Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Baker has been lost. No vision and leadership. Poor HR systems who condone poor quality and performance. No differentiation for high performers. Hence good people leave and good people don't want to join. Only mediocre cmi stay or seek to join. And therefore the problem compounds itself and things only get worse. It will take a systemic overhaul and years to fix the culture that has taken years to entrench itself in a toxic manner.

This is a surprisingly accurate answer.

The quality of Baker hires is getting increasingly poor. They used to have a substantial flow of high quality trainees from the local universities who would stay a long time. Now, the quality of the trainees is dropping and with the higher exit rate of associates to the "proper" international firms, the replacement laterals hired are usually either terribly trained or from a completely different practice area.

You can do a scan on linkedin to check all the recent hires over the past year - I've heard so many complaints from my baker associate friends about litigation associates hired from smaller firms who are academically and procedurally weak and can't even handle basic matters, and also complaints about corporate associates coming from litigation with 0 corporate experience, but somehow they are given no PQE cuts. Imagine how infuriating it is to have been slogging in a firm for your partners for a few years, then having to watch people get hired in at your level getting the same pay but whom you need to train from scratch and clear all their work - then you can start to imagine why people leave.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a surprisingly accurate answer.

The quality of Baker hires is getting increasingly poor. They used to have a substantial flow of high quality trainees from the local universities who would stay a long time. Now, the quality of the trainees is dropping and with the higher exit rate of associates to the "proper" international firms, the replacement laterals hired are usually either terribly trained or from a completely different practice area.

You can do a scan on linkedin to check all the recent hires over the past year - I've heard so many complaints from my baker associate friends about litigation associates hired from smaller firms who are academically and procedurally weak and can't even handle basic matters, and also complaints about corporate associates coming from litigation with 0 corporate experience, but somehow they are given no PQE cuts. Imagine how infuriating it is to have been slogging in a firm for your partners for a few years, then having to watch people get hired in at your level getting the same pay but whom you need to train from scratch and clear all their work - then you can start to imagine why people leave.

Sadly this is so typical of the ignorance spewed in anonymous forums like this. There have been no hires in the litigation team from 'smaller firms' of late and the latest trainees within the team have been FCH from smu or nus. The partners are also excellent and supportive without being micro managey.

So grow up, stop bashing to feel better about your own situation and get facts right before u bash. Else go write for sgag instead.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a surprisingly accurate answer.

The quality of Baker hires is getting increasingly poor. They used to have a substantial flow of high quality trainees from the local universities who would stay a long time. Now, the quality of the trainees is dropping and with the higher exit rate of associates to the "proper" international firms, the replacement laterals hired are usually either terribly trained or from a completely different practice area.

You can do a scan on linkedin to check all the recent hires over the past year - I've heard so many complaints from my baker associate friends about litigation associates hired from smaller firms who are academically and procedurally weak and can't even handle basic matters, and also complaints about corporate associates coming from litigation with 0 corporate experience, but somehow they are given no PQE cuts. Imagine how infuriating it is to have been slogging in a firm for your partners for a few years, then having to watch people get hired in at your level getting the same pay but whom you need to train from scratch and clear all their work - then you can start to imagine why people leave.

Precisely. Or arbi ppl clowning to do tmt work.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a surprisingly accurate answer.

The quality of Baker hires is getting increasingly poor. They used to have a substantial flow of high quality trainees from the local universities who would stay a long time. Now, the quality of the trainees is dropping and with the higher exit rate of associates to the "proper" international firms, the replacement laterals hired are usually either terribly trained or from a completely different practice area.

You can do a scan on linkedin to check all the recent hires over the past year - I've heard so many complaints from my baker associate friends about litigation associates hired from smaller firms who are academically and procedurally weak and can't even handle basic matters, and also complaints about corporate associates coming from litigation with 0 corporate experience, but somehow they are given no PQE cuts. Imagine how infuriating it is to have been slogging in a firm for your partners for a few years, then having to watch people get hired in at your level getting the same pay but whom you need to train from scratch and clear all their work - then you can start to imagine why people leave.

Or people hired more senior than you. Who come from non LPA unis. Paid more than you but supervised and trained by you.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a surprisingly accurate answer.

The quality of Baker hires is getting increasingly poor. They used to have a substantial flow of high quality trainees from the local universities who would stay a long time. Now, the quality of the trainees is dropping and with the higher exit rate of associates to the "proper" international firms, the replacement laterals hired are usually either terribly trained or from a completely different practice area.

You can do a scan on linkedin to check all the recent hires over the past year - I've heard so many complaints from my baker associate friends about litigation associates hired from smaller firms who are academically and procedurally weak and can't even handle basic matters, and also complaints about corporate associates coming from litigation with 0 corporate experience, but somehow they are given no PQE cuts. Imagine how infuriating it is to have been slogging in a firm for your partners for a few years, then having to watch people get hired in at your level getting the same pay but whom you need to train from scratch and clear all their work - then you can start to imagine why people leave.

please name one litigation associate hired in the past year from “smaller firms”.

afaik all the recent laterals are from big 4 / legal service.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Or people hired more senior than you. Who come from non LPA unis. Paid more than you but supervised and trained by you.

Just leave. Baker is just another mcdonalds law firm

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a surprisingly accurate answer.

The quality of Baker hires is getting increasingly poor. They used to have a substantial flow of high quality trainees from the local universities who would stay a long time. Now, the quality of the trainees is dropping and with the higher exit rate of associates to the "proper" international firms, the replacement laterals hired are usually either terribly trained or from a completely different practice area.

You can do a scan on linkedin to check all the recent hires over the past year - I've heard so many complaints from my baker associate friends about litigation associates hired from smaller firms who are academically and procedurally weak and can't even handle basic matters, and also complaints about corporate associates coming from litigation with 0 corporate experience, but somehow they are given no PQE cuts. Imagine how infuriating it is to have been slogging in a firm for your partners for a few years, then having to watch people get hired in at your level getting the same pay but whom you need to train from scratch and clear all their work - then you can start to imagine why people leave.

Sadly this is so typical of the ignorance spewed in anonymous forums like this. There have been no hires in the litigation team from 'smaller firms' of late and the latest trainees within the team have been FCH from smu or nus. The partners are also excellent and supportive without being micro managey.

So grow up, stop bashing to feel better about your own situation and get facts right before u bash. Else go write for sgag instead.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is a surprisingly accurate answer.

The quality of Baker hires is getting increasingly poor. They used to have a substantial flow of high quality trainees from the local universities who would stay a long time. Now, the quality of the trainees is dropping and with the higher exit rate of associates to the "proper" international firms, the replacement laterals hired are usually either terribly trained or from a completely different practice area.

You can do a scan on linkedin to check all the recent hires over the past year - I've heard so many complaints from my baker associate friends about litigation associates hired from smaller firms who are academically and procedurally weak and can't even handle basic matters, and also complaints about corporate associates coming from litigation with 0 corporate experience, but somehow they are given no PQE cuts. Imagine how infuriating it is to have been slogging in a firm for your partners for a few years, then having to watch people get hired in at your level getting the same pay but whom you need to train from scratch and clear all their work - then you can start to imagine why people leave.

fake news lol name one litigation assoc who was hired from a smaller firm in the past year

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just leave. Baker is just another mcdonalds law firm

I did. 10 char

if i've received an offer from both a&g and baker, which would be better to take?