Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't the girls from those prestigious backgrounds think highly of themselves and not let their legs, and not their intellect, speak of their ability? Interesting.

I am not sure if there is a correlation between intellect and ethics.

Plus, if you have done national service, you might also have come to the same conclusion that I have. While the JC students tend to be more polished, they are much more cunning their counterparts whom are less educated.

If I recall correctly, Darinne Ko was highly educated from the Raffles brand of schools. It doesn't mean she is ethical, no? Being ethical and giving off the appearance of virtue are two entirely different things.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sure, Singapore could pull itself from the blend society it has become. However, I think we need to take a more macro view on what are the industries Singapore has that will offer jobs that give employees a pay high enough to live just as well as the bankers and lawyers? That's the problem. Singapore, relatively on their neighbours do not have enough of an edge to boost this industry.

Take a recent development. Google are beginning to form a development team in Singapore. Let's see how this evolves. If there's a development job that pays S$8k for fresh grads, then of course employees now have an option other than banking and law. Looking at a start up job that pays S$5k vs IBD S$8k, the answer is clear.

I agree with you that there aren't many good industries which pay well in Singapore. That is why I advocate to my friends who are ambitious and entrepreneurial to leave the country. The world is a much bigger place than Singapore. Make yourself mobile through a good education and leave if you aren't into the traditional norms of success in Singapore.

Btw, I am not sure if you're advocating for taking a start up job at $5k or not.. Regardless, there aren't many startup jobs that pay $5k. The variance is about $2.5k - $3.5k + for startups. Anyhow, if you're a startup person, you're a startup person.

There is a good piece I read on the Epicurean dealmaker which adequately explains this. I am quoting you the paragraph below.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The tender young shoot who aspires to Lloyd Blankfein’s beard and pay package is almost never the same sort of soul who wishes he or she were staging a Lord of the Rings-themed wedding in the Pacific Northwest woods on the back of technology company stock options. They hold completely different life ambitions. This can be seen by the perhaps surprising absence of former investment bankers among the massively rich and successful entrepreneurs of the world.

Source: ://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.sg/2013/11/the-invention-of-leisure.html

This thread is deviating from the topic as usual. This is not the right thread for debating how girls who are from prestigious background sleep around or not or IBD... Let's just get back to how lawyering is a generally underpaid / crappy career. Thanks.

the question of whether m&a lawyers are paperwork dogs or not has yet to be answered.

perhaps a current m&a lawyer could shed some light as to what role he plays in each transaction, and how hard he works compared to the banker on the other side.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I didn't say that but I wish as a society, we are able to have a deeper, more measured conversation about our careers.

I know of girls in IBD who have told me that they are willing to sleep with their bosses to get ahead. I know of very scummish guys in AM. Sorry to generalize but banking attracts a lot of morally dubious individuals who are very prestige conscious. The same could be same about law. I am not sure about medicine since I don't have friends in those fields and I don't wish to lie about it.

But yeah, banking attracts a disproportionate number of individuals who are vapid, shallow and morally repugnant. Why doesn't anyone talk about that, at least in Singapore? When I travel to Europe or the US, there is real disgust and antipathy towards bankers, which is for the most part understandable.. Here we have a "kowtow to banker/lawyer" culture. Our society, no.. Our country has no spine.

Let me add my 2 cents here as a lawyer. I agree that in Singapore, banking and law are given a lot of layman prestige. Lawyers are prestigious because they are stereotyped as intelligent, articulate and earn a fair amount of money (though being in the industry, I know how true that is NOT, re the high income bit). Bankers are prestigious because your typical front office dudes come from selective Ivy Leagues and earn insane amounts of money. Whether they are actually smart or not is another thing. Money talks.

As with any high prestige occupations, they are subject to a lot of unfair generalisations about the ethics/morals of the people in it. The thinking is that because they are prestigious, they are successful. And they are successful because they are willing to be unethical or immoral.

The difference between the 2 is that law is a PROFESSION, but banking is not. Lawyers are held to a higher ethical standard than bankers, plain and simple. Ethics is ingrained at every step of the journey to becoming a lawyer. From law school, to the bar exam, to legal practice. At every stage, lawyers are told what kind of ethical standards they are to uphold and what kind of disrepute they will bring to the entire profession and justice system if they fall short of the standard.

At the very least, even putting ethics and morality aside, the legal profession is regulated by certain rules and conduct of behaviour. No such constraints apply to finance.

You can be cynical and take this with a pinch of salt, but many law students and lawyers actually BELIEVE in the justice system and just outcomes and upholding ethics and the rule of law. Contrast that with how many bankers actually enter the finance sector actually believing in ethics and justice?

