My personal views (and I am sure others will have their own as well) are:
(1) The qualifications are nice to have and may open doors - there's still the "if you are good enough for Cambridge and Oxford, you are good enough for us" sentiment around. If you already have a training contract, then that consideration isn't so relevant. Your typical partner will probably still assess you based on the quality of your work.
(2) In light of the above, I would probably want to get called first. Further, most salaries in Singapore and international firms tend to be pegged to PQE. I have the impression some people would take a break and pursue an LLM after a few years of legal practice. I would do so too if I am keen and do not mind not drawing a salary. However, your priorities may have changed by then e.g. you may be in the running for partnership and chasing an LLM is not going to help.
(3) I don't think so. Your legal career is based on your performance at work, not so much academic qualifications. I am speaking only based on my own experience in a large Singapore firm. I am not sure how other firms or the Legal Service will view such qualifications.
(4) No. Well, not me at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
(1) how is a LLM/BCL from Cambridge/Oxford viewed in Singapore?
(2) is it advisable to do the LLM/BCL directly after the LLB? Or is it better to get called first?
(3) would the LLM/BCL enhance your legal career? If heading towards a non-academia route.
(4) if you have a LLM/BCL offer but cannot get funding, is it advisable to still take it up (loans, etc)?
|