Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

That’s true. I see quite a lot of SMU/NUS 2:1 saying they want to go to Oxbridge/Harvard for postgrad law. Like as if it’s a sense of entitlement.
One or two local unis with 2:1 making it to these programs doesn’t set a precedent (as this poster rightly pointed out). Even some of my first class friends (ranked 2nd in cohort) have been rejected before.

Thats because 2nd in cohort of KCL counts for nothing.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

That’s true. I see quite a lot of SMU/NUS 2:1 saying they want to go to Oxbridge/Harvard for postgrad law. Like as if it’s a sense of entitlement.
One or two local unis with 2:1 making it to these programs doesn’t set a precedent (as this poster rightly pointed out). Even some of my first class friends (ranked 2nd in cohort) have been rejected before.

Agreed on this. Bear in mind that all the people that are going to "these" schools are not only first class, but likely or really the best of the best. You can check out the faculties, law firms and you will realise that majority of them are either JLCs, Judges or Partners of big law firms.

Not talking about overseas unis but just talking about NUS or SMU. You are facing the maybe the same cohort of friends or people that you faced before for A level. Take ur 4.7 with a pinch of salt i will say.

On the topic of AGC, there are two groups of people.
(1) people who are scholars (top students) who go back to AGC/legal service where they make directors, cluster heads (on a fast track basis).
(2) non-scholars who are employed to support the scholars.

On the topic of law firms, there are two groups of people.
(1) people with connections (better treatment, decent quality of life).
(2) people without connections (have to work extremely hard/even if they work hard, may still be victimized).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

On the topic of AGC, there are two groups of people.
(1) people who are scholars (top students) who go back to AGC/legal service where they make directors, cluster heads (on a fast track basis).
(2) non-scholars who are employed to support the scholars.

So prospects in agc if not scholar arent good?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So prospects in agc if not scholar arent good?

We were having some discussions before with a group of law friends and we agreed it makes sense to nurture the law scholars more since they are funded by taxpayers and there is a vested interest in them - society expects them to contribute and serve Singapore in a leadership role in the legal function.

Of course they need to be supported and our universities produce enough law graduates each year to form the support base.

It’s good to go legal service only if you’re eventually invited in once you work your way up in the private sector (e.g. the current AG, LW, VK, WW, SM) etc.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

We were having some discussions before with a group of law friends and we agreed it makes sense to nurture the law scholars more since they are funded by taxpayers and there is a vested interest in them - society expects them to contribute and serve Singapore in a leadership role in the legal function.

Of course they need to be supported and our universities produce enough law graduates each year to form the support base.

It’s good to go legal service only if you’re eventually invited in once you work your way up in the private sector (e.g. the current AG, LW, VK, WW, SM) etc.

Well, nobody cares about the lowly-paid legal service. The impression is that you go into legal service if you can't take the hours outside, and want to just get a retirement iron rice bowl. Scholars go to top universities overseas and are forced to stay in AGC earning peanuts - this is a great pity.

For example, I have a friend who went to CC. Getting paid $12k as a junior associate. Another friend in AGC, same batch, getting paid $6k. Really peanuts.

Just wondering, is it common in law firms for the partners to give associates and trainees non-legal (and non-billable) work to do - sometimes for the firms business development, sometimes completely personal matters (eg property, cars, private organisational they are members) to handle? I get this often and I’m thinking of quitting because of this. What are the chances I have to deal with something similar at a different firm as an associate?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just wondering, is it common in law firms for the partners to give associates and trainees non-legal (and non-billable) work to do - sometimes for the firms business development, sometimes completely personal matters (eg property, cars, private organisational they are members) to handle? I get this often and I’m thinking of quitting because of this. What are the chances I have to deal with something similar at a different firm as an associate?

Normal. The mentality is if I pay you I expect you to do every saikang

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Normal. The mentality is if I pay you I expect you to do every saikang

That is the wrong mentality. As a practice trainee who is paid next to nothing (or in some cases, nothing), he/she should not be made to do menial tasks. The idea is that trainees are paid peanuts as the remainder remuneration is dished out in tutelage. Trainees should not be made to do administrative or worse, personal errands. Unfortunately, due to the glut, lawyers can get away with pulling off crap like this. Law Soc should definitely look into this. What is the point of having a young lawyers' committee within Law Soc if they aren't doing anything at all.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just wondering, is it common in law firms for the partners to give associates and trainees non-legal (and non-billable) work to do - sometimes for the firms business development, sometimes completely personal matters (eg property, cars, private organisational they are members) to handle? I get this often and I’m thinking of quitting because of this. What are the chances I have to deal with something similar at a different firm as an associate?

You should complain to lawsoc to prevent the next generation of victims.

You are in a profession of law. not a maid