Salary.sg Forums

Salary.sg Forums (https://forums.salary.sg/)
-   Income and Jobs (https://forums.salary.sg/income-jobs/)
-   -   Lawyer Salary (https://forums.salary.sg/income-jobs/771-lawyer-salary.html)

Unregistered 01-09-2015 01:50 AM

there are better things than to practice law. practice is over-rated , especially in the times of easily replaceable associates.

you need to ask yourself why do you want to practice law - and to do that you need to understand what the entails. have you interned at any law firm before or spoke to any lawyer? you need to figure out what kind of lawyer or person you want to be. so many professions out there, so many ways to make money - why a lawyer?

jobs-wise, i know a few UK unis graduates who arent able to find a training contract in the UK and are forced to come back to Singapore to look for a training contract amongst local firms, and not having any luck. my two cents are, if you can't find a training contract with a reputable firm that gives you legitimate training / exposure, you are better not practising.

good luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72110)
I think as an external degree holder, you need to be realistic about your prospects in order to avoid disappointment, where disappointment = expectations minus reality.

Just laying out all the cards for you here. You need to have an upfront conversation with yourself.

Firstly, you don't come from the conveyor belt of local law SMU and NUS students, or the higher ranked or more prestigious Brit unis. That already puts you way back in terms of hiring prospects.

Its not easy to get into Big 4 law at all. People with stellar grades struggle to land a spot. This is not like other industries say accounting where their Big 4 hires an army of accounting grads with more or less average grades every year.

Landing a Big 4 training contract is perhaps like competing as a biz grad for a Management Associate position in one of the big local banks, i.e. definitely doable but not easy.

Secondly, everyone puts in the hours. The UCL law grad competing with you is probably also prepared to put in a 15 hour a day, 80 hour workweek. Hard work is not all there is in the working world. In fact working hard is probably the most straightforward thing to do, but there are so many other factors involved.

As for accepting a lower pay? Professional services firms pay standard rates according to each yearly intake. If they give you a shot, they'll pay you equally with all your peers. Otherwise, they won't even hire you at all.

Third, you cannot get called to the Bar with an external degree. Malaysia might give you a shot, but there are considerations of moving up north for a few years which you must think through for yourself. It's a long winding road if you take this path.

So you really do need to temper your expectations here. Not looking down on your qualifications or anything but this is the reality of your position.

I think before you start aspiring to the position your cousin (glamorous jet-setting in-house counsel at oil and gas etc etc), be mindful that she probably graduated from a recognised university and slogged it out at a top tier firm for a few years before ending up where she is now.

Its not impossible to become a lawyer and equalize yourself with the other law grads, but just be aware that by virtue of you taking a private law degree, there are all these systemic hurdles to cross before you can actually have a shot at progression in the legal profession. Your path will be necessarily different from the others, and definitely more arduous. But i won't dare to say that it is impossible. Good luck


Unregistered 01-09-2015 10:57 AM

I got a AAB for my A Levels. It has always been my dream to become a lawyer so since I can't get into he national uni with my result, I went for the next best option - private institution. I didn't know that UOL degree can't be called to the bar, as confirmed by my cousin.

UOL degree though good enough to be called to the bar in other countries, is only good enough to be paralegal or legal officer. Why so unfair? UOL degree is widely recognised amongst commonwealth countries! Why is Singapore the exception?

The only reprieve for me from this discussion is that I got to know from my school that I am amongst the top 10 student in Malaysia and Singapore and UOL will award one scholarship spot to the top performing student. I have every chance to get to UK for my 2nd year of studies onwards, and with a proper UK degree I can be called to the bar here. And that's what I am working for at this moment!

Unregistered 01-09-2015 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72184)
I got a AAB for my A Levels. It has always been my dream to become a lawyer so since I can't get into he national uni with my result, I went for the next best option - private institution. I didn't know that UOL degree can't be called to the bar, as confirmed by my cousin.

UOL degree though good enough to be called to the bar in other countries, is only good enough to be paralegal or legal officer. Why so unfair? UOL degree is widely recognised amongst commonwealth countries! Why is Singapore the exception?

The only reprieve for me from this discussion is that I got to know from my school that I am amongst the top 10 student in Malaysia and Singapore and UOL will award one scholarship spot to the top performing student. I have every chance to get to UK for my 2nd year of studies onwards, and with a proper UK degree I can be called to the bar here. And that's what I am working for at this moment!

lol lucky for you, that's sounds like a good plan good luck

Unregistered 01-09-2015 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72184)
I got a AAB for my A Levels. It has always been my dream to become a lawyer so since I can't get into he national uni with my result, I went for the next best option - private institution. I didn't know that UOL degree can't be called to the bar, as confirmed by my cousin.

UOL degree though good enough to be called to the bar in other countries, is only good enough to be paralegal or legal officer. Why so unfair? UOL degree is widely recognised amongst commonwealth countries! Why is Singapore the exception?

