Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

(or should I say B5)

**** no.

K Shan has a vested interest to POFMA this ****.

Dentons and Baker should be considered the same level in Sg.
They are not part of big 4.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No you don't. You don't come close to int firms in any local institution.

You don't even earn b4 level, while you're JLC, you're just earning slightly more than DPP lol (and don't forget you usually have to do a DPP stint as a JLC before moving to the courts). You "make up" for the lost earnings by getting to brag that you were a JLC, and hoping that the name sticks with you enough that you can jump into big4/int firms after the stint. However, alot of JLC come out and end up failing in private practice (and doing worse than their less academic peers) because they were too coddled in the AGC/courts, or they are just good at "school lawyering", which makes them only suited for academia.

If you're a FCH, just apply to int firms directly, you'll probably do better that way. The only exception is if you know you want to do litigation, and you don't mind slogging it out after.

Wow interesting, you're the first person I've heard say that JLCs do not matter.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Wow interesting, you're the first person I've heard say that JLCs do not matter.

My bad, JLCs "end up failing in private practice". I don't think so? I mean the stint as a JLC certainly doesn't prejudice them

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Wow interesting, you're the first person I've heard say that JLCs do not matter.

Nah, the OP just has a complex about missing out on FCH in school.

A JLC is a JLC. They did the same courses and had the same time as everyone else in school and performed near the top of their class. As a rule, they would be excellent performers in private practice or in the civil service. There are of course a few exceptions, but they are the exception.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Nah, the OP just has a complex about missing out on FCH in school.

A JLC is a JLC. They did the same courses and had the same time as everyone else in school and performed near the top of their class. As a rule, they would be excellent performers in private practice or in the civil service. There are of course a few exceptions, but they are the exception.

Yeah that's what I thought, why did he just throw shade on JLCs?

I do see one point though - that law school is not practice although it is an indicator. But it's just not right to say "many" JLCs end up failing in private practice.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yeah that's what I thought, why did he just throw shade on JLCs?

I do see one point though - that law school is not practice although it is an indicator. But it's just not right to say "many" JLCs end up failing in private practice.

Sorry, should have been clearer. The use of the word "failing" was relative, I meant that not alot of them go on to big international firms, and instead they end up going directly to academia (or going back to academia after a few years of practice). When I said failing, I just meant that they don't end up earning the most or being the most notable. This is, as I stated, what I feel to be a result of being coddled in public service (which is not a JLC issue but a general public service issue - since the hours are far more slack in public service).

Also, I did say it's worth it if you have your heart set on liti, it's just not really worth it otherwise.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sorry, should have been clearer. The use of the word "failing" was relative, I meant that not alot of them go on to big international firms, and instead they end up going directly to academia (or going back to academia after a few years of practice). When I said failing, I just meant that they don't end up earning the most or being the most notable. This is, as I stated, what I feel to be a result of being coddled in public service (which is not a JLC issue but a general public service issue - since the hours are far more slack in public service).

Also, I did say it's worth it if you have your heart set on liti, it's just not really worth it otherwise.

Success is relative, failure is absolute. I assume you just meant "not successful" because your metrics are international firm. Fair enough, but then again, the partnership prospects are very low. Why would they went they are fast tracked into SA/partnership at local firms?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Success is relative, failure is absolute. I assume you just meant "not successful" because your metrics are international firm. Fair enough, but then again, the partnership prospects are very low. Why would they went they are fast tracked into SA/partnership at local firms?

When*

My bad.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Dentons and Baker should be considered the same level in Sg.
They are not part of big 4.

Yeah they are not big 4 but they are not same level. While Baker has its issues in SG, Rodyk is just cmi.