Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

this is very true and roughly follows how it is in the UK, where barristers are perceived to be the smartest lawyers actually. The tiering system is as follows.

So at the highest level, disputes contain the smartest lawyers. These are the JLCs who remain in liti, and future SCs and Supreme Court judges, i.e. the nobility of law.

Transactional lawyers are less smart, but ironically because of the perceived prestige, corp departments are more selective in terms of grades. Transactional work doesn't really need cutting edge legal brainpower in the doctrinal law sense, so whether you're 2:1 or 2:2 doesn't really matter unless you're retarded, autistic or too ugly to present to clients. These are the bourgeoise of law.

Finally, you have the rank and file disputes that accept all those whose grades cmi to corp. these are the struggling proletarians and working class of law.

IMO corp values those who are detail-oriented and hardworking - plenty of people can do corp. The intelligence factor only comes in because timelines are tight and you would need the ability to quickly grasp the relevant areas of law as a junior associate. It definitely does require more brainpower to do cutting-edge disputes and make original arguments based in targeted research.

On average how long does it take to become partner doing community law?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

IMO corp values those who are detail-oriented and hardworking - plenty of people can do corp. The intelligence factor only comes in because timelines are tight and you would need the ability to quickly grasp the relevant areas of law as a junior associate. It definitely does require more brainpower to do cutting-edge disputes and make original arguments based in targeted research.

You kidding right. Background: Did B4 disputes for two years, made an intra-firm jump to a corp team and went offshore.

Top tier litigation is the easiest **** ever if you did well in school. It's literally just the same thing you did for those 3/4 years with just a lot more formality. From day 1 law school teaches you to spot issues, arrange your arguments, cite precedents, these are all things which any decent law grad knows from the moment they receive their degree. Complex corporate corp, however, is way more confusing. No one is here to issue spot for you, you are expected to review a 100-page document yourself and pick out the few sentences every page which have substantial legal consequences / some commercial impact to raise to the client, and suggest amendments yourself. If you think corp law is just finding a precedent and throwing at the client because that's all you've been doing at work, newflash: your corp team is sub-par.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You kidding right. Background: Did B4 disputes for two years, made an intra-firm jump to a corp team and went offshore.

Top tier litigation is the easiest **** ever if you did well in school. It's literally just the same thing you did for those 3/4 years with just a lot more formality. From day 1 law school teaches you to spot issues, arrange your arguments, cite precedents, these are all things which any decent law grad knows from the moment they receive their degree. Complex corporate corp, however, is way more confusing. No one is here to issue spot for you, you are expected to review a 100-page document yourself and pick out the few sentences every page which have substantial legal consequences / some commercial impact to raise to the client, and suggest amendments yourself. If you think corp law is just finding a precedent and throwing at the client because that's all you've been doing at work, newflash: your corp team is sub-par.

Mate I'm in a top tier international law transactional team and I'm not kidding myself that corp law requires cutting edge legal brainpower. It requires different kinds of mental faculties, yes, of the organizational and detail oriented kind. But I would admit a top tier litigator uses far more brainpower anyday, especially during the crunch time of court or arbi hearings and case strategy.

Nobody's saying anything about just throwing precedents at clients or doing copy-and-paste jobs. That's a strawman argument and probably to hide ur own insecurity at what you do. It's not THAT cutting edge dude. Lets not kid ourselves

To follow your point that litigators r just do the same thing that is taught in law school, think of it this way using an SAF analogy:

A Commando can be said to be doing what is an advanced continuation of BMT infantry fieldcraft, but everyone would agree that a Commando is a far superior and cutting edge soldier. In this context, a top tier litigator = Commando. Law school = BMT. Transactional lawyers = signals or combat engineering or some technical other non-infantry type vocation.

pointless argument. if you're good enough to do one, you're good enough to do the other. just choose one based on whether it fits your personal / professional aspirations

I'm a Corp SA in an intl firm.
In most cases, the 'cutting edge' work is merely an extension of the very comprehensive precedent bank at our fingertips.

Feel so irritated that many people are pretending to be fch, Corp assoc in int’l firms, etc...
Wake up please

What are the hours like for intl firms? Is it the end goal of those in b4 to move there?

Do ppl in intl firms feel like they have made it in life?

Is it frowned upon to start a family when you just joined a firm? Or do firms prefer you to be single and always avail to work late at night