The only reprieve for me from this discussion is that I got to know from my school that I am amongst the top 10 student in Malaysia and Singapore and UOL will award one scholarship spot to the top performing student. I have every chance to get to UK for my 2nd year of studies onwards, and with a proper UK degree I can be called to the bar here. And that's what I am working for at this moment!

Ahhh, noo. I'm pretty sure the legislation states that you have to study 3 years in the approved UK institution.

Unregistered 01-09-2015 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72184)
I got a AAB for my A Levels. It has always been my dream to become a lawyer so since I can't get into he national uni with my result, I went for the next best option - private institution. I didn't know that UOL degree can't be called to the bar, as confirmed by my cousin.

UOL degree though good enough to be called to the bar in other countries, is only good enough to be paralegal or legal officer. Why so unfair? UOL degree is widely recognised amongst commonwealth countries! Why is Singapore the exception?

The only reprieve for me from this discussion is that I got to know from my school that I am amongst the top 10 student in Malaysia and Singapore and UOL will award one scholarship spot to the top performing student. I have every chance to get to UK for my 2nd year of studies onwards, and with a proper UK degree I can be called to the bar here. And that's what I am working for at this moment!

I am the poster of #402. I do not know why is it so "unfair". I do think that there are some differences in standards between the schools, even though it is largely up to the individual concerned.

I am just questioning your dream to become a lawyer? What kind of lawyer do you wish to become? Why do you want to be a lawyer? Is it the pay? The thrill of advocacy? Because you want to help people? Because you love the law? I also hope that your dream is based on realistic expectations on what practising as a lawyer involves - it isn't suits or boston legal for sure.

I do know of some people who have got called to the Singapore bar via the foreign lawyer route that you suggested. It's a much longer route and a lot of perseverance is required. I think you also need a certain amt of experience with a law firm before you can be called to the Singapore bar as a Singapore lawyer.

Hope the above helps.

Unregistered 02-09-2015 11:09 AM

3 points for Mr UOL,

Not to diss you , but if you can't do proper research on requirements for qualifying for the bar , how sure are you that you can produce top quality legal research ?

The foreign lawyer route still only allows you to practice in only certain areas if I am not wrong.

Not to pour cold water but if you wanna go to UK to practice here are the hurdles:

1) oversupply of law students, even grads from mid upper tier universities like Warwick ,Bristol are fighting hard for limited spots , so what makes you special ?

2) Visa is in short supply- due to local politics, the government is clamping down on international students + firms have a limited quota for works visas . So assuming you are applying, you are fighting for one work visa spot against say another malaysian/Singapore ( just to take a similar sample group of comparison to you) who graduated from Oxbridge , LSE with a first. Why would they choose you ?

3) have you done vacation schemes?

But hey one day maybe you will do it all and come back on this forum and say "bitch please, I did it" . If so , please come back and rub it into our faces :D

Unregistered 04-09-2015 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 71417)
Thought I share my experience about the Singapore Legal Service (SLS) here. I am practicing in one of the bigger law firms in Singapore. At partner level. Thought I should do a "pay back" and join the SLS. They offered me a salary which made me fell off my chair. On a yearly total remuneration basis, it was effectively a 55-60% pay cut! The SLS salary was structured into many components. And I have to complete the year before all the components are payable. The monthly salary offered in the SLS was 40% of my fixed salary which I take back from the firm. I wonder whether they are serious in trying to bring in private sector expertise.

Well, they have a five months' bonus.

Unregistered 04-09-2015 05:40 PM

So many whiny wannabe lawyers here. Please just go ahead and do compliance. Adequately paid, but stable, and boring, and they will accept your inferior degrees.

Unregistered 04-09-2015 06:11 PM

Just wondering, newly qualified lawyers at law firms start off with fee earning? Does it mean fee earning + Basic salary or just solely based on fee earning?

Unregistered 04-09-2015 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72317)
Well, they have a five months' bonus.

I have a friend, in house counsel, first job in marine industry about 6k / monthly

Unregistered 04-09-2015 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72184)
I got a AAB for my A Levels. It has always been my dream to become a lawyer so since I can't get into he national uni with my result, I went for the next best option - private institution. I didn't know that UOL degree can't be called to the bar, as confirmed by my cousin.

UOL degree though good enough to be called to the bar in other countries, is only good enough to be paralegal or legal officer. Why so unfair? UOL degree is widely recognised amongst commonwealth countries! Why is Singapore the exception?

The only reprieve for me from this discussion is that I got to know from my school that I am amongst the top 10 student in Malaysia and Singapore and UOL will award one scholarship spot to the top performing student. I have every chance to get to UK for my 2nd year of studies onwards, and with a proper UK degree I can be called to the bar here. And that's what I am working for at this moment!

one scholarship spot and you're in the top 10? good luck with that.. too many wannabes around here. It's either you make it or break it in the law industry here :

1. Local Law Grads
2. Rich parents to fund your overseas LLBs

Unregistered 06-09-2015 01:47 PM

6525
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72322)
Just wondering, newly qualified lawyers at law firms start off with fee earning? Does it mean fee earning + Basic salary or just solely based on fee earning?

its just a basic salary. no fee earning. not sure where you get this idea. google lawyer's salaries for more info.

