Originally Posted by Unregistered

While it is undoubtably true that there is a "Macdonalds" mindset attached to verein or "franchise" style international firms like Dentons, Baker or DLA, it is also true that Baker/DLA pays higher than big4. I do believe there is a difference between "int" firms in SG that pay local rates, and "int" firms that pay >big4 rates.

Money attracts talent, or at least a sufficient level of talent. Obviously firms like Baker SG are not top choices for a variety of reasons (for e.g. the good corp talents will go to true int firms, and no litigator who values their long-term career is going to go to Baker disputes), but I'll have to admit that they are tempting with their "in-between" trans-Atlantic (i.e. less that UK but higher than SG) rate. Even though they are not as well regarded overseas as the true "int" firms, the fact that they pay higher than b4 helps alot in establishing their "rank" among the firms in SG.

Obviously, they can't compete with strong local firms (tier 1s) or the truly int firms (much higher pay), but they occupy a middle ground position where they have some reputation, and higher pay. I don't think it is white-worship bringing people to higher-paying "int" firms, it's just that money talks.

For Dentons Rodyk, I do think you are spot on, as their Rodyk name carries more weight in SG than Dentons. Indeed, their branding could be a lot stronger, since Dentons as a "global" firm doesn't have much cohesive branding (as they are new/asian-majority and therefore not the top choice of Caucasian firms).

Regardless, insofar as they keep paying local rates, they will be regarded as a local firm, and therefore, will have to be content with being "Rodyk". No matter how strong the branding is, if the pay isn't correspondingly higher, you won't get the "brand reputation" of the "int" firms.