Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
"...these firms which probably have exactly a singaporean count of 0"
If I can point you to one of these non SC or MC int'l firms which has a Singapore qualified lawyer / true-blue Singapore-pedigree lawyer in their SG office, your oh-so-confident assertion falls apart immediately. Wanna take up the bet?
Anyway this forum is highly blinkered and toxic. People here only seem to think 3 kinds of firms exist - Big 4, MC and SC. Are you guys seriously so tunnel visioned?
I get the fixation with prestige. Lawyers are such prestige wh*res. But surely you must realize that other kinds of international firms exist too? Or do you not even understand your market?
|
You realise you seriously misunderstood the first guy who was writing that the pay is low for "even SC" level firms and took it to mean that he only thinks that MC/SC firms exist right?
Can you please get off your high horse? Every lawyer generally knows that other types of "internationals" like White Shoes, FLAs etc exist.
The OP was saying that 24k for 7 PQE is low for SC level firms (and above), which is correct. Any firm above SC pay (MC or White Shoe or even Int firms without local partners) would far exceed this.
Int firm FLAs generally pay around Big4 level (give or take), they likely do not hit 24k for 7 PQE.
Therefore, it seems quite obvious that when someone asks if "24k for 7 PQE in int firms", he did in fact mean that he was benchmarking the 24k against SC firms and above. He was not referring to the faux internationals or the internationals paying local salaries (i.e. your specialists or FLA firms).
It seems that you do not understand your market whatsoever, as you have (to borrow your own phrase) been so tunnel-visioned that you refused to stop and consider the context of the discussion.
You remind me of the type of assh*le in law school who is hated because he believes he is never wrong, refusing to edit his slides because "you guys can't see the big picture" and doesn't consider that others are as smart as (or likely smarter) than him.
It doesn't behoove a lawyer (if that is what you are), to act all arrogant and slam Singaporean Lawyers for being "tunnel visioned" or "prestige wh*res" when you do not even seem to have a basic grasp of the local conditions. I can only imagine that you are either a lawyer with a serious chip on your shoulder, or you're one of those know-it-alls (who actually doesn't know anything and was generally avoided by your peers in law school - so you aren't privy to the general knowledge prevalent among lawyers).
Please edify yourself Sir.