Unregistered 08-09-2015 03:37 PM

Firstly, to all who wish to become lawyers: please do your research before jumping the gun and enrolling in a a non-qualifying institution. You are not cut out to be a lawyer if you can't even enrol in the right school! I hate to be a wet blanket, but you really need to re-examine your aptitude for law if you are careless enough to overlook such basic things. Would you remember to ask preliminary questions relating to jurisdiction and time bar before jumping into a case? If you REALLY wish to become a lawyer for God's sake please enrol in a qualifying institution (and please get the most updated list of scheduled institutions). If you can't qualify for NUS/NTU, you'll need to go overseas and it won't be cheap. If you aren't from a wealthy family, you'll need to consider funding before diving in. Getting into a qualifying institution is the absolute first step on your path to becoming a lawyer!

Secondly, if you think you can qualify in a foreign country and come back to practice, you are very much mistaken. You will come back as a foreign lawyer registered with AGC, and this is essentially a glorified paralegal role if you join a local law firm. As for foreign lawyers being admitted to the Singapore Bar, this occurs only on a discretionary basis, and only in the rarest of circumstances, such as when the practitioner is an undisputed market leader with decades of expertise in his area of practice. It's not going to happen.

Thirdly, even if you take your first few baby steps by enrolling in a qualifying institution, you'll need to be very realistic about career prospects. There are lawyers and there are lawyers. If you don't know what this means, look it up. Some lawyers start their careers with five figure paychecks (by completing training in a Big 4, and taking up an offshore firm's offer instead). At the other end of the spectrum, you'll have NQ lawyers joining one-man outfits entering at $3,000 a month. Getting your degree and crossing the bar simply gives you the right to embark on a legal career - it does not by any means guarantee that it will be a decent career, or that you will even get a job in the first place. The fact that you had trouble entering SMU/NUS suggests to me that that the qualifying institution that you may eventually join would be a low or lower-mid tier institution, which would in the natural course of things land you in a small or small-mid sized firm rather than a glitzy large corporate firm.

Lastly, even if you secure a good role and embark upon a decent career path, there is no guarantee that it will be a satisfying or sustainable path. We have one of the highest attrition rates across the various industries, and statistics show that more than half of all qualified lawyers will burn out and leave practice within the first three years. Even if you should find yourself on the coveted path to a promising legal career, I'm not sure if you'll like what you see as you walk down that road.

There are so many hurdles in your path that I cringe even thinking about it. And you haven't even reached the first hurdle!

Unregistered 10-09-2015 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72419)

Thirdly, even if you take your first few baby steps by enrolling in a qualifying institution, you'll need to be very realistic about career prospects. There are lawyers and there are lawyers. If you don't know what this means, look it up. Some lawyers start their careers with five figure paychecks (by completing training in a Big 4, and taking up an offshore firm's offer instead). At the other end of the spectrum, you'll have NQ lawyers joining one-man outfits entering at $3,000 a month. Getting your degree and crossing the bar simply gives you the right to embark on a legal career - it does not by any means guarantee that it will be a decent career, or that you will even get a job in the first place. The fact that you had trouble entering SMU/NUS suggests to me that that the qualifying institution that you may eventually join would be a low or lower-mid tier institution, which would in the natural course of things land you in a small or small-mid sized firm rather than a glitzy large corporate firm.

Disagree. There are many paths to success in the legal profession and not all of them involve travelling along the gilded road of big firm practice.

To think that that is the only measure of success is naive and superficial in the extreme.

Those who think that way haven't practiced long enough in the legal profession to know that its not where you practice, but how you do what you do and whether you enjoy it.

Not every lawyer gets listed in the Legal 500. The vast majority don't. But that is by no means indicative of a subpar career or second tier practice.

Take it from someone who has practiced in both the glamorous and the grittier sides of the profession.

Unregistered 11-09-2015 01:39 AM

This is the person who posted #414 here. I can sense a lot of self righteous fervour in your post. All I can say is that you're getting all worked up over nothing. If this were a standalone post, you might well be justified in assuming that I am a snob who's under the misconception that only top tier Big 4/QFLP equity partners are successful lawyers.

I am certainly not under that impression. I am well aware there are a great many partners running highly successful and highly lucrative boutique law firms doing what they love doing. And for the even smaller 1 to 2 man outfits, they're happy doing what they do even if they don't become immensely well-to-do, and they are indeed more successful than many of their unhappy Big 4 counterparts. Any happy legal career is a successful legal career, since a great many of us face the sad fate of hating our jobs and leaving the industry.

May I however direct your attention to Post #394, where the mistakenly-enrolled UOL student intimated a wish to join the Big 4 firms?

Quote
No chance for A&G, WongP etc? I am determined and willing to put 12-15 hours everyday if required. Ask me start from the bottomest position at 2k I also can take it if they give me chance.

