Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Deafening silence from the BM white knights on this forum

People from big 4 like drew rnt always join here. Because pay better than them and they don't need to slog in big 4. Good balance. N with good culture they condone average standards and behaviours. Better pay less stress why not.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

People from big 4 like drew rnt always join here. Because pay better than them and they don't need to slog in big 4. Good balance. N with good culture they condone average standards and behaviours. Better pay less stress why not.

shitty partnership prospects

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Okay, let's take stock, the comments were (1) Baker does not pay near to SC/MC salary in SG, and pays closer to b4 salary and (2) that Baker is the Macdonald's of law firms.

Firstly, even before the payraises this year for big4, Big4 was paying close to 6k, Baker W&L paid 7.5k for NQ in 2020. This year, Baker increased their pay slightly, whereas the Big4 like A&G bumped their pay up to 7.5k as well.

This is compared with true internationals paying >10k (in fact the going rate for true internationals is around 12-13k). I think you can obviously see that BM is closer to big4, and is nowhere close to int firm salary in SG, unless you want to "educate" me on how Baker has caught up to true int firms in terms of pay?

Secondly, let's discuss the type of work BM does, and the kind of profits it generates. In the list of top 100 law firms by revenue, Baker was ranked 4th in 2019/2020, but by profits per partner, it was ranked 79/80th.

Therefore, it shows that Baker employs a high volume, low cost model to remain profitable. It's a big firm that hires many partners/assocs and works them to the bone doing minor, low profit cases. This is the epitome of a Macdonald's firm.

So please tell me, apart from your bruised ego (I assume you work there or have worked there before), and hiding behind the vague comment of obtaining "current information", what is there to disprove that BM is actually the Macdonald's of international firms?

Please do not just refer me to one or two big cases/tasks that BM has been asked to do in recent times. Almost every firm, even small to mid-size firms, has a few "superstar" clientele, one piece of work to brag about does not suddenly whitewash your firm's reputation.

Just to note, I have been in multiple true international firms in various capacities, as well as some FLAs. In internal meetings (and global catchup meetings), I can honestly say that none of them refer to BM as their rivals or aspirational goals respectively.

If you're from BM W&L or even BM proper, you should already know this, this is not news. BM is consistently talking about how they want to try to become a proper snooty international firm, and the steps they are taking to leave the Macdonald's type of work (albeit with a corporate-positive spin).

I won't comment on the rest because I cbf. Just on the salary point, if you were inclined to actually be reasonable in your analysis and compare apple to apples - comparing BMWL starting salary to MC starting rates is not a reasonable comparison, because MC starting is for NQs on the UK scale (i.e. 2 years of training + LPC, the total could be close to 3 years past your law sku graduation). Accounting for this difference is something the firms themselves do - if you are a 2 PQE in a SG firm and you move to a MC, you will be taken as a NQ and paid accordingly.

So, if you want to compare properly:

(A) To begin with, BMWL starting of 8.5k now (yes, it's 8.5k) is higher than what u will get as a MC trainee.

(B) For assoc salary, you should be looking at BMWL 2 - 3 PQE salaries and comparing that to the MC starting salary. At that point, BMWL is close to the 12-13k mark you gave. The same goes for B4 (which definitely pays less than BMWL), but the point is if you compare at the 2-3 PQE mark, the difference is not as great as you think (but yes, there is definitely still a difference).

Don't get fooled by a big wall of text - idiots usually talk the most.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I won't comment on the rest because I cbf. Just on the salary point, if you were inclined to actually be reasonable in your analysis and compare apple to apples - comparing BMWL starting salary to MC starting rates is not a reasonable comparison, because MC starting is for NQs on the UK scale (i.e. 2 years of training + LPC, the total could be close to 3 years past your law sku graduation). Accounting for this difference is something the firms themselves do - if you are a 2 PQE in a SG firm and you move to a MC, you will be taken as a NQ and paid accordingly.

So, if you want to compare properly:

(A) To begin with, BMWL starting of 8.5k now (yes, it's 8.5k) is higher than what u will get as a MC trainee.

(B) For assoc salary, you should be looking at BMWL 2 - 3 PQE salaries and comparing that to the MC starting salary. At that point, BMWL is close to the 12-13k mark you gave. The same goes for B4 (which definitely pays less than BMWL), but the point is if you compare at the 2-3 PQE mark, the difference is not as great as you think (but yes, there is definitely still a difference).

Don't get fooled by a big wall of text - idiots usually talk the most.

I’m here to say I agree with the analysis of this poster.
Just rmb training contract is 2 years. Magic circle won’t take you in as a first year associate without 2Pqe on sg scale

I think McDonalds refer to business model rather gross revenue ranking. Its having offices everywhere so they provide full service even on low margin lower cost jurisdictions, which can help their main market lawyers.

In that sense, look for those firms with high revenue but low profit per partner.

how much is the big 4, like drew paying? i know a&g upped their pay for nq-s to 7.5k starting jan. is the number similar for drew?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I won't comment on the rest because I cbf. Just on the salary point, if you were inclined to actually be reasonable in your analysis and compare apple to apples - comparing BMWL starting salary to MC starting rates is not a reasonable comparison, because MC starting is for NQs on the UK scale (i.e. 2 years of training + LPC, the total could be close to 3 years past your law sku graduation). Accounting for this difference is something the firms themselves do - if you are a 2 PQE in a SG firm and you move to a MC, you will be taken as a NQ and paid accordingly.

So, if you want to compare properly:

(A) To begin with, BMWL starting of 8.5k now (yes, it's 8.5k) is higher than what u will get as a MC trainee.

(B) For assoc salary, you should be looking at BMWL 2 - 3 PQE salaries and comparing that to the MC starting salary. At that point, BMWL is close to the 12-13k mark you gave. The same goes for B4 (which definitely pays less than BMWL), but the point is if you compare at the 2-3 PQE mark, the difference is not as great as you think (but yes, there is definitely still a difference).

Don't get fooled by a big wall of text - idiots usually talk the most.

agree with the analysis. so bmwl nq pay got raised again? it was said to be 8k just a few pages ago.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

agree with the analysis. so bmwl nq pay got raised again? it was said to be 8k just a few pages ago.

everytime BMWL is mentioned the NQ pay increases lmao. I think by the time this thread hits the next page, NQ pay will be 9k liao

It's 8.5. The bump was 1k from the previous salary of 7.5.

It is 9.5k liao, cuz HR needs to adjust with inflation