Quote:
Originally Posted by markharris
A bit unfair, if not massively unfair with what happened in the lawmentors.sg case; the Milbank lawyer even if he was opportunistic, isn’t that a product of a free market ? Fees for mentorship, consultations etc are EVERYWHERE in all industries (consulting, banking, accountancy) and honestly 8k for 100 over hours of mentoring means 80 dollars/hour. Even JC tuition teacher charge more.
The worst part is they criticised his unsubstantiated and speculative opinion of the shrinking market and lack of jobs for NQs. Well there isn’t any concrete cohesive data pool in the first place to begin with so speculation is bound to happen. Anecdotal evidence is still some form of substantiation. Moreover, isnt this news better than Lawyers painting a rosy picture of luxury and fat salaries to draw people to the profession, only to Work them to the bone as labour and spit them out ? Shouldn’t that be penalised too?
I agree it wasn’t the most ideal method of mentorship advertising, but to be stripped of your livelihood and to no longer be able to immediately provide for your family just because you created a website - and closed it - without taking any money or starting any formal consultation sessions seems unfair. Just absurdity in my opinion.
Of course, I may be wrong. Just my opinion.
|
I disagree with what he did, but I see it as a moment of folly and he took it down quite soon. The result you see now (him being fired from milbank) is a result of social media - public pressure forcing his firm to let him go. So blame social media for that. Nothing to do with the system though - he hasn’t been disbarred, law soc doesn’t have the final say on that (the court does).
I also think he shouldn’t have to bear the entire wrath of the public. The other 9 co-conspirators should come clean with their names as well.