Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If chiobu wear seksi seksi skert, got better chance to retain / get good-paying TCs?

Should scout out those who get TCs for int’l firms. Baker, CC, Linklaters, etc.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If chiobu wear seksi seksi skert, got better chance to retain / get good-paying TCs?

No. Good-paying & TCs can't be in the same sentence. Not in Singapoor.
Retain also no use. Didn't someone above say after 1 year still kicked out for cheaper labour.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"slightly below $800" vs getting nothing. Is nothing much at all.

Even $1.5-2k is toilet paper money in todae's terms. That is the pay of a maid or a Maccs worker. Yet you ask, "why is there such a disparity". Joke's on you.

Honestly its the sh*t tier firms counting beans that trainees should be worried about. The standard TC rate is $2K. A firm that pays $800 is trying to skimp on that $1.2K x 6 = $7.2K per month.

I already bill my clients more than $7.2k before close of pleadings stage and this is for low level DC suits. Less than a few hours of EZ work.

Any firm counting beans to the extent of skimping on $7.2K per trainee, is probably an unprofitable or low margin mess to begin with. Any trainee or assoc working there should be seriously concerned, bcos they're just as likely to be let go when the going gets more tough financially.

If TC is 2k, NQ pay easily doubles or triples that once qualified.
This incentivises a SG firm to let go NQs and 1-2PQEs. Especially firms with ready supply of trainees each year.
Bosses don't have to outrightly fire. Just make things hard for them so they cannot tahan and jump firms early. Or switch from practice to be civil servants, minlaw execs. I'm sure you know peers who only lasted about a year post NQ and the firms they're from are considered targets, even B4.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Honestly its the sh*t tier firms counting beans that trainees should be worried about. The standard TC rate is $2K. A firm that pays $800 is trying to skimp on that $1.2K x 6 = $7.2K per month.

I already bill my clients more than $7.2k before close of pleadings stage and this is for low level DC suits. Less than a few hours of EZ work.

Any firm counting beans to the extent of skimping on $7.2K per trainee, is probably an unprofitable or low margin mess to begin with. Any trainee or assoc working there should be seriously concerned, bcos they're just as likely to be let go when the going gets more tough financially.

Hmm. Don't be mislead by the firm saying they cannot afford to pay.
It's not so much how much they can afford, cos they blardy can, but how much they can get away with in a no minimum wage market. Wink wink.

Will that be good optics if an international firm like Taylor Wessing,

> headquartered in a country with strong labour laws and trade unions
> billing its clients millions

and yet
> its tactless Singaporean office is relishing how it exploits its juniors for no pay, in BUSINESS TIMES, openly accessible for its client that just got billed millions in legal costs?

Hohoho. Scrimp on peanuts and you get a monkey deal.

I can attest to this. My boss, from a relatively smaller firm, are always very keen on taking on trainees every year. But he will tell them the same story at almost every interview. And as rightly pointed out by previous posters, he went on telling them about how they are taking them on not because they need to but they are doing their part as senior members to help juniors become lawyers in the bad economy, so whatever he offers is the most they can get. My colleagues and I will always laugh at this cause we all know how much we bill a month. A week after they come in, he unloads piles of work onto them. Kinda good for me cause at least someone can ease my burden off.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Will that be good optics if an international firm like Taylor Wessing,

> headquartered in a country with strong labour laws and trade unions
> billing its clients millions

and yet
> its tactless Singaporean office is relishing how it exploits its juniors for no pay, in BUSINESS TIMES, openly accessible for its client that just got billed millions in legal costs?

Hohoho. Scrimp on peanuts and you get a monkey deal.

Yah hurry hurry before existing European clients boycott and take their business to competitors example that hungry MC Firm A and US Firm B, let's hurry break up asap and slap "Asia" behind their names. Now it's clear they are relegated to the Asian market to atone for their PR mistakes. Yes! Finally, they can no longer cause affront to precious Anglo-German sensitivities.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

not because they need to but they are doing their part as senior members to help juniors

Sounds familiar. I believe a similar line of argument had been deployed by a touter of a $3k bar course. Something a $800 trainee has to work 4mos to afford

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sounds familiar. I believe a similar line of argument had been deployed by a touter of a $3k bar course. Something a $800 trainee has to work 4mos to afford

So no matter how much they bill, they will always use this story to scout juniors and underpay them? Sounds familiar to me too.