Legal exec as in in-house counsel? I don't mind also. Have one cousin doing in-house counsel for an O&G company, every time see her Facebook flying around the world makan who's food! But I thought need to clock some experience first?
End Quote

My post is grounded in the context of advice rendered to someone who has asked about his chances of entering "glitzy big firm" practice. I am not looking down on small firm practice. I am simply letting the recipient of advice know that his chances of getting where he wants to be are not good. Hopefully this clarifies?

Perhaps a little more contextual background would be in order before jumping to premature conclusions.

Unregistered 11-09-2015 09:57 AM

You have written well. Enjoyed reading your post. In my opinion those are rather neutral and sensible advice.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72502)
This is the person who posted #414 here. I can sense a lot of self righteous fervour in your post. All I can say is that you're getting all worked up over nothing. If this were a standalone post, you might well be justified in assuming that I am a snob who's under the misconception that only top tier Big 4/QFLP equity partners are successful lawyers.

I am certainly not under that impression. I am well aware there are a great many partners running highly successful and highly lucrative boutique law firms doing what they love doing. And for the even smaller 1 to 2 man outfits, they're happy doing what they do even if they don't become immensely well-to-do, and they are indeed more successful than many of their unhappy Big 4 counterparts. Any happy legal career is a successful legal career, since a great many of us face the sad fate of hating our jobs and leaving the industry.

May I however direct your attention to Post #394, where the mistakenly-enrolled UOL student intimated a wish to join the Big 4 firms?

Quote
No chance for A&G, WongP etc? I am determined and willing to put 12-15 hours everyday if required. Ask me start from the bottomest position at 2k I also can take it if they give me chance.

Legal exec as in in-house counsel? I don't mind also. Have one cousin doing in-house counsel for an O&G company, every time see her Facebook flying around the world makan who's food! But I thought need to clock some experience first?
End Quote

My post is grounded in the context of advice rendered to someone who has asked about his chances of entering "glitzy big firm" practice. I am not looking down on small firm practice. I am simply letting the recipient of advice know that his chances of getting where he wants to be are not good. Hopefully this clarifies?

Perhaps a little more contextual background would be in order before jumping to premature conclusions.


Unregistered 11-09-2015 06:41 PM

I am a junior associate working in a big four/QFLP firm. I would like to respond to the following quote:

Quote
No chance for A&G, WongP etc? I am determined and willing to put 12-15 hours everyday if required. Ask me start from the bottomest position at 2k I also can take it if they give me chance.

End Quote

Just wanted to share that at the junior lawyer level, most people start from trainee positions at 2k and put in roughly 12-15 hours minimum each day. I have worked an average of 12-15 hours every day since I started my job. There were weeks that I left office at 5am every day, doing research, writing legal opinions or doing some menial mundane task for my clients. This may apply even if you aren't in the "glitzy law firms".

On the other end of the spectrum, I have a friend who joined a small firm after graduation and is recently laid off. She is currently interviewing for positions at medium / larger firms now.

Unregistered 12-09-2015 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72419)
Firstly, to all who wish to become lawyers: please do your research before jumping the gun and enrolling in a a non-qualifying institution. You are not cut out to be a lawyer if you can't even enrol in the right school! I hate to be a wet blanket, but you really need to re-examine your aptitude for law if you are careless enough to overlook such basic things. Would you remember to ask preliminary questions relating to jurisdiction and time bar before jumping into a case? If you REALLY wish to become a lawyer for God's sake please enrol in a qualifying institution (and please get the most updated list of scheduled institutions). If you can't qualify for NUS/NTU, you'll need to go overseas and it won't be cheap. If you aren't from a wealthy family, you'll need to consider funding before diving in. Getting into a qualifying institution is the absolute first step on your path to becoming a lawyer!

Secondly, if you think you can qualify in a foreign country and come back to practice, you are very much mistaken. You will come back as a foreign lawyer registered with AGC, and this is essentially a glorified paralegal role if you join a local law firm. As for foreign lawyers being admitted to the Singapore Bar, this occurs only on a discretionary basis, and only in the rarest of circumstances, such as when the practitioner is an undisputed market leader with decades of expertise in his area of practice. It's not going to happen.

Thirdly, even if you take your first few baby steps by enrolling in a qualifying institution, you'll need to be very realistic about career prospects. There are lawyers and there are lawyers. If you don't know what this means, look it up. Some lawyers start their careers with five figure paychecks (by completing training in a Big 4, and taking up an offshore firm's offer instead). At the other end of the spectrum, you'll have NQ lawyers joining one-man outfits entering at $3,000 a month. Getting your degree and crossing the bar simply gives you the right to embark on a legal career - it does not by any means guarantee that it will be a decent career, or that you will even get a job in the first place. The fact that you had trouble entering SMU/NUS suggests to me that that the qualifying institution that you may eventually join would be a low or lower-mid tier institution, which would in the natural course of things land you in a small or small-mid sized firm rather than a glitzy large corporate firm.

