Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Since this can’t go on nus confessions, no choice:

I am Y from a delisted Uni. Even before the vitriol against overseas grad, I do not like my local uni counterparts. Especially in bar exams and law firm as a trainee, associate and senior associate. The class divide between local and overseas is acutely felt and the discrimination couldn’t be more real. I didn’t use to harbour so much bitterness until I had to coexist with local uni grads. The final straw was when a local uni grad stole my then gf after pretending to add me as a friend on FB and prying through my private life.

From then on, I swore never to be nice to any local uni grad. At every juncture, as associate, senior associate then junior partner, I always made it a point to be very exacting and demanding on local grads. Whenever they cried in my presence, I felt that there was finally justice in this world. Justice for the pain they had caused me and for the consistent nightmare and hurt.

So yes, while you all local grads hate overseas grads, secretly in our hearts, a number of us really dislike local grads and it shows. My peers are in international firms to influence the hiring decisions.

High quality sh*tpost. Anyway can we move on to salaries and real talk instead of posting your insecurities here

s://.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/young-lawyers-find-fulfilment-balance-as-they-strike-out-on-their-own

Anyone care to share thoughts on the recent BT article about young lawyers striking out on their own to get “fulfillment”. I don’t know their individual situations or who they are and their accounts may very well be true. However, I’m always a bit skeptical of articles which are crafted to be so positive as to almost become an advert. It’s like according to this article every one of them had been a star in a big firm bound for stardom in the firm, without any confirmation from any of those firms, but decided to strike out because they can provide more fulfilling work at cheaper rates. Having worked in a big firm, I can honestly say I don’t know one person whose primary motivation was “fulfillment” and their decision to start a new firm was inevitably frustration about some career matter. But maybe it is because I hang out with a different and much more jaded and career oriented crowd. Would love your thoughts.

I do hope what they say is true though because if that’s the case then it augurs well for the profession that young lawyers are conscious of the need for representation of the masses.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

s://.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/young-lawyers-find-fulfilment-balance-as-they-strike-out-on-their-own

Anyone care to share thoughts on the recent BT article about young lawyers striking out on their own to get “fulfillment”. I don’t know their individual situations or who they are and their accounts may very well be true. However, I’m always a bit skeptical of articles which are crafted to be so positive as to almost become an advert. It’s like according to this article every one of them had been a star in a big firm bound for stardom in the firm, without any confirmation from any of those firms, but decided to strike out because they can provide more fulfilling work at cheaper rates. Having worked in a big firm, I can honestly say I don’t know one person whose primary motivation was “fulfillment” and their decision to start a new firm was inevitably frustration about some career matter. But maybe it is because I hang out with a different and much more jaded and career oriented crowd. Would love your thoughts.

I do hope what they say is true though because if that’s the case then it augurs well for the profession that young lawyers are conscious of the need for representation of the masses.

I know 4 of the interviewees featured in their article and they're undoubtedly good lawyers. Making partners in their respective old firms wouldn't be surprising at all. At least 2 of them were JLCs. Even if you look at it with more cynical eyes, they all came from local firms (including the FLA mentioned), so the prospects of making at least JP is well within reach.

Of course, whether they would've been good rainmakers or not (arguably just as or more important than technical skills when you become a more senior lawyer) in their old firms is another thing.

But striking out and setting up your own shop is the truest challenge of whether you're a rainmaker, is it not?

Personally I would've felt somewhat uncomfortable tooting my own horn but I guess they felt convicted enough to agree to be interviewed. This conviction that they can do better with their own practice is probably why they left the safety net of their big firms in the first place.

If you are the boss of your own firm it will be less stressful ofc- you dictate the number of hours of work, get to choose which client you want, etc.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

A common view in this thread is that making it as JP in B4 isn't a big accomplishment and even mediocre people get promoted if they stay long enough. Just wondering if this is true for all the B4? Is there a ranking of the B4 in terms of how easy/hard it is to make JP?

