Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The older firm couldn’t afford me anymore, remuneration wise. It was well below market rate and there wasn’t much work coming in. Practically all the partners are semi retired. Remuneration was slightly more over at my present place and it had links commercially. The rosy picture was well a false facade. I’ve learnt that Associates don’t last past 6mth-1yr.

The current firm encourages file bidding, and you get accused of being non pro active if you don’t get involved in volunteering yourself. This gets inextricably linked to bonuses.

I’ve been sabotaged by my fellow Associates over minor things, which they do in their bid to please the Partners. These Partners love bootlickers and favoritism. Associates have sabotaged trainees too to prevent them from surpassing them.

Partners turn a blind eye to behind the scenes, exercise favourite am, while they fill their rich pockets with profits, nice cars and big homes, I’ve not had a week since a joined the firm without abuse.

As mentioned, been singled out by one Partner all the time. Im tired of the accusations which pains me everyday. They are unsubstantiated and this Partner has tried to force me to confess things that I have never done. Partner does not give me a chance to speak and interrupts when I try to contribute.

As I post this, I am so genuinely disheartened. I doubt my ownself everyday. Never felt like this as TC or in my previous place.

Helpless and hopeless. Why did I join law?

Just know your own value lah. Why stick around to get bollocked everyday? GTFO. you’re an adult and a professional - why are you taking the abuse.

Honest query: if I apply and get in to both, should I choose to go NUS Law or SMU Law? Which would be better to a future legal career in the long term?

Is it just me or does one of our law schools have an especially unhealthy obsession with moots? The contrast with elsewhere could not be more stark. Coming from the UK, I find it fascinating that our local schools focus so much on moots and celebrate their victories like it’s a big thing when most UK schools see it as a CCA which you do on the side rather than as a module. While I don’t know this for a fact, I’m told by friends in the US that they take it even less seriously than us in the UK, with some coaches just being random LLM students there.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is it just me or does one of our law schools have an especially unhealthy obsession with moots? The contrast with elsewhere could not be more stark. Coming from the UK, I find it fascinating that our local schools focus so much on moots and celebrate their victories like it’s a big thing when most UK schools see it as a CCA which you do on the side rather than as a module. While I don’t know this for a fact, I’m told by friends in the US that they take it even less seriously than us in the UK, with some coaches just being random LLM students there.

It’s all a little moot

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Seems like it's a small firm problem. Not to be unsympathetic but you might do better in a larger firm. The prospects of landing an environment where you can thrive in practice increase exponentially in larger firms. So I'd hesitate to tar the whole profession with the same brush. Your experiences are not representative of the industry as a whole.

The sad reality is, life at the low end of the legal industry value-chain sucks balls. This is generally true of most industries, but accentuated in law given the demanding nature of practice (no matter how small value your firm's cases/deals are) and how closely you work with practitioners. Law is all about individual experts delivering intellectual services (which is the product itself) to clients. So if your principal is shi tty, it really sucks.

I'm going to be blunt here to suggest that fresh grads & newbie lawyers who can't make it to larger firms (whether due to poor grades or other reasons making u an uncompetitive candidate), should strongly consider quitting law entirely and doing something else. While you're still young and it's easy to pivot your career.

Don't waste time working in small law firms dealing with small low-value cases & petty egoistical bosses (who made their decent money in earlier times when law was still easily lucrative even just doing Chinatown work or HDB conveyancing-type work).

The effort-to-reward ratio is absolutely not worth it at the bottom end of law. For the amount of effort/hours you put into the grind, and your intellect (I'd assume that you're generally bright enough to get thru law school and pass the Bar), you would do much better in some other less demanding or competitive industries. Who knows, you may do very well and outshine non-law people in these less intense industries.

Think about it seriously.

Yeah but I would caveat this and say if one is keen on staying on in practice, it is possible to stick it out for a year or so in a small firm before jumping to a larger firm. Starting out from a small firm isn't a death sentence.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is it just me or does one of our law schools have an especially unhealthy obsession with moots? The contrast with elsewhere could not be more stark. Coming from the UK, I find it fascinating that our local schools focus so much on moots and celebrate their victories like it’s a big thing when most UK schools see it as a CCA which you do on the side rather than as a module. While I don’t know this for a fact, I’m told by friends in the US that they take it even less seriously than us in the UK, with some coaches just being random LLM students there.

Litigation employers in Singapore take moots seriously and many top litigators were former mooters, so it makes sense for unis to emphasise it.

which are some notorious B4 teams to avoid please? Asking for research purposes.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is it just me or does one of our law schools have an especially unhealthy obsession with moots? The contrast with elsewhere could not be more stark. Coming from the UK, I find it fascinating that our local schools focus so much on moots and celebrate their victories like it’s a big thing when most UK schools see it as a CCA which you do on the side rather than as a module. While I don’t know this for a fact, I’m told by friends in the US that they take it even less seriously than us in the UK, with some coaches just being random LLM students there.

Many reasons.

First, the prospect of becoming a barrister in the UK is far lower than becoming a solicitor. (Yes i'm aware there are solicitor-advocates, but how many?) Those law students who have their hearts set on being a barrister will go for mini pupilages and undertake advocacy related extracurriculars anyway.

It doesn't make sense to design a law school curriculum for a route that comparatively few students will take.

Secondly, undergrad LLB in the UK is so truncated anyway (3 years) so there's only so many spare subjects that can be squeezed into the curriculum.

Thirdly, legal education in Singapore has always struck a middle ground between hard-nosed, black letter vocational subjects (of a US JD) and the more general, social-sciencey empahsis in UK law schools. Just look at the optional modules offered in SMU and NUS - you'd find a far wider range of "hard law" courses like securities regulation, M&A, shipping, aviation law etc modules, compared to the selection of optional subjects in UK unis (like sociology of law; feminism and law, etc).

Out of curiosity, why is there such a fervent following with Fervent Chambers on this forum?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why is there a discrepancy from the numbers around 1 page back, which someone posted was:
pqe3 - 8800-9800
pqe2 - 7800-8400
pqe1 - 6600-7000
nq - 6000

Figures apparel to be consistent for NQ and PQE1. The variance starts from PQE2. Perhaps the only way to find out is to apply and get a firm offer.