Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by elitejc

JC student here. What is the average pay of doctor (GP) v average pay of lawyer (small firm partner/inhouse)? Yesh I am money-minded, but pls don't tell me IB 'cause thats all connection (I mean, you don't need 10 As for IB if your daddy is head of Goldman Sachs).

IMO it’s stupid to choose a profession for money. Law doesn’t pay well enough for the **** that lawyers go through. If you want money just go for finance straight.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Trainee here about to called to Bar in August

I am in litigation and finds life very tiring and mundane. most of my time are just research and doing bundles and drafting submissions.


I have a few questions

How useful are these experience compared to corp skills and experience?

what is the end goal usually? liti go in-house ? easy?

I was a litigator for about 5-6 years before deciding to make the move to in-house. As others have shared, having a general liti background does add extra steps if you want to land a good in-house role, but it's not impossible. You really have to plan your next couple of job moves and be able to explain to an interviewer how each move adds something to your skillset and makes you a better lawyer. You should be able to string together each job in a convincing narrative. If you're lucky, you may be able to find an in-house role which actually values your litigation experience. Good luck!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Litigation adds extra steps (as compared to a corporate practice) if you want to go in-house.

Only stick with litigation if you want to continue litigation. The end goal is obviously higher value and higher profile disputes cases, becoming known in the market as a star litigator, and possibly eventually Senior Counsel (1 in a 1000 odds maybe?) or Supreme Court Judicial Officer (1 in 10,000 maybe).

This lack of exit options is particularly acute for general commercial litigation. Even if you're working in a top tier liti/arbi team, the reward of being the top dog here, is simply more litigation.

Ironically, it is the specialist-focused disputes teams (i.e. the ones that service a particular industry & don't routinely take on the highest profile commercial disputes) that have better in-house options, because such litigators transition naturally to an in-house role in that particular industry. What I'm talking about are insurance, marine, restructuring & insolvency, criminal (defence & prosecution), employment and intellectual property etc. Specialist litigators in these areas are routinely hired by ex-clients and players in these industries.

Look, I get your point. Litigation is tough and there are only so many "high places" you can aspire to. But if you want to make up stats, then at least let them be in the ballpark of reality.

There are about 5000 practising lawyers in Singapore. Even assuming half of them are in litigation, and assuming also that half of the close to 100 SCs - or 50 - are still actually in litigation, then you have about a 2% chance of becoming a Senior Counsel.

Same with being a Supreme Court Judicial Officer. There are some 20 odd judges in the Supreme Court. Even just assuming half of them - plucking a random number out of thin air, let's say 15 - are from legal service and you assume a legal service of about 500 people, you're again looking at a 3% chance of landing in the Supreme Court. The percentages may be slightly less from the private sector but again, nowhere close to the dire numbers you cite.

These numbers are rough and ready but at least they have some basis. And I didn't just state random numbers I made up to support my point.

TLDR: It's not unrealistic to aspire to be an SC or a Judge. It's difficult, for very good reason I would reckon given the prestige and responsibilities that follow either of these tracks. But don't for a second believe the false numbers the OP plucked out of nowhere. If we want a debate on options, let's actually not just make up numbers as this just obfuscates the discussion.

Since we are in this topic of litigation moving to in-house , for those who moved

Why did you want to move?

Why did you not stay and be a senior associate or junior partner?

When did you move?

Did you have a pay rise?

Did you have to take a pay cut?

Are you worried that the pay increase yearly will not be as good as if you had stayed in practice?

and for those who stayed through? Is life easier in litigation practice or going in-house?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Look, I get your point. Litigation is tough and there are only so many "high places" you can aspire to. But if you want to make up stats, then at least let them be in the ballpark of reality.

There are about 5000 practising lawyers in Singapore. Even assuming half of them are in litigation, and assuming also that half of the close to 100 SCs - or 50 - are still actually in litigation, then you have about a 2% chance of becoming a Senior Counsel.

Same with being a Supreme Court Judicial Officer. There are some 20 odd judges in the Supreme Court. Even just assuming half of them - plucking a random number out of thin air, let's say 15 - are from legal service and you assume a legal service of about 500 people, you're again looking at a 3% chance of landing in the Supreme Court. The percentages may be slightly less from the private sector but again, nowhere close to the dire numbers you cite.

These numbers are rough and ready but at least they have some basis. And I didn't just state random numbers I made up to support my point.

TLDR: It's not unrealistic to aspire to be an SC or a Judge. It's difficult, for very good reason I would reckon given the prestige and responsibilities that follow either of these tracks. But don't for a second believe the false numbers the OP plucked out of nowhere. If we want a debate on options, let's actually not just make up numbers as this just obfuscates the discussion.

There are approx. 5000 practising lawyers AS AT PRESENT TIME. You have to account for the number of Singapore-qualified practising lawyers that there have ever been, including those that have ceased private practice/died/disbarred/whatever, since the start of the SC scheme. (This is for SC-ship odds).

You want to talk about having basis but your logic also a bit flawed sia.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There are approx. 5000 practising lawyers AS AT PRESENT TIME. You have to account for the number of Singapore-qualified practising lawyers that there have ever been, including those that have ceased private practice/died/disbarred/whatever, since the start of the SC scheme. (This is for SC-ship odds).

You want to talk about having basis but your logic also a bit flawed sia.

5000 only? Thats abit high isnt it? I thought King Adrian was working on trimming the numbers and cutting down law schools? Should be more like 2000

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Since we are in this topic of litigation moving to in-house , for those who moved

Why did you want to move?

Why did you not stay and be a senior associate or junior partner?

When did you move?

Did you have a pay rise?

Did you have to take a pay cut?

Are you worried that the pay increase yearly will not be as good as if you had stayed in practice?

and for those who stayed through? Is life easier in litigation practice or going in-house?

Left liti because of the workload and increasingly tight timelines i.e. working into the early mornings almost daily - and with the new ROC, it may become worse. I didn't see myself doing that for the next 5 to 10 years.

Left at 3pqe from big4, currently doing corp inhouse. Took a 20% paycut (the new salary has no front load) because of lack of exp in corp work. Pay and increment wise, its a bummer but I knock off at 5pm punctually and never have to check email inbox on weekends. In-house life is way easier, I cannot even explain how much I appreciate the hard choice made. The bonus kinda makes up for the monthly diff.

Advice: Revise expectations. You don't need so much money to live when you are not having a life.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There are approx. 5000 practising lawyers AS AT PRESENT TIME. You have to account for the number of Singapore-qualified practising lawyers that there have ever been, including those that have ceased private practice/died/disbarred/whatever, since the start of the SC scheme. (This is for SC-ship odds).

You want to talk about having basis but your logic also a bit flawed sia.

Not the original poster, but he's not completely wrong dude so I don't know what you're talking about. Use common sense. Each year got 2 or 3 S.C. That means from each cohort on average, should have about 3 people get S.C. And if each cohort got 500 people, then it means it is slightly < than 1%. Not quite what the initial poster said, but not completely off either. You can apply the same logic and application of math with judicial appointees - his numbers as a gross generalisation are not completely off. So he's not exactly right but he's not very far off either.

Not rocket science. Geez. No wonder the common refrain from lawyers that "I cannot do Math."

Wee Swee Teow good firm? What's the pay and culture like.

dear seniors,

I am going to start my TC in the Financial Services Dept of one of the big 4 firms in Singapore. From what I know, the partners share the rooms with their assocs. Is this practice area a good place to start my career if I eventually wish to go in-house/international firms?