Lastly, even if you secure a good role and embark upon a decent career path, there is no guarantee that it will be a satisfying or sustainable path. We have one of the highest attrition rates across the various industries, and statistics show that more than half of all qualified lawyers will burn out and leave practice within the first three years. Even if you should find yourself on the coveted path to a promising legal career, I'm not sure if you'll like what you see as you walk down that road.

There are so many hurdles in your path that I cringe even thinking about it. And you haven't even reached the first hurdle!

Mr/Ms #414 , very well written ,Hire me please.

Mr/Ms #418, whats your point ar ?

Unregistered 12-09-2015 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72542)
Mr/Ms #414 , very well written ,Hire me please.

Mr/Ms #418, whats your point ar ?


#414 and #418 are in all likelihood the same person. I thought the curious use of "quote" "end quote" would've been quite an obvious tell.

Unregistered 14-09-2015 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 72560)
#414 and #418 are in all likelihood the same person. I thought the curious use of "quote" "end quote" would've been quite an obvious tell.

Well, in this case the obvious clue was in fact a false positive, as I am sure the writer of #418 would concur. I wrote #414, and I have no idea who wrote #418. I'm a 5 PQE in a Big 4, not a junior associate in a Big 4/QFLP.

I bungled my way into a Big 4 five years ago, not quite knowing what I wanted to do. Back then, the legal market was far more favourable for graduates. The Big 4s were on a perpetual hiring spree, taking 30-40 pupils every year and retaining almost 95% of them. Mid sized firms struggled to take on pupils, and were sometimes forced to use the allure of higher starting salaries to entice pupils away from the Big 4 players. Smaller firms could only dream about taking on pupils.

Gone are those days. In a short span of four years, training contracts have pretty much dried up, and the NUS law career fairs are now thronging with worried applicants struggling to get in some face time, push resumees and secure internships on the spot. In the old days, we practically had to bribe students with freebies in order to come by our booth. The local students simply weren't interested in the event, as they knew that they were pretty much guaranteed a spot with a simple 2:1. Now, a generic 2:1 from NUS/SMU won't even cut it - candidates need a strong 2:1 just to get noticed and shortlisted for an interview. Firsts, top tier 2:1s, Oxcam grads and white horses are obviously not affected, but anyone outside these categories face a tough fight for the few coveted places. Things have changed dramatically, in just a short span of time, and prospects for current students and fresh grads are simply terrible.

The labour crunch has been further exacerbated by a general slowdown in the legal market, which has been maturing, consolidating and shrinking over the past few years. Squeezed on fees, less bespoke work, fewer glitzy transactions, more fee-conscious clients = fewer associates needed every year. Graduates are facing a painful, two-pronged squeeze from shrinking demand and exploding supply, and I would definitely NOT encourage anyone to embark on a law degree until we see some clarity as to how this squeeze is going to pan out.

Unregistered 26-09-2015 11:58 AM

Is it true that a major local firm here has officially cut salaries of its associates?? not naming any names yet but thats what I've heard. anybody can confirm this?

Unregistered 26-09-2015 07:36 PM

Yes W**** has cut its starting salary to about $5k. R** starting salary has been cut to $4k+. D*** and A** have not yet moderated their salaries significantly, although there are hints that the starting salary is SLIGHTLY lower than before, ranging from $5.5-5.8k.

Unregistered 27-09-2015 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73084)
Yes W**** has cut its starting salary to about $5k. R** starting salary has been cut to $4k+. D*** and A** have not yet moderated their salaries significantly, although there are hints that the starting salary is SLIGHTLY lower than before, ranging from $5.5-5.8k.


Winter is coming.
Question. Cut pay cos of oversupply or market bad.

Unregistered 27-09-2015 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73084)
Yes W**** has cut its starting salary to about $5k. R** starting salary has been cut to $4k+. D*** and A** have not yet moderated their salaries significantly, although there are hints that the starting salary is SLIGHTLY lower than before, ranging from $5.5-5.8k.

Sounds like it is time to explore the international firms. International firms' salaries have become much more attractive by comparison.

Unregistered 28-09-2015 07:33 AM

Protected industry. The starting pay is so high compared to peers. I welcome more competition from overseas applicant to push the salary lower to match their peers.

Unregistered 29-09-2015 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73128)
Protected industry. The starting pay is so high compared to peers. I welcome more competition from overseas applicant to push the salary lower to match their peers.

The pay isn't high when you count on a per hour basis, and in the current situation, the salary is already being depressed due to the overseas Singaporean law students applying for TCs back home. Some students are already without TCs as the market simply cannot take in any more. More competition is certainly not what is needed at this time.

Also, just who are these peers which are being used as a comparison, if I may ask? And in what way is it a protected industry, aside from the requirements of a bar examination which is the case in any other jurisdiction?

Unregistered 29-09-2015 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73151)
The pay isn't high when you count on a per hour basis, and in the current situation, the salary is already being depressed due to the overseas Singaporean law students applying for TCs back home. Some students are already without TCs as the market simply cannot take in any more. More competition is certainly not what is needed at this time.

