Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Litigation adds extra steps (as compared to a corporate practice) if you want to go in-house.
Only stick with litigation if you want to continue litigation. The end goal is obviously higher value and higher profile disputes cases, becoming known in the market as a star litigator, and possibly eventually Senior Counsel (1 in a 1000 odds maybe?) or Supreme Court Judicial Officer (1 in 10,000 maybe).
This lack of exit options is particularly acute for general commercial litigation. Even if you're working in a top tier liti/arbi team, the reward of being the top dog here, is simply more litigation.
Ironically, it is the specialist-focused disputes teams (i.e. the ones that service a particular industry & don't routinely take on the highest profile commercial disputes) that have better in-house options, because such litigators transition naturally to an in-house role in that particular industry. What I'm talking about are insurance, marine, restructuring & insolvency, criminal (defence & prosecution), employment and intellectual property etc. Specialist litigators in these areas are routinely hired by ex-clients and players in these industries.
|
Look, I get your point. Litigation is tough and there are only so many "high places" you can aspire to. But if you want to make up stats, then at least let them be in the ballpark of reality.
There are about 5000 practising lawyers in Singapore. Even assuming half of them are in litigation, and assuming also that half of the close to 100 SCs - or 50 - are still actually in litigation, then you have about a 2% chance of becoming a Senior Counsel.
Same with being a Supreme Court Judicial Officer. There are some 20 odd judges in the Supreme Court. Even just assuming half of them - plucking a random number out of thin air, let's say 15 - are from legal service and you assume a legal service of about 500 people, you're again looking at a 3% chance of landing in the Supreme Court. The percentages may be slightly less from the private sector but again, nowhere close to the dire numbers you cite.
These numbers are rough and ready but at least they have some basis. And I didn't just state random numbers I made up to support my point.
TLDR: It's not unrealistic to aspire to be an SC or a Judge. It's difficult, for very good reason I would reckon given the prestige and responsibilities that follow either of these tracks. But don't for a second believe the false numbers the OP plucked out of nowhere. If we want a debate on options, let's actually not just make up numbers as this just obfuscates the discussion.