Lawyer Salary

2012, Berezovsky said: "Lady Gloster took responsibility for rewriting Russian history."

2020, Yesterday, his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, called the tribunal's report a "travesty", adding it was an attempt to "rewrite history".
tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/lee-suet-fern-vows-fight-misconduct-ruling-over-lee-kuan-yews-will

Originally Posted by Unregistered

2012, Berezovsky said: "Lady Gloster took responsibility for rewriting Russian history."

2020, Yesterday, his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, called the tribunal's report a "travesty", adding it was an attempt to "rewrite history".
tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/lee-suet-fern-vows-fight-misconduct-ruling-over-lee-kuan-yews-will

Gotta run those draft judgments through turnitin

Is there any benefit to being Australian qualified (whether as a sole qualified or as an added qualification) in Singapore?

I know all about the benefits of being dual-qualified in England & Wales and the US (e.g. NY or Cali Bar, etc.) so I want to keep the scope to being admitted as a Solicitor in Australia.

Presumably, Australian-qualified lawyers can also work on international/English matters or transactions, and there is a close business/commercial relationship between Australia and Singapore/APAC, so I was wondering if being qualified there would be beneficial in some way in Singapore?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Is there any benefit to being Australian qualified (whether as a sole qualified or as an added qualification) in Singapore?

I know all about the benefits of being dual-qualified in England & Wales and the US (e.g. NY or Cali Bar, etc.) so I want to keep the scope to being admitted as a Solicitor in Australia.

Presumably, Australian-qualified lawyers can also work on international/English matters or transactions, and there is a close business/commercial relationship between Australia and Singapore/APAC, so I was wondering if being qualified there would be beneficial in some way in Singapore?

If u’re looking at Top International firms in SG (i dont mean the JLVs or FLAs lol) , then i think no use.

All the singaporeans in top int’ll firms usually need NY or E&W qualification to get in

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If u’re looking at Top International firms in SG (i dont mean the JLVs or FLAs lol) , then i think no use.

All the singaporeans in top int’ll firms usually need NY or E&W qualification to get in

I see, so you're saying for the "top int'l" firms, E&W or NY is still the main qualification needed. I believe most people would usually attain that 1 or a few years after law school.

But what I'm guessing is that it may be of use to other international firms, which include those in FLA/JLVs (I see that some ppl in e.g. Ashurst, HSF, etc. are australian-qualified, even the Singaporean lawyers).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I see, so you're saying for the "top int'l" firms, E&W or NY is still the main qualification needed. I believe most people would usually attain that 1 or a few years after law school.

But what I'm guessing is that it may be of use to other international firms, which include those in FLA/JLVs (I see that some ppl in e.g. Ashurst, HSF, etc. are australian-qualified, even the Singaporean lawyers).

The above is horseshit. There are many Australian qualified lawyers working in the SG offices of the international firms. Best to speak to a recruiter (lots who specialize in Australian-qualified lawyers looking to make a move on linkedin) instead of asking here.

Why do SUSS students usually end up in the Chinatown firms? Thought we would see more representation in mid-tier/ LSC.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why do SUSS students usually end up in the Chinatown firms? Thought we would see more representation in mid-tier/ LSC.

The raison d'etre of SUSS was to fill the shortage of crim and family lawyers. That's exactly where they should be. That was the founding mandate and charter of the 3rd law school and how it was sold to all stakeholders in the legal industry (during the height of the glut, I might add).

Any complaints now that SUSS grads aren't getting the plum corporate or comm liti jobs constitute an implicit repudiation of that charter and betrayal of that trust.

For family law, the most mid tier you would go is Harry Elias.

For crim, I don't think we exactly have a shortage of people wanting to go into the white-collar defense teams and investigations. We need more blue collar defense counsels and CLAS and LASCO counsels. That's done mostly by small firms and "Chinatown" firms. Perhaps we will see some SUSS grads employed by the new Public Defender's Office.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The raison d'etre of SUSS was to fill the shortage of crim and family lawyers. That's exactly where they should be. That was the founding mandate and charter of the 3rd law school and how it was sold to all stakeholders in the legal industry (during the height of the glut, I might add).

Any complaints now that SUSS grads aren't getting the plum corporate or comm liti jobs constitute an implicit repudiation of that charter and betrayal of that trust.

For family law, the most mid tier you would go is Harry Elias.

For crim, I don't think we exactly have a shortage of people wanting to go into the white-collar defense teams and investigations. We need more blue collar defense counsels and CLAS and LASCO counsels. That's done mostly by small firms and "Chinatown" firms. Perhaps we will see some SUSS grads employed by the new Public Defender's Office.

Agree with your sentiment. However, it's interesting to note that some SUSS law/JD grads had already held quasi-legal jobs prior to doing their law degree (I believe some were Temasek Poly law diploma grads?) and were working in some "more commercial" jobs like paralegals in law firms or stat boards (e.g. MAS, etc.) and just do their degree so that they can be employed by their current employers as actual lawyers.

Curious about the sentiment people would have for this. For one, it goes against the initial purpose SUSS was designed for. However, in their shoes, I would do the same thing.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Agree with your sentiment. However, it's interesting to note that some SUSS law/JD grads had already held quasi-legal jobs prior to doing their law degree (I believe some were Temasek Poly law diploma grads?) and were working in some "more commercial" jobs like paralegals in law firms or stat boards (e.g. MAS, etc.) and just do their degree so that they can be employed by their current employers as actual lawyers.

Curious about the sentiment people would have for this. For one, it goes against the initial purpose SUSS was designed for. However, in their shoes, I would do the same thing.

I think it's impossible for them to not pursue big law - the cost of studying at SUSS was very high. Can't really survive if you are paid like Chinatown rates.