The only worthwhile Masters to take if you're concerned with career progression (particularly if you're at the International side of an FLA, JLC, academia or inhouse, everywhere else 1PQE is worth more) are:
1. Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Wharton (combined Wharton + LLM, I don't think UPenn alone is worth it), Yale
2. Oxford, Cambridge,
LSE (but let down by high admission rates for LLMs)
The rest are not worth it (only LLMs are worth it).
I'm talking in terms of getting to the international side of an FLA, not the Singapore side. Every Singapore side practice, B4, mid-sized etc, 1PQE is worth more.
There's also significant risk involved, in that you don't really know how it'd affect you in terms of career prospects. 1PQE is certain, the benefits of getting an LLM may not materialise in a concrete and observable way.
E.g. if you are a first class from
NUS, you get a Harvard LLM offer. You take it. You don't know for a fact that it actually makes you more valuable than if you didn't. There's a possibility/probability that it does not help in any material way.
Second, LLMs have more to offer in terms of transactional work especially if your LLM is transactional related. LLMs for disputes or arbitration practice, not so much. Your track record talks more than your grades. You can be very academically sound but impractical.
Anything else, if you do a Masters in Economics, it doesn't really speak to aptitude.
Also, you only really need an LLM if there is something you want and you're not there yet. The LLM is a stepping stone to something you need above and beyond your LLB.
So for instance, a 2:1 from Oxford at a MC is not likely to get an LLM. Why? Because 1PQE + loss of 1 year salary + loss of tuition fees and expenses for an LLM without a scholarship. Most don't seem to cover expenses.
Anything else, I would not take up an LLM. If they were free and I got paid with an extra PQE, why not. But nope, not worth it.