Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

you are referring to the firm that does "wall street" work which retained 6 out of 18 trainees?

lol the game is up. just another local mid sized firm with flash, jazz and branding

the above market starting salary used to be a big draw. now, that lustre has faded since smart people know that the more senior you become, the narrower the gap with, say, a Big 4 associate's salary will become anyway

LOL i think i understand the wall street work firm reference. Well it has to do with there having less corporate deals? There are a couple of good mid sized firms out who are giving the traditional big 5 a good run for money in some niche areas.

Really surprised by the Part A failing rate. Is Part A so tough or is the quality of graduates simply not there??

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LOL i think i understand the wall street work firm reference. Well it has to do with there having less corporate deals? There are a couple of good mid sized firms out who are giving the traditional big 5 a good run for money in some niche areas.

Really surprised by the Part A failing rate. Is Part A so tough or is the quality of graduates simply not there??

Part A under NUS prior to 2015 is one thing and Part A (2015 and later) under SILE is another. They are strictly speaking not comparable. The papers, the marking standards and the academic rigour are simply not comparable. So the question above cannot be answered.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Part A under NUS prior to 2015 is one thing and Part A (2015 and later) under SILE is another. They are strictly speaking not comparable. The papers, the marking standards and the academic rigour are simply not comparable. So the question above cannot be answered.

There were far Far FAR less candidates who failed part A even as recently as 2 years ago when the NUS law school still conducted part A and the NUS law profs actually lectured in person. Clearly the top notch quality of the NUS professors and the extremely rigourous syllabus spoke for itself. even the laziest overseas grad had no choice but to sit their a*s down and study.

now that the course has moved to SILE, with all online only lectures covering so much material in a touch and go sense, coupled with the unmotivation of UK and Australian grads who are used to cruising their way to a 2:1 with no bell curve and minimal effort for much of their undergrad career, is it any wonder that failure rates for Part A have skyrocketed in the past 2 years?

@994
fellow nus grad here. there is no need to **** on uk/au grads. we are all equals, just happened to have a better interview performance back when we were 19/20

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There were far Far FAR less candidates who failed part A even as recently as 2 years ago when the NUS law school still conducted part A and the NUS law profs actually lectured in person. Clearly the top notch quality of the NUS professors and the extremely rigourous syllabus spoke for itself. even the laziest overseas grad had no choice but to sit their a*s down and study.

now that the course has moved to SILE, with all online only lectures covering so much material in a touch and go sense, coupled with the unmotivation of UK and Australian grads who are used to cruising their way to a 2:1 with no bell curve and minimal effort for much of their undergrad career, is it any wonder that failure rates for Part A have skyrocketed in the past 2 years?

Lazy overseas grad here. I took Part A in 2013. It was still a while before the whole glut of lawyers issue surfaced, and we were all still chill about everything. I don't think the syllabus was "extremely rigourous" and I certainly did not "sit [my] a*s down and study". It was really just easier to pass. I remember the criminal law prof telling us that it was "so difficult to fail you have to actually try to fail". I don't think any of my classmates (mid-level UK university which is still on the list) failed, don't think any of us studied extremely rigourously also lol.

Then again, that was really a different time. And it's probably more difficult to learn when you are not required to go for face-to-face lessons.

As a side note, as of right now I honestly think my laziness has been cured by a fear of losing my job/financial stability/pissing off the partner/pissing off the client...

How is a pool system like? is it very stressful as compared to working for a single partner but multiple associates? Also what's the working hours like for big four and the top 2 JLVs.

Local grad here. I spoke to a couple of overseas grad who took Part A before and after 2015. Part A at SILE is still taught by NUS and SMU academics so i don't think it is quality of teaching. Part A course is still not compulsory. When i was an undergrad i helped some of the profs research and draft some of the Part A materials so i can say there is not much difference in rigour and comprehensiveness of syllabus.

I am guessing that the requirements to pass have tightened. Meaning the examiners now only pass you if you say show understanding in Singapore Company Law (case law and unique features of our companies act) not general company law concepts (say directors have duties, shareholder has right to vote, separate legal personality, etc).

Just my guess. I think they should have done that long ago for the interest of the Singapore Bar really. What's the point of having Singapore qualified lawyers who can only blabber English law or Aussie law as if we are their colony.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How is a pool system like? is it very stressful as compared to working for a single partner but multiple associates? Also what's the working hours like for big four and the top 2 JLVs.

the short answer is: yeah duh.

i find that in a team, everyone sort of has an idea of how much work you're getting so they try not to overload you. (depends on team obviously.. if you're in those notorious firms where assocs and trainees leave in drove then, well)

working hours are bad everywhere if you want to practice law, esp in big 4/JLVs. but surely you should know that by now if you've done any internships/talk to your law fac friends right.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just my guess. I think they should have done that long ago for the interest of the Singapore Bar really. What's the point of having Singapore qualified lawyers who can only blabber English law or Aussie law as if we are their colony.

Don't think many (if any at all) practicing foreign grads who passed Part A pre-2015 blabber English law or Aussie law exclusively.

I mean, if you're already practicing you'd know it's not possible to do that right -.-