Lawyer Salary

Apparently for WongP, firm offering 6.2k-6.8k for retainees. Annual pay with bonus, they can expect around 82-88k.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

2 PQE if you superstar billings can nego 20 to 25k in some firms.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Apparently for WongP, firm offering 6.2k-6.8k for retainees. Annual pay with bonus, they can expect around 82-88k.

This is within expectations and in line with recent Big 4 wide salary bumps. It's still a far cry from UK and US firms' recent salary wars, but we're not a first-tier financial centre/ jurisdiction so we take what we can get.

High time I say. SG legal industry pay has been pathetically stagnant or even recessive for the last decade and outpaced by other industries, inflation and other COL factors.

The darkest period in recent memory was the 2016-2017 slashing of pay by the large firms. My middle category lawyer homies will remember.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

Lol. “I rather”. I rather be owner of Tesla.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Couple of misconceptions here:

Most of the SCs who join the judiciary eventually stay there for years, if not until they retire. The ones who have left after a JC term in recent years were the non-liti folks (eg Edmund Leow, Lee Kim Shin). So no, joining the courts is not about building the CV for tribunal work or to call in favours. It's usually a one-way street.

There has also been some talk in the market that some of the SCs who had recently joined the Courts did so because their books of business were waning, but this is purely hearsay.

It is true that there will always be demand for litigation, and there will always be the top end of the market to grab for the top tier folks. But there are a few features of being a disputes lawyer that make it "bo hua" for most people:

1. Mid to high level disputes work is very time consuming and mentally taxing, while at the same time requiring alot of detailed work and project management as well. Unlike in corp or transactional practice areas, you can't substantially rely on precedents, and you often have to relearn everything for every file. While corp life is not a bed of roses as well, and comparing on an apples to apples basis, life as a disputes lawyer is generally speaking, not as good, especially when you take into account the contentious/argumentative nature of the work. The work done for a $10m dispute can arguably even be more intensive than a $100m transaction because of the contentious nature of disputes.

2. Disputes work, at least at the higher end, is quite credentialist, more so than in non-contentious practices. Your lack of a FCH or the fact you are from a "lesser" uni will work against you more than in the non-contentious practices.

3. At the assoc level, your ability to move into high paying intl firms is very much less than your corp peers. See recent years where all of the b4 corp depts have been depleted by intl firms - not so for disputes. You are also arguably at a disadvantage for most of the best inhouse roles as well, because these typically prefer corp or reg experience.

4. At the partner level, previous posters have highlighted the squeeze in fees at the lower to mid end work, as well as the fact that you are being squeezed by intl firms at the higher end for arb work. Also, if you are keen on higher end work, disputes is a "superstar" centric practice area, i.e. all the big work naturally gravitates to the SCs, so as a junior partner in a bigger firm, it may be very difficult to build a good book or even be first chair, especially as most of the SCs will be sticking around for a long time. I think for corp this is less of an issue, as there is less pressure to be the "lead" counsel on transactions.

I would think that SCs join the judiciary for two reasons. First reason as you said, their books are shrinking as international firms are eating into their once-exclusive pies. Second reason, they are very exhausted. The challenges from litigation can be interesting but it is tiring as well, more so if you are a married middle-aged practitioner with a family and you lack the energy that younger practitioners possess.

Litigation will always be relevant regardless of level but you rightfully pointed out whether the time and effort expended commensurate with the costs you are entitled to. Already, they are preaching that law is a calling, which my pessimistic side is interpreting as an incoming cap on all forms of litigation costs will be sooner rather than later. Also, ADR is the Court's way of controlling costs and any practitioner will know, the amount of time and effort spent on preparing the case for arbitration or mediation is not much lesser than preparing for a trial.

I'm intending to apply to AGC. Anyone knows which division (Crime or Civil) should I indicate as my first choice? For example, which division offers better exit options, just in case?

I don't mind either since I'm interested in both types of work (prosecution vs advisory/non-criminal litigation).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm intending to apply to AGC. Anyone knows which division (Crime or Civil) should I indicate as my first choice? For example, which division offers better exit options, just in case?

I don't mind either since I'm interested in both types of work (prosecution vs advisory/non-criminal litigation).

Are you PSC scholar / oxbridge? If not, why u going?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm intending to apply to AGC. Anyone knows which division (Crime or Civil) should I indicate as my first choice? For example, which division offers better exit options, just in case?

I don't mind either since I'm interested in both types of work (prosecution vs advisory/non-criminal litigation).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm intending to apply to AGC. Anyone knows which division (Crime or Civil) should I indicate as my first choice? For example, which division offers better exit options, just in case?

I don't mind either since I'm interested in both types of work (prosecution vs advisory/non-criminal litigation).

Best exit options from AGC are white-collar crime (investigations and maybe commercial liti) and maybe IAD (if you want to branch out into PIL or investment related work). AGC civil is very different from private practice work.

But most people are stuck in blue collar crime and can't get out, and you may not have a choice and still end up there, as the demand for blue collar crime is the highest.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Best exit options from AGC are white-collar crime (investigations and maybe commercial liti) and maybe IAD (if you want to branch out into PIL or investment related work). AGC civil is very different from private practice work.

But most people are stuck in blue collar crime and can't get out, and you may not have a choice and still end up there, as the demand for blue collar crime is the highest.

Not sure that's all correct. How much PIL work is there internationally apart from ICSID-type arbitrations? Even then, they look for competent litigators.

So I would say what do you want in the long-term? If litigation is not your cup of tea, then of the 2 options, go for Civil. If you want to be a good advocate then Crime is probably your best bet.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Best exit options from AGC are white-collar crime (investigations and maybe commercial liti) and maybe IAD (if you want to branch out into PIL or investment related work). AGC civil is very different from private practice work.

But most people are stuck in blue collar crime and can't get out, and you may not have a choice and still end up there, as the demand for blue collar crime is the highest.

This is probably right … most get funnelled to blue collar crime. Then very difficult for them to have exit options, even thought a good number are burned out already.