Law is like medicine. You can choose to believe that lawyers enter law because some part of them actually believe in a sense of justice, or not. Just like you can choose to believe how some doctors enter healthcare because some part of them actually want to save lives. Along the way, some lawyers, like some doctors, might be sidetracked by money. But can you summon up any benefit of the doubt to believe that your typical banker entered finance because he wanted to do good for the world? No, I cannot.

There is a reason why a lawyer who sleeps with his client will be hauled up to the the disciplinary tribunal and be disbarred and lose his livelihood. Will the same punishment befall a banker who did the same?

There is a reason why people like Jordan Belfort (Wolf of Wall Street) or Nick Leeson (rouge Barings Bank trader) come out of jail and then make a livelihood in the motivational speaking circuit.

Think about it. Not saying which occupation is better or worse from a moral standpoint. But law and finance operate on 2 entirely different approaches to ethics and morals.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am not sure if there is a correlation between intellect and ethics.

Plus, if you have done national service, you might also have come to the same conclusion that I have. While the JC students tend to be more polished, they are much more cunning their counterparts whom are less educated.

If I recall correctly, Darinne Ko was highly educated from the Raffles brand of schools. It doesn't mean she is ethical, no? Being ethical and giving off the appearance of virtue are two entirely different things.




I agree with you that there aren't many good industries which pay well in Singapore. That is why I advocate to my friends who are ambitious and entrepreneurial to leave the country. The world is a much bigger place than Singapore. Make yourself mobile through a good education and leave if you aren't into the traditional norms of success in Singapore.

Btw, I am not sure if you're advocating for taking a start up job at $5k or not.. Regardless, there aren't many startup jobs that pay $5k. The variance is about $2.5k - $3.5k + for startups. Anyhow, if you're a startup person, you're a startup person.

There is a good piece I read on the Epicurean dealmaker which adequately explains this. I am quoting you the paragraph below.



Source: ://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.sg/2013/11/the-invention-of-leisure.html

i'm pretty sure he meant starting salary, not startup starting salary.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

i'm pretty sure he meant starting salary, not startup starting salary.

Well, then it isn't really clear then. If I work 40-50 hours week and make $5k but you have to work more than double that to make $8-$10k then it doesn't necessarily work out.

1. Because not everyone wants to work long hours
2. You might have a higher base salary but that doesn't mean you have a higher salary/hour

Really no life as a practice trainee. When I thought things could get better as an assoc, I end up working till 5am everyday. Do I feel rich? No. I feel mental and physically spent.

Now Singapore no double degree (law + biz), is damn jialat. Super hard to get a job in specific practice areas.
Now single degree in law not enough. Now everyone must have two degree (esp double degree) then can survive.
The way I see like that, in 10 years time, everyone must have PhD or else lose out.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am not sure if there is a correlation between intellect and ethics.

If I recall correctly, Darinne Ko was highly educated from the Raffles brand of schools. It doesn't mean she is ethical, no? Being ethical and giving off the appearance of virtue are two entirely different things.

just another slight deviation -

darinne ko was not being unethical. if you even bothered reading the judgment (in which the accused prof was acquitted in the end), she came off more as an inexperienced, hapless 19/20 year old girl in love.. which was exactly what the court concluded anyway. also, as the other poster mentioned - if she was being unethical to the point of bringing disrepute to the profession, she would have hauled ass to the disciplinary tribunal and gotten disbarred.

tl;dr: OP is clearly not a lawyer nor from the legal industry. your opinions are therefore irrelevant.

now can we please go back to talking about how much our salaries are going to get cut (again) this year?!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

just another slight deviation -

darinne ko was not being unethical. if you even bothered reading the judgment (in which the accused prof was acquitted in the end), she came off more as an inexperienced, hapless 19/20 year old girl in love.. which was exactly what the court concluded anyway. also, as the other poster mentioned - if she was being unethical to the point of bringing disrepute to the profession, she would have hauled ass to the disciplinary tribunal and gotten disbarred.

tl;dr: OP is clearly not a lawyer nor from the legal industry. your opinions are therefore irrelevant.

now can we please go back to talking about how much our salaries are going to get cut (again) this year?!

No cutting of salaries lah. From the big firms at least. Maybe some bonus will get cut. If you are in the Big Four or at least the next top 5 to 6 mid tier firms, I think your all in compensation (inclusive of frontloading) looks good.

If you are in one of those cheapo mid tier to lower mid tier firms, then maybe yes.

On a separate note, how's the lateral hiring market now?