: (i) Singapore law isn't commonly used in transactions not involving Singapore incorporated or listed entities; (ii) Singapore companies aren't exactly growing into world beaters doing lots of outbound acquisitions or investments (unlike say American companies); (iii) Singapore capital markets aren't exactly the leading lights in Asia. Even when Singapore firms do work involving cross border issues, check and you will see that Singapore listed or incorporated entities are involved. Compare this to English and Wall Street firms. Their laws are used widely outside of their jurisdictions in transactional work. Thus, to the extent permitted by local laws, these firms set up shop in most major financial and commercial centres to advise on foreign law issues (i.e. NY or English law).

Second, law firms are valued (in addition to their advice in the law) for their ability to manage and coordinate a transaction. That is why an English firm's Singapore office may run a banking syndication deal in relation to financing for an Indonesian company, even if some key parts of the documentation is drafted under Indonesian law. They can simply instruct an Indonesian firm to advise on those specific parts. The rest of the transaction is coordinated by the English firm out of their Singapore office. We see this again when international law firms from Wall Street instruct top tier Singapore firms for Singapore law related work. For instance, famous fund A's international counsel (top Wall Street firm B) will instruct Singapore firm C on the proposed buyout by famous fund A of a Singapore incorporated entity. The Singapore firm, while vital to the transaction, remains managed by the fund's Wall Street international counsel. Unless Singapore firms become such world beating law firms recognised by international funds and companies as the trusted quarterback of a deal, instructing ASEAN firms to do ASEAN related work, it is difficult to see their corporate practice grow even bigger. That is not to say that the Singapore firms aren't capable of doing so because there are many top practitioners out there. Many times, whether a firm becomes such a valued advisor is simply a function of the size of their countries' companies. You do see big Singapore funds (think really big) engaging top Singapore firms to manage their outbound investments in other countries. The difficulty in further growth may simply a reflection of the reality that there aren't many homegrown Singaporean companies active in buying up stuff abroad.

Third, Singapore firms have expanded tremendously in the past 2 decades and it really begs the question of whether any future growth (or even maintenance at the current size) makes financial sense. This is given that there aren't likely to be huge streams of revenue coming in for transactional or advisory work. Do a Porters' 5 Forces analysis and you can see why fees may continue to come down. Law firms typically have profit margins of anywhere from 30+% to 40+%. To continue the current size and headcount, the firms really need a sizeable amount of revenue to keep historical profit margins.

Some cite Hong Kong as an example of a huge domestic legal market with a pretty insignificant domestic economy. But Hong Kong has a huge legal market because of (i) its proximity to the Chinese market; (ii) liberalised legal market; (iii) huge capital markets scene; and (iv) because of the previous reasons, huge presence of institutional investors and funds. Do a quick Google search and you will see international firms there practising HK law. Add that to many big Chinese companies being incorporated or listed in Hong Kong and an active buyer scene in Hong Kong. You get a booming corporate market. Singapore is unlikely to become like Hong Kong. Even if ASEAN booms, will Philippines, Thai, Vietnamese or Indonesian continue to list in Singapore? Even if Singapore firms don't grow, will international firms continue to stay here? Does it not make sense to move to Jakarta if Indonesia fully liberalises its legal market?

That said, I do expect banking and finance work to be popular in Singapore for the near future. Banks are still sited here, and funds are still being dispensed from this city. Corporate and capital markets work, however, appear to be a pie that is unlikely to become any much bigger.