Also, just who are these peers which are being used as a comparison, if I may ask? And in what way is it a protected industry, aside from the requirements of a bar examination which is the case in any other jurisdiction?

The guy who posted the comment that you quoted is clearly an idiot. However, I disagree with you. The essence isn't the competition, it is the Singaporean mentality of trying to get everything at a cheaper price.

Look at the US, there is a glut of law graduates, yet top NYC law firms still start at USD$160k. Look at the UK, similar situation, but salaries have been rising. All these firms could all easily collude and cut salaries but they don't. The same cannot be said of the Sgrean firms.

Competition is good in any industry, it raises the standards of future batches of lawyers. The glut has made everyone more zealous in trying to better their CVs to stand out from the crowd. This is surely a good thing, as those that get in to the top firms (aside from connections, which is something we have to addressed) are those that are truly motivated to seek out opportunities.

Unregistered 29-09-2015 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73152)
The guy who posted the comment that you quoted is clearly an idiot. However, I disagree with you. The essence isn't the competition, it is the Singaporean mentality of trying to get everything at a cheaper price.

Look at the US, there is a glut of law graduates, yet top NYC law firms still start at USD$160k. Look at the UK, similar situation, but salaries have been rising. All these firms could all easily collude and cut salaries but they don't. The same cannot be said of the Sgrean firms.

Competition is good in any industry, it raises the standards of future batches of lawyers. The glut has made everyone more zealous in trying to better their CVs to stand out from the crowd. This is surely a good thing, as those that get in to the top firms (aside from connections, which is something we have to addressed) are those that are truly motivated to seek out opportunities.

Hi, I'm the writer of #427 here. Perhaps I wasn't being too clear, as my reply was directed to #426. So I'll take this chance to explain myself further.

My point isn't that competition is bad per se, it's that the current state of affairs is perhaps going too far. Minister Shanmugam noted in 2014 that 650 graduates were competing for 490 TCs (://.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-is-facing-a-glut-of-lawyers-shanmugam). And this is only about TCs, much less being retained as associates. Many firms don't retain their trainees, maybe for reasons of penny pinching as well (as trainees are paid less than half of what associates get). Where do those that fall through the cracks go then?

To make matters worse, this trend of increasing droves of students seems to be going up, with the current 2015 batch of Part B students being much larger than the one last year which our law minister referred to. Furthermore, with many trainees and fresh associates in the firms already, there is less of a need for these firms to hire more trainees in future batches, and some smaller firms simply do not have the capacity to do so, or retain them. Hence, to say that more competition is needed is really missing the point entirely. This was what I was getting at in my reply to #426.

Yes, I agree with you that competition in general helps to improve the industry, which would ensure that those who get into the big firms are those who are the truly passionate and zealous ones (leaving those getting in via connections aside). However, it might not really be a good thing like you said in the context of Singapore. Consider: if one works hard, beats the competition amongst fellow students, and gets into the big firms, and beats the competition to be retained, only to realise that pay has been decreasing, how does that help for one's motivation in the end? The good ones may end up jumping ship to work for foreign firms, which seems to be the case already.

So maybe you are right that the penny pinching mentality is perhaps a bigger problem, but both are contributory factors at the end of the day, mashed together with a slowing economy. This is also why I asked the writer of #426 to clarify the peers which he compared Singaporean lawyers to - is it the lawyers in say, Malaysia or the rest of SEA who earn much less than their Singaporean counterparts, or those in London/NY which you referred to, or those in HK... or perhaps the writer of #426 was having other unrelated industries in mind.

Hope I have clarified my position!

Unregistered 29-09-2015 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73084)
Yes W**** has cut its starting salary to about $5k. R** starting salary has been cut to $4k+. D*** and A** have not yet moderated their salaries significantly, although there are hints that the starting salary is SLIGHTLY lower than before, ranging from $5.5-5.8k.

-----------------------

Leaner times for lawyers as firm slashes bonuses?

Source: Straits Times
Date: 28 Sep 2015

They haven't been reduced to earning chicken feed - at least not yet - but times are getting tougher for the country's legal eagles.

A leading law firm is said to be slashing front-loaded bonuses for its lawyers from next month.

The cutbacks come amid a slowdown in the legal industry as firms grapple with the property slump, the dearth of new share-market listings and a slowing economy.

It remains to be seen if other top law firms here will follow suit.

A lawyer's basic salary is typically supplemented by a front-loaded bonus paid monthly. Unlike the basic salary, this is a discretionary component that can be more easily adjusted by the firm. At least one large law firm has already moderated its remuneration package for newly qualified and junior lawyers, The Straits Times reported earlier this month.

A few mid-sized firms have made similar moves or reduced their number of trainees because of an oversupply of law graduates.

- See more at: ://.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/index.php/headlines/70476-leaner-times-for-lawyers-as-firm-slashes-bonuses#sthash.Topqk2Cc.dpuf

-----------------------

Just posting this here to give that post more backing and context. If I have flouted any rules by posting that article here, moderators, please remove this post.

