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.
|
You his friend?
Anyway if you read closely, aside from the coaching aspect, he was also selling the idea that with the mentors' positions as senior associates and junior partners, they could place their mentees in internship and traineeship positions in their respective firms . Regardless of whether they could really do that or not, that was probably the part that sounded massive alarm bells for law society. The mere suggestion of that seems to allude to what we see in corruption cases.
The second part is the predatory pitching and fear mongering which is slightly more of a grey area. But the law deans have adequately explained why this is distasteful.
By the way, it was Milbank's decision to fire him, and not lawsoc's doing. Since law firms, being client facing, are very sensitive to reputational issues, no surprises there that they dropped him like a hot potato. Moral of the story is if it sounds like a bad idea, it probably is.