Salary.sg Forums - View Single Post

#**2803** (**permalink**) 08-05-2018, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

OP here. Thanks for the insight, will certainly take this into consideration.

I quite enjoyed your use of NS analogies, it really does help put things into perspective (interesting that you assumed I was male though haha).

I suppose my main concern was that US firms handle much PE work, and knowing very well their advantages (i.e. pay, smaller intake, etc.), I can't help but wonder if starting out at reputable international firms in sg (that take in trainees) would be more beneficial. Especially since they offer the prospect of dual-qualification in singapore and english law.

To answer your questions:

- in London, most US firms have qualifying training programmes similar to the UK firms (i.e. 2 years TC in 4 seats plus LPC).

- I believe the only US firm which offers sg TCs is Latham & Watkins (but only English-qualified, so they will have to do the LPC in London). Not sure about the other JLVs (other than a&o/cc/bakers) except the ones I mentioned (which all offer TCs- bakers is only sg qualification though).

Thanks! Would be happy to hear others' thoughts too

No point being dual-qualified unless you have a specific interest in domestic work in Singapore. You will definitely get better training in London (be it with a reputable US firm that is not too specialised or a MC firm) and you always have the option of moving back to Singapore upon qualification or a few years down the road. Many people have moved back to Singapore upon qualifying in the UK - although be wary some firms may tend to pick a domestic candidate over an international one who does not show a commitment to London.