You can check out the partner to associate ratio for the B4 here: s://.legalbusinessonline.com/features/alb-asia-top-50-2021

Of the B4, WongP has the smallest partner-to-associate ratio while R&T has the largest. That gives you an idea of how easy it is to make JP at each firm.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You can check out the partner to associate ratio for the B4 here: s://.legalbusinessonline.com/features/alb-asia-top-50-2021

Of the B4, WongP has the smallest partner-to-associate ratio while R&T has the largest. That gives you an idea of how easy it is to make JP at each firm.

That data seems off. According to that data, Dentons Rodyk has many more partners than associates. That seems crazy so I’m assuming that the data is completely off.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I know 4 of the interviewees featured in their article and they're undoubtedly good lawyers. Making partners in their respective old firms wouldn't be surprising at all. At least 2 of them were JLCs. Even if you look at it with more cynical eyes, they all came from local firms (including the FLA mentioned), so the prospects of making at least JP is well within reach.

Of course, whether they would've been good rainmakers or not (arguably just as or more important than technical skills when you become a more senior lawyer) in their old firms is another thing.

But striking out and setting up your own shop is the truest challenge of whether you're a rainmaker, is it not?

Personally I would've felt somewhat uncomfortable tooting my own horn but I guess they felt convicted enough to agree to be interviewed. This conviction that they can do better with their own practice is probably why they left the safety net of their big firms in the first place.

Speaking of JLCs, I have a question. To what extent is being a JLC helpful to one's career? Am on track to get a first class honours but of course things are very fluid and may change since I've not graduated. But wanted to think of options.

Is being a JLC something one must absolutely do if given the chance? If you look at the background of those conferred SCs, appointed to the Supreme Court and even taking higher office in politics, many of them have been JLCs. This is despite only a small number of people becoming JLCs each year, or so my seniors tell me. I'm sure these were ridiculously clever people to begin with as your post above suggests. But does time as a JLC train one's mind in a way that law school and practice does not that gives one an even stronger edge in life and in the profession? And should it be something I should push myself to get if I intend to be in litigation, to academia or even aspire to politics [don't judge me]?

I am in-house but I want to quit. Can't fit in. But there's no lower tier to quit to, except to completely give up law.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Speaking of JLCs, I have a question. To what extent is being a JLC helpful to one's career? Am on track to get a first class honours but of course things are very fluid and may change since I've not graduated. But wanted to think of options.

Is being a JLC something one must absolutely do if given the chance? If you look at the background of those conferred SCs, appointed to the Supreme Court and even taking higher office in politics, many of them have been JLCs. This is despite only a small number of people becoming JLCs each year, or so my seniors tell me. I'm sure these were ridiculously clever people to begin with as your post above suggests. But does time as a JLC train one's mind in a way that law school and practice does not that gives one an even stronger edge in life and in the profession? And should it be something I should push myself to get if I intend to be in litigation, to academia or even aspire to politics [don't judge me]?

It's just easy marketing. Most lawyers suck at marketing themselves, but with JLC you get a "free pass" so to speak. If you are good at branding yourself, or you can get into an int firm from the start, the benefits of being a JLC markedly drops.

You also get to work with HC judges which means they'll remember you 15 years down the road when you're hoping to get nominated for SC, or even to recommend you for a certain role.

Also, bigger firms tend to give you the bigger case because it's more palatable to clients that an ex-JLC is on the case, as opposed to a "normal" associate. Again, this is just easy marketing.

Most lawyers from bigger firms, after a while, have generally the same skillset. The SC and non-SC in say b4 are basically exactly the same in terms of their skill level, except that one person managed to market themselves better as a "top" litigator. Being a JLC gives you that bump to market yourself.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am in-house but I want to quit. Can't fit in. But there's no lower tier to quit to, except to completely give up law.

Honestly, just set up your own small firm, you'll earn about the same, but you can control your hours.

There is no shame in being a Chinatown lawyer.