Lawyer Salary

Hi I would like to check with my learned friends on this forum on the prospects of a litigation versus a transaction lawyer. I'm a local uni student in my final year, been offered a TC to do corporate work at one of the big four. However, I've recently re-discovered my passion for litigation (shall bear you all the details of that), and seriously considering transferring to liti.

However, I have serious concerns about my speaking abilities, as I'm far from a charismatic or good speaker. My pragmatic consideration is whether or not I should transfer to liti where I might have greater interest whilst probably limiting my future career prospects, or staying in corporate where the money is allegedly better than liti (as a partner at least), and where the skills are more transferable to other sectors?

On that note, does anyone know how compensation schemes in the big four work for equity partners? Is it based on how much work a partner can bring in, or is it like the magic circle firms where it's based on a global pool?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi I would like to check with my learned friends on this forum on the prospects of a litigation versus a transaction lawyer. I'm a local uni student in my final year, been offered a TC to do corporate work at one of the big four. However, I've recently re-discovered my passion for litigation (shall bear you all the details of that), and seriously considering transferring to liti.

However, I have serious concerns about my speaking abilities, as I'm far from a charismatic or good speaker. My pragmatic consideration is whether or not I should transfer to liti where I might have greater interest whilst probably limiting my future career prospects, or staying in corporate where the money is allegedly better than liti (as a partner at least), and where the skills are more transferable to other sectors?

On that note, does anyone know how compensation schemes in the big four work for equity partners? Is it based on how much work a partner can bring in, or is it like the magic circle firms where it's based on a global pool?

Hi my learned friend,

My advice as a 2nd yearer in practice is don't try to run before you learn how to walk. you have a long career and life ahead of you. your life isn't decided based on which practice area you choose to hop in first; many successful and famous lawyers didn't train in what they are presently good at. most of them also have been in practice for a gazillion years and picked up their skills along the way.

I would say all lawyers have concerns about their speaking (and other) abilities. Oral advocacy is a skill to be cultivated and not something most people (if any) are born with. Good litigators are not born but trained. I have also met some litigators who can wayang their way to oscars but do not instinctively craft arguments with legal basis. even win-loss records can be deceiving; any lawyer can win a slamdunk case but it takes a good lawyer to brighten gloomy skies.

as far as limiting your prospects are concerned, it cuts both ways. do liti can't do corp, do corp can't do liti. how much you earn depends less on your practice area but more on how good you are at what you're doing. this encompasses not only technical skill and knowledge of law but PR skills (ie ass kissing and sucking up) and blessings from God (ie daddy's connections). any way, certain in house positions actively seek ppl with liti experience. linkedin research will tell you the same thing.

compensation schemes depend on firm to firm and is based on a whole myriad of factors that you won't know unless you personally know a partner you can trust (and in turn trusts you).

as a final word, good luck. you're in a **** market where juniors are getting undercut at all angles and in all senses. nevertheless, the future is not something people can predict. do your best wherever you end up and try your best to be happy/healthy. at the end of the day, that's more important than earning S$xxx per month.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi I would like to check with my learned friends on this forum on the prospects of a litigation versus a transaction lawyer. I'm a local uni student in my final year, been offered a TC to do corporate work at one of the big four. However, I've recently re-discovered my passion for litigation (shall bear you all the details of that), and seriously considering transferring to liti.

Forgot to add, big 4s are traditionally revolving doors. just because you land your first job there doesn't mean you'll stay more than a year.

Does anyone know how many trainees the AGC takes in annually? What're the conditions attached to offers made to NUS and SMU grads?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi I would like to check with my learned friends on this forum on the prospects of a litigation versus a transaction lawyer. I'm a local uni student in my final year, been offered a TC to do corporate work at one of the big four. However, I've recently re-discovered my passion for litigation (shall bear you all the details of that), and seriously considering transferring to liti.

However, I have serious concerns about my speaking abilities, as I'm far from a charismatic or good speaker. My pragmatic consideration is whether or not I should transfer to liti where I might have greater interest whilst probably limiting my future career prospects, or staying in corporate where the money is allegedly better than liti (as a partner at least), and where the skills are more transferable to other sectors?

On that note, does anyone know how compensation schemes in the big four work for equity partners? Is it based on how much work a partner can bring in, or is it like the magic circle firms where it's based on a global pool?

How do you rediscover a passion for litigation when you've never done it in the first place? If you're referring to law school moots, that's the legal equivalent of calling yourself a pilot after a few rounds at the arcade.

Litigation is incredibly boring. But don't you worry too much about your eloquence. You'll have many years to practice while you bind your 25th bundle of documents at 2 am in the morning and write your 30th research memo.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Litigation is incredibly boring. But don't you worry too much about your eloquence. You'll have many years to practice while you bind your 25th bundle of documents at 2 am in the morning and write your 30th research memo.

LOL no offence but doing due D and doc review aren't exactly a trip to the movies either.

at the end of the day it's a job. how much court time you have depends on the firm you're at, whether your boss wants to micromanage etc.

whether you enjoy it or not depends on you. people like different things.

many lawyers aren't eloquent btw. you'll see plenty of wayang lawyers losing due to have a shitastic no legal basis foolishly argued case. just speak clearly and in a way that people can understand. that's all it takes at the lower level anyway. develop your advocacy skills as you grow in your career.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LOL no offence but doing due D and doc review aren't exactly a trip to the movies either.

at the end of the day it's a job. how much court time you have depends on the firm you're at, whether your boss wants to micromanage etc.

whether you enjoy it or not depends on you. people like different things.

many lawyers aren't eloquent btw. you'll see plenty of wayang lawyers losing due to have a shitastic no legal basis foolishly argued case. just speak clearly and in a way that people can understand. that's all it takes at the lower level anyway. develop your advocacy skills as you grow in your career.

Agreed! But you see the senior counsels and too partners from the big four - they are usually very eloquent and charismatic, which often can be traced back to their uni days when they are usually Jessup or vis mooters

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Agreed! But you see the senior counsels and too partners from the big four - they are usually very eloquent and charismatic, which often can be traced back to their uni days when they are usually Jessup or vis mooters

of course you can aspire to reach their level la. but you already know that most ppl don't. some famous names prob nv did moots in their uni days cos too bz playing. it's irrelevant anw. the most eloquent and charismatic ppl i've ever met are actually high level sales ppl or MCs, not lawyers. in other words, you can still be a good lawyer without being that zai of a speaker.

Im currently 2PQE assoc at a mid sized firm. Any other assocs in mid sized firms of similar PQE willing to share their remuneration packages (Base/frontload), and what kind of increments they are getting?

Im getting $4000/500 and the increments seem to only be $300-500 per year. Given the terrible market, I'm not sure if the grass out there is much greener especially since I have a really warm-hearted boss.

Hi seniors,

Would like to ask what are the practical consequences of breaking a TC. Do firms "blacklist" those who do so? Is it common to break TCs? What if the contract does not stipulate the consequences of termination?

Also, is it common for TCs to have a clause stating that "The Firm may terminate this practice training contract without cause upon 7 days’ notice in writing or, if with cause, immediately upon notice to you."? This seems to be very onerous –*if the firm realises that it has over-projected the number of trainees it needs, it may terminate the TCs of some of its incoming trainees?
(Ref: ://.legispoint.com/pdf/Sample_Training_Contract.pdf)