And also, are the lawyers expected to earn "chicken feed" eventually? :(

Unregistered 30-09-2015 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73168)
Hi, I'm the writer of #427 here. Perhaps I wasn't being too clear, as my reply was directed to #426. So I'll take this chance to explain myself further.

My point isn't that competition is bad per se, it's that the current state of affairs is perhaps going too far. Minister Shanmugam noted in 2014 that 650 graduates were competing for 490 TCs (://.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-is-facing-a-glut-of-lawyers-shanmugam). And this is only about TCs, much less being retained as associates. Many firms don't retain their trainees, maybe for reasons of penny pinching as well (as trainees are paid less than half of what associates get). Where do those that fall through the cracks go then?

To make matters worse, this trend of increasing droves of students seems to be going up, with the current 2015 batch of Part B students being much larger than the one last year which our law minister referred to. Furthermore, with many trainees and fresh associates in the firms already, there is less of a need for these firms to hire more trainees in future batches, and some smaller firms simply do not have the capacity to do so, or retain them. Hence, to say that more competition is needed is really missing the point entirely. This was what I was getting at in my reply to #426.

Yes, I agree with you that competition in general helps to improve the industry, which would ensure that those who get into the big firms are those who are the truly passionate and zealous ones (leaving those getting in via connections aside). However, it might not really be a good thing like you said in the context of Singapore. Consider: if one works hard, beats the competition amongst fellow students, and gets into the big firms, and beats the competition to be retained, only to realise that pay has been decreasing, how does that help for one's motivation in the end? The good ones may end up jumping ship to work for foreign firms, which seems to be the case already.

So maybe you are right that the penny pinching mentality is perhaps a bigger problem, but both are contributory factors at the end of the day, mashed together with a slowing economy. This is also why I asked the writer of #426 to clarify the peers which he compared Singaporean lawyers to - is it the lawyers in say, Malaysia or the rest of SEA who earn much less than their Singaporean counterparts, or those in London/NY which you referred to, or those in HK... or perhaps the writer of #426 was having other unrelated industries in mind.

Hope I have clarified my position!


Haha. We clearly disagree. My point is simple: the legal profession should not be protected just like all the other professions. The recurring theme of the 21st century is that there are in general a glut of graduates in all industries and in all professions everywhere around the world, the way I see it is for graduates to be adaptable and flexible. If an individual who reads law can't secure a TC, there are many other jobs out there and they have to tailor their expectations. If an individual who reads accountancy can't secure a place at an audit firm, they have to adapt too.

Anyway, from your tone, you sound like a law student worried about the TC situation. If you are indeed one, good luck for the hunt!

Unregistered 01-10-2015 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73202)
Haha. We clearly disagree. My point is simple: the legal profession should not be protected just like all the other professions. The recurring theme of the 21st century is that there are in general a glut of graduates in all industries and in all professions everywhere around the world, the way I see it is for graduates to be adaptable and flexible. If an individual who reads law can't secure a TC, there are many other jobs out there and they have to tailor their expectations. If an individual who reads accountancy can't secure a place at an audit firm, they have to adapt too.

Anyway, from your tone, you sound like a law student worried about the TC situation. If you are indeed one, good luck for the hunt!

Yup, I am indeed a law student, and I am indeed worried about the TC situation here, and thanks for the well wishes! (At 4am even - either you're based overseas, or you must be working really hard wherever you are at, but still reading my long rambling posts!)

However, I have, very very fortunately, secured my TC at my first choice firm - after about 40+ internship and TC applications, and going though about 6 internships, all in the span of 1.5 years because I was too 'busy' enjoying uni life back in Year 1, and also because I was blissfully unaware of what was going to hit me in the years ahead.

Nevertheless, securing a TC for myself does not stop me from being concerned at the current state of affairs. Some of my friends in their final year, or even in Part B, still are facing a struggle getting their TCs. Some of my peers even have better grades and CVs than me (like representing our school for international competitions), but still do not have a TC, or have ended up 'settling' for a TC at a firm which was not one of their preferred choices, which may well affect their future prospects. I look at them and think to myself that I am really extremely fortunate to be going where I will be going. I then look at juniors who don't fully appreciate what they're going to be facing in a while (like myself in Year 1) and feel really worried for them.

I also feel that it's a huge waste not to end up in the profession after studying for a professional degree. Some people may fare better in practice, rather than in school, but in the current market, they won't even get the chance to practice (I believe that there's an SC out there with 3rd class honours (just rumors though), and I'm sure there are many second lowers who are top tier lawyers today).

Additionally, I don't think that a law degree is really that flexible. From my vantage point, I just can't see the truth in the advice that law is a great training of the mind and helps in any job - perhaps not yet. I don't know what a law grad as an outsider has over other grads applying for a role in their fields of expertise (they would be way behind the biz/acc students for finance and consulting roles, and the same could be said for other industries, like marketing, advertising, HR, etc). People who have made the switch successfully seem to have practiced for a while first, rather than jumping straight into a different industry fresh out of uni.

