Lawyer Salary

30 year old here looking to do JD

I see the salary is not bad so why are people still leaving within first 3 years of practice?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

30 year old here looking to do JD

I see the salary is not bad so why are people still leaving within first 3 years of practice?

The salary is *technically* not bad.

Compared to other industries, law is still very decent for a young sub-30-something, as the payscale above shows. Even after adding the +1 year qualification period (meaning you're still on a bar allowance/trainee pay for 1 year as a trainee lawyer until you qualify), compared to other industries where you earn full pay straightway assuming you get your full-time job right out of uni.

The issue is tt law attracts the brighter, more ambitious people. These guys have friends (say from RJC, HC, ACSI) who are also high flyers in non-law fields, and that's the league they compare themselves against. It quickly becomes clear that the quality of life & long hours makes law a pretty poor career proposition, from an effort-to-reward POV.

Of course the sentiment will be different if the typical law grad benchmarks himself against a poly or neighbourhood school grad who barely made it to one of the less sought-after local uni courses and comes out getting a fresh corporate grad job earning $3500. In that case, law salary seems great. But that's not the circles the law grad mixes with.

In your case, a JD is a most unwise proposition unless you're independently wealthy. When you qualify, you would be 34 years old. Few questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Are you OK with earning the same as a 26 y/o or 24 y/o (for girls). All junior roles start off at a uniform band. No premium for being a "mature" entrant. A JD isn't an MBA.
2. Will you be taking on debt to finance the JD?
3. Are you OK with the cost of JD and opportunity cost of 4 years' earnings?
4. What would be your expected pay increase if you remained in your current career in 4 years?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

30 year old here looking to do JD

I see the salary is not bad so why are people still leaving within first 3 years of practice?

You have to be in practice to understand why so. But to sum it up for you, legal practice (especially litigation) is a tiring and inefficient way to make bank. Many law graduates studied law because they fell for the illusion of the prestige and wealth that supposedly comes with practice. Only for them to find out that legal practice in Singapore comes with sweatshop hours (when you have to prepare for trials/arbitration) and terrible mentorship (many partners don't even bother teaching their associates and squeeze them as slave labourers).


The only way not to be burned out is to have passion for the law but many don't. As the poster above me mentioned, there are other industries in which making bank is less tiring and more efficient than legal practice, which is why many left the industry for these pastures.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You have to be in practice to understand why so. But to sum it up for you, legal practice (especially litigation) is a tiring and inefficient way to make bank. Many law graduates studied law because they fell for the illusion of the prestige and wealth that supposedly comes with practice. Only for them to find out that legal practice in Singapore comes with sweatshop hours (when you have to prepare for trials/arbitration) and terrible mentorship (many partners don't even bother teaching their associates and squeeze them as slave labourers).


The only way not to be burned out is to have passion for the law but many don't. As the poster above me mentioned, there are other industries in which making bank is less tiring and more efficient than legal practice, which is why many left the industry for these pastures.

Not in the legal practice. What are the hours like? Asking out of curiosity

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not in the legal practice. What are the hours like? Asking out of curiosity

Being illiterate I am not able to read

Maybe my orating skills

Why is Dentons the only firm using #Big5LawFirm on LinkedIn?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Lol please, you think an international firm will prefer an associate from Lee & Lee over an associate from an SC team in Drew simply because of the HL tieup? International firms are more sophisticated than you think and know the local market well.

What is this HL tie up? Didn’t HL dissolve their partnership with L&L a few years ago?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What is this HL tie up? Didn’t HL dissolve their partnership with L&L a few years ago?

It would have taken you less effort to just google this and get your answer immediately

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why is Dentons the only firm using #Big5LawFirm on LinkedIn?

Because they succeeded in faking it till you make it. Rodyk —> Dentons —> Big5 —> Top dog

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why is Dentons the only firm using #Big5LawFirm on LinkedIn?

Because you can use any hashtag you want that sounds impressive to the layman if you’re the one making it up and ignoring the reality of there being ONLY a Big 4 when it comes to local law firms. A Chinatown five man firm can for example call themselves a #Big100 firm and they probably won’t be technically wrong.