Anyone who believes that the academic life requires “sacrifice” clearly has never been an academic.

Liti lawyer here. Liti is more fun and intellectual stimulating than corporate work IMO. You are actually doing work that people associate with lawyers - analysing the law, crafting arguments, arguing before a judge/arbitrator, cross-examining witnesses, etc. Through your arguments in court, you can actually contribute to the development of the law and see your cases being reported, which is very fulfilling.

Corporate lawyering is not really "legal" per se and is more about finding precedents, due diligence, going through closing checklists, quibbling over language in a contract. If you went to law school wanting to actually practise law, I don't feel like corporate work scratches the itch.

People who moan about liti are usually people who don't enjoy such work in the first place. They have no passion for the law and it's just means of income to them. If so, then sure, you can make as much or more money as a corporate lawyer.

Different strokes for different folks. As someone mentioned above, litigation is far closer to the "academic" side of law than transactional work, so it may attract people who really like the intellectual aspects of practice.

But you need to remember that law is also a business. It's no longer an ivory tower profession it once was in the 1800s. Lawyers can't simply wear wigs, sit in their hollowed chambers to dispense nuggets of wisdom to clients divorced from commercial reality, and expect to get paid for it.

To justify their existence (and comparatively high fees), lawyers need wade into more "business-like" aspect of things like facilitating deal flow, like the investment bankers, valuations advisers and HR/public relations agents. Even if this kind of work doesn't engage the "hard law" aspects.

As for why many law students still choose liti, my take is this: it's ingrained in law school as the default path for lawyers. Academic legal doctrine is mostly learned through judgments/cases which are the very product of litigation. Most law professors were ex-JLCs or had spent most of their practice time in liti practice (barring the adjuncts who are hired to teach more practical/commercial causes).

During my time in law school, it was common career advice (by well-meaning but naïve profs) for law students to working in litigation first, even if you intended to ultimately do corporate law. Btw, this is rubbish obsolete advice which has proven detrimental to many a law grad's career.

agree with above

corp work is nothing but high class clerk
and not really lawyer lawyer work


anyway so for same salary, why still bother doing such tough work in liti?

This advice is correct. Recently more Legal Service (scholars?) people moving out to international or big4 firm. Might as well start in magic circle from very start?

My junior from CC just got qualified and her starting pay is $14.2k in M&A. Is this the norm for NQ?

Yes after their 2 yrs of training contract, thats the magic circle NQ pay in singapore (cc included).

I rather be at US white shoe firm - first year minimum can get mid-atlantic or cravath pay

International and big firms will still look at their Scholar or Government background. No surprise..

Is CC matching or outpacing the MC firms in SG? What about silver circle?

It's paying about the same as the other MC in SG, just that it's the only one with a 2-year SG training programme (coz it has SG partner). Linklaters also has a training contract but only after you finish 6 months with a random firm.

SC firms in SG pay slightly less.