Just one last point on competition, if more competition is really what would help the industry, then what would all the negative headlines about the industry now look like to would-be uni applicants? The best students would not think of applying to study law any more, with the pay cuts and glut of students being a huge turn-off, and look to other fields. A brief chat with a lecturer during one of my seminar breaks seemed to confirm this, with that particular lecturer lamenting the quality of recent applicants based on how they fared in their interviews (but I admit that this is just a one-off instance, and I'm sure there may be others who say otherwise). Sure, in the short run, the best of the current crop of students will get into the good positions with good training and all, but in the long run, wouldn't this pool of top students become smaller and smaller?

I acknowledge that people will have very differing views on my last two points in the last two paras above (i.e. law grads are really flexible (even our law minister says this), and that even if the quality of applicants decreases, the training they receive in school will make them of equal or comparable quality anyway), but these are just my two cents worth on the matter, all of which shape my view that further competition beyond what we already have (not competition per se) is really not needed in our current state of affairs.

Unregistered 03-10-2015 01:49 AM

My 2 cents on several issues here:-

1. The legal market will get worse before it gets better.

2. The allure of law will diminish in the coming years because of poorer job prospects and more depressed starting salaries. but young impressionable JC kids will still want to enter law for the lay prestige.

3. The depression in salaries have nothing to do with the glut of law grads but rather business conditions. Even if you have 10X law graduates, the market will only hire the number of grads it needs, say X. Firms will then work these X number of associates to the bone. If times are good, they will pay well. If times are bad, they will pay less.

4. Young law grads these days have many more options than in the past.

5. If you want to get a job, hustle. Business students learn to hustle to get their coveted internships or graduate programmes. Law students should not be any different.

Unregistered 16-10-2015 10:57 PM

Based on 3rd year cohort from local uni, about 10-20% have TCs as of now.

Unregistered 16-10-2015 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73824)
Based on 3rd year cohort from local uni, about 10-20% have TCs as of now.

thats because applications JUST opened in end aug/sept...

almost 100% of my batch (year 4 right now) have TCs (I'm from a local school, and I'm pretty sure the situation in the other local school is the same)

Unregistered 17-10-2015 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73825)
thats because applications JUST opened in end aug/sept...

almost 100% of my batch (year 4 right now) have TCs (I'm from a local school, and I'm pretty sure the situation in the other local school is the same)

Whats the big firm to small firm ratio?

Unregistered 17-10-2015 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73830)
Whats the big firm to small firm ratio?

roughly 1/3 of the cohort in local uni will get a spot in the "desirable" spots (e.g. big 4, internationals, legal service)

Unregistered 17-10-2015 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73825)
thats because applications JUST opened in end aug/sept...

almost 100% of my batch (year 4 right now) have TCs (I'm from a local school, and I'm pretty sure the situation in the other local school is the same)

that's not what i'm hearing.... but then again, i am not the one who's studying at a local school.

i find it so ironic that i worked so hard in school, got into a decent firm, and now all i want is to get out. advice for my juniors - get out early while you can.

Unregistered 18-10-2015 04:03 PM

://.rollonfriday.com/TheNews/EuropeNews/tabid/58/Id/4235/fromTab/36/currentIndex/5/Default.aspx

"Exclusive: Singapore firm slaps down lawyer for spilling on slashed bonus"

Singapore firms are reducing their lawyers' bonuses and salaries, and one firm has disciplined one of its own lawyers for revealing details of the cuts.

Sources report that three of the so-called 'big four' firms in the country, Allen & Gledhill, Drew & Napier, Rajah & Tann, and Wong Partnership, have cut bonuses and, in some cases, reduced salaries. The country's biggest firm by headcount, Rodyk & Davidson, confirmed to RollOnFriday that the low end of its bonus had been dropped. A spokeswoman blamed "the regional ecomonic slowdown", saying that the last two years had been "exceptionally strong".

However that went down badly with at least one Rodyk & Davidson lawyer, who sent a photo of the email informing staff of the cuts to his friends. An insider says that the firm has now "taken action" against him, although its spokeswoman declined to clarify what the action was, telling RollOnFriday. "we cannot comment publicly about our internal employee management process".

-----------------------

Anybody heard anything about this? What happened to the poor lawyer?

Unregistered 18-10-2015 05:31 PM

I think lawyers are overpaid. Do you agree with me?

Unregistered 18-10-2015 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 73867)
I think lawyers are overpaid. Do you agree with me?

Disagree. For the amount of work they do, I would argue that most law firms are getting a good deal on their junior associates. Where else would you find a bunch of young people willing to put their lives on hold for 2 to 3 years for a starting pay of 5-6k?

On the other hand, I think IB is grossly overpaid. How does it make economic sense to pay a starting salary upwards of 12 to 15k? In which universe, from an economic perspective, is a 24 year old actually worth that amount?


All times are GMT +8. The time now is 07:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2