Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Lol, I love it when people don't know what they are talking about but act like they do (not only this poster but the preceding posters talking about litigation "dying" as well). Litigation is an evergreen industry in SG. Both the amount of cases and the average quantum involved in SG has been trending upwards for quite some time, so I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, there's been an upwards tick towards arbitration, but you do realise that the top liti teams usually also do arbitration right? Or at least have another team doing arbitration that they push the work to.
In terms of the two SCs you mentioned.... You do realise that SCs joining the Judiciary is almost like a rite of passage? They have to do it so that they can call in favours in the future, not to mention build their resume for Tribunal work in arbitration. Most SCs dun stay in the judiciary longer than the fixed two-year term for Judicial Commissioners (specifically because they earn too much in private practice to continue staying). They aren't doing Judiciary work because they can't make a living in private practice (as you are implying).
Additionally, merging with large law firms is just good marketing, and also highlights that the SC's firm is profitable enough to bring him in as a global partner.
Also, you speak of litigators jumping to go in-house as though it proves anything, when it's just a general trend in every practice area. Most lawyers want to have work-life balance which is easier to find as in-house Counsel (not because they earn less or can't find work).
Are you an ex-litigator who couldn't cut it, so you now feel the need to act like you left because the industry was dying?
|
Couple of misconceptions here:
Most of the SCs who join the judiciary eventually stay there for years, if not until they retire. The ones who have left after a JC term in recent years were the non-liti folks (eg Edmund Leow, Lee Kim Shin). So no, joining the courts is not about building the CV for tribunal work or to call in favours. It's usually a one-way street.
There has also been some talk in the market that some of the SCs who had recently joined the Courts did so because their books of business were waning, but this is purely hearsay.
It is true that there will always be demand for litigation, and there will always be the top end of the market to grab for the top tier folks. But there are a few features of being a disputes lawyer that make it "bo hua" for most people:
1. Mid to high level disputes work is very time consuming and mentally taxing, while at the same time requiring alot of detailed work and project management as well. Unlike in corp or transactional practice areas, you can't substantially rely on precedents, and you often have to relearn everything for every file. While corp life is not a bed of roses as well, and comparing on an apples to apples basis, life as a disputes lawyer is generally speaking, not as good, especially when you take into account the contentious/argumentative nature of the work. The work done for a $10m dispute can arguably even be more intensive than a $100m transaction because of the contentious nature of disputes.
2. Disputes work, at least at the higher end, is quite credentialist, more so than in non-contentious practices. Your lack of a FCH or the fact you are from a "lesser" uni will work against you more than in the non-contentious practices.
3. At the assoc level, your ability to move into high paying intl firms is very much less than your corp peers. See recent years where all of the b4 corp depts have been depleted by intl firms - not so for disputes. You are also arguably at a disadvantage for most of the best inhouse roles as well, because these typically prefer corp or reg experience.
4. At the partner level, previous posters have highlighted the squeeze in fees at the lower to mid end work, as well as the fact that you are being squeezed by intl firms at the higher end for arb work. Also, if you are keen on higher end work, disputes is a "superstar" centric practice area, i.e. all the big work naturally gravitates to the SCs, so as a junior partner in a bigger firm, it may be very difficult to build a good book or even be first chair, especially as most of the SCs will be sticking around for a long time. I think for corp this is less of an issue, as there is less pressure to be the "lead" counsel on transactions.