Originally Posted by Unregistered

Well, I think there's a tradeoff.

The int'l firms are older, more established and survived within their own home territories. This is tough considering these territories are much more competitive than in Singapore. Just because you are a UK firm or a New York/Chicago/Texas firm (which we reductively term as "international firms") doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to succeed as an "international firm".

Additionally, they firms took on a risk to expand, set up and build a new (perhaps serving enough of their existing) client base in Singapore - which would take substantial costs to do so. The fact, and the reason why Minlaw lets them enter the market, is that when they come to Singapore, they employ a substantial number of Singapore lawyers (1/3 to 2/3rds of the firm, depending on their structure, excluding pure satellite offices that are FLPs).

The reason why the salary for these firms are not well-known (at least at trainee/nq level) is because they recruit so few trainees (e.g. 2 to 6) compared to the Big Four (which recruit >40 each year). For NQ and 1-3/later salaries, the reason why there seems to be so much inconsistency in the pay salary is because later salaries are driven by last drawns, individual performance, practice area, and market demand, not to mention the cut in PQE/salary for SG-qualified lawyers or those changing practice. That's why it's difficult for us to know, however, at the very least- it theoretically would be possible to know more about the trainee/NQ salaries from trainees who trained at the firm (if the firm doesn't publish their salaries like CC, Simmons, etc).

Now, I'm all for having more transparency in the market to help bridge the information asymmetry for employees/prospective employees. What I'm against is whining Singaporeans who complain all the time, without thinking about why the position is the way it is. Use your brain.

The fact is that the reason why the Big Four can't increase salaries to the level of int'l firms is because they take so many warm bodies in every year (so those who apply to go there have a higher/easier chance, than applying for FLA/JLV firms).

If you want them to increase salaries to match those of the UK/US firms, they either have to cut the recruitment of warm bodies down (but that would be detrimental, because these warm bodies are so profitable for such little pay). More likely, the equivalent would be them taking a risk and successfully gaining a foothold in the UK/US (and outbidding for mandates against firms in that market and outperforming in terms of their client services- which often requires them to have an international foothold to be a "global one stop shop"), which is very unlikely to be the case.