Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

why are there so many girls in law anyway?

The reasons should be quite obvious.

Law is a non-STEM profession and females don't like to study STEM. Aptitude or not, I'm not going to open that can of worms...

It's a pseudo-social science, which is more towards female inclinations. But it's also slightly more competitive and prestigious to enter than your run-of-the-mill arts/social science/business courses. Hence, it attracts the studious, nerdy girls from better JCs or who did better in A levels.

At the academic and junior practice level, law rewards being studious, meticulous, and putting your head down quietly and doing the work. Females excel in this because they are detail-oriented and fussy about minute things, and are very good at following pre-planned procedures and SOPs to the letter.

The more incisive question to ask is why you don't see females as top level litigators or many EPs. Aside from the obvious family burdens stereotype, at the senior level, the skillsets required for law are more towards the rainmaking size (schmoozing with clients) and seeing the big picture and problem solving in creative ways and being thick skinned (for litigation).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm in construction disputes. It's Wongp's style to just throw in as much **** as they can (whether relevant or not) and see what sticks.... They have a revolving door of associates just anyhow doing SOPA/construction cases in a copy-paste style. That's why the attrition rate is really high. So although I understand they technically are "strong" in construction, they are highly overrated, nobody there is learning anything useful, assocs are just treated as warm bodies.

So what is the proper way of doing construction law?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So what is the proper way of doing construction law?

Wear a hard hat

Originally Posted by Unregistered

So what is the proper way of doing construction law?

Same as any other field of law la, don't submit irrelevant pleadings and don't make your assocs do purely SOPA related work (this type of work only helps the Partner achieve their billable target but doesn't teach much - especially if you always copy-paste only).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Eldan law. Best construction law firm. Puts the big4s to shame all the time

Baker is better than all.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Baker is better than all.

LOL I know you're trolling but Baker really isn't good in much in Singapore. Apart from their brand name, they don't have any field that they excel in.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LOL I know you're trolling but Baker really isn't good in much in Singapore. Apart from their brand name, they don't have any field that they excel in.

What kind of cakes do you like

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LOL I know you're trolling but Baker really isn't good in much in Singapore. Apart from their brand name, they don't have any field that they excel in.

Says a lot about our local firms when Baker is considered to have good brand name. In the UK, firms like DLA, Baker and Norton Rose are considered middling, non-prestigious firms. Not even silver circle and far from the most coveted firms for top law grads.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The reasons should be quite obvious.

Law is a non-STEM profession and females don't like to study STEM. Aptitude or not, I'm not going to open that can of worms...

It's a pseudo-social science, which is more towards female inclinations. But it's also slightly more competitive and prestigious to enter than your run-of-the-mill arts/social science/business courses. Hence, it attracts the studious, nerdy girls from better JCs or who did better in A levels.

At the academic and junior practice level, law rewards being studious, meticulous, and putting your head down quietly and doing the work. Females excel in this because they are detail-oriented and fussy about minute things, and are very good at following pre-planned procedures and SOPs to the letter.

The more incisive question to ask is why you don't see females as top level litigators or many EPs. Aside from the obvious family burdens stereotype, at the senior level, the skillsets required for law are more towards the rainmaking size (schmoozing with clients) and seeing the big picture and problem solving in creative ways and being thick skinned (for litigation).

i felt the same way as a junior but even the partners could be quite fastidious about things. And it was disputes too.

I still wonder whether there's ever a point in lawyering if we can't be ****ed to fuss over small details, especially if they're not material to the overall strategic objective.

If this post by Alex Su (...linkedin.com/posts/alexander-su_when-i-was-in-biglaw-i-wasnt-a-very-good-activity-6816020986379456512-1IbK) is right, then it may be there's really no point in the end. Better off admitting we have a skills/traits mismatch and get out lol.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Says a lot about our local firms when Baker is considered to have good brand name. In the UK, firms like DLA, Baker and Norton Rose are considered middling, non-prestigious firms. Not even silver circle and far from the most coveted firms for top law grads.

i think cause Baker has a larger intake compared to say, A&O? but I also hear Baker and NRF have brand name clients (e.g. Google, Apple etc), so people naturally feel they're upz.