Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

high magna, did a TC with this firm last december

internship*

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Showing annual revenue, revenue per lawyer (RPL), profits per partner (PPP) and profits per equity partner (PEP) like AmLaw rankings will reveal just how uncompetitive and unprofitable our local outfits are.

It will also foster dissatisfaction amongst the ranks of junior EPs and lower salaried masses when they realize just how much they've been shortchanged by the top few equity partners hoarding most of the profits in the big firms. The Big 4 can't risk this because of the danger of talent flight.

I'm very sure most of our local "Big 4" law firms are mediocre performers overall. Their revenue probably wouldn't even hit higher than top 30 in the The Lawyer 100's ranking of UK firms, given the size of Singapore's legal market.

The norm of financial transparency in markets like UK and US serve as KPI for law firm leaders. Managing partners in these markets are pressured to continually drive annual revenue and PEP increases, and many have been ousted or forced to step down over annual declining revenue or PEP, not to mention the hit to their firm's prestige.

Entire big law firms have been brought down by a "run on partner talent" when partners flee a law firm that is perceived to be declining, even though it was for all purposes still solvent and profitable. The example of BigLaw (Canadian) firm Heenan Blaikie comes to mind. Other examples in the US are Dickstein Shapiro, and Howrey LLP. These were perfectly solvent firms that faced a partner run and had to dissolve.

In Singapore, managing partners' only interest is in to ensure their inner circle (i.e. senior EPs) and themselves hoard and collect the most profit and maintain more or less the same amount of takehome every year. If they can increase the revenue pie, even better but not crucial. Less transparency benefits them because they will be less accountable to the other partners, the other stakeholders/salaried employees in the firm, and the broader market for their management performance (or lack thereof).

Excellent post calling it out like it actually is. I also suppose that this lack of transparency is also required to maintain an aura of "prestige" surrounding big local firms, without which local firms will face an even greater talent squeeze and will have to offer higher salaries. Sadly, as the OP mentioned, this means that opacity benefits the senior EPs while prejudicing young lawyers.

Normally, we would have the honourable law society to take care of our interests. But alas, law soc is run by the senior EPs themselves.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Excellent post calling it out like it actually is. I also suppose that this lack of transparency is also required to maintain an aura of "prestige" surrounding big local firms, without which local firms will face an even greater talent squeeze and will have to offer higher salaries. Sadly, as the OP mentioned, this means that opacity benefits the senior EPs while prejudicing young lawyers.

Normally, we would have the honourable law society to take care of our interests. But alas, law soc is run by the senior EPs themselves.

Yalor the lawsoc ppl only know how shitpost on linkedin. But no concrete action taken

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Showing annual revenue, revenue per lawyer (RPL), profits per partner (PPP) and profits per equity partner (PEP) like AmLaw rankings will reveal just how uncompetitive and unprofitable our local outfits are.

It will also foster dissatisfaction amongst the ranks of junior EPs and lower salaried masses when they realize just how much they've been shortchanged by the top few equity partners hoarding most of the profits in the big firms. The Big 4 can't risk this because of the danger of talent flight.

Don't all EPs (even the most junior) have the right to inspect the accounts of the partnership? See s 31(3) of the LLP Act. So how can senior EPs hide the firm's financial performance from them?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't all EPs (even the most junior) have the right to inspect the accounts of the partnership? See s 31(3) of the LLP Act. So how can senior EPs hide the firm's financial performance from them?

it depends. do the accounts capture the state of equity sharing and equity points between the ePs? these might be set out or restricted depending on what the llp agreement says

the larger point I glean frm the post is that there's no transparency for outsiders like salaried partners, assocs, law students n aspiring lawyers choosing between various law firms, n the general legal industry at large

I have always had a fetish about female lawyers wearing court attire. I would like a Singaporean Chinese female lawyer to grow out a thick bush of her pubic hair, and pee on me while she is bottomless, preferably while she has the urgent need to pee. She can retain her court wear for the top part of her body.

Who makes love better? Corporate female lawyers or Litigation nerds? I would like to lick out someone's pussy while they are making oral submissions, no one can see under the robe.

I would also like to share a bath in the nude with them, and talk **** with them while they are nude such as cherry blossom season, handbags etc. And watch their A/B cup boobs bounce as they speak.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Showing annual revenue, revenue per lawyer (RPL), profits per partner (PPP) and profits per equity partner (PEP) like AmLaw rankings will reveal just how uncompetitive and unprofitable our local outfits are.

It will also foster dissatisfaction amongst the ranks of junior EPs and lower salaried masses when they realize just how much they've been shortchanged by the top few equity partners hoarding most of the profits in the big firms. The Big 4 can't risk this because of the danger of talent flight.

I'm very sure most of our local "Big 4" law firms are mediocre performers overall. Their revenue probably wouldn't even hit higher than top 30 in the The Lawyer 100's ranking of UK firms, given the size of Singapore's legal market.

The norm of financial transparency in markets like UK and US serve as KPI for law firm leaders. Managing partners in these markets are pressured to continually drive annual revenue and PEP increases, and many have been ousted or forced to step down over annual declining revenue or PEP, not to mention the hit to their firm's prestige.

Entire big law firms have been brought down by a "run on partner talent" when partners flee a law firm that is perceived to be declining, even though it was for all purposes still solvent and profitable. The example of BigLaw (Canadian) firm Heenan Blaikie comes to mind. Other examples in the US are Dickstein Shapiro, and Howrey LLP. These were perfectly solvent firms that faced a partner run and had to dissolve.

In Singapore, managing partners' only interest is in to ensure their inner circle (i.e. senior EPs) and themselves hoard and collect the most profit and maintain more or less the same amount of takehome every year. If they can increase the revenue pie, even better but not crucial. Less transparency benefits them because they will be less accountable to the other partners, the other stakeholders/salaried employees in the firm, and the broader market for their management performance (or lack thereof).

How are so many law firms still surviving even though they’re so unprofitable? Some of them even claim to pay NQs mArkEt LeADIng salaries lol.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Showing annual revenue, revenue per lawyer (RPL), profits per partner (PPP) and profits per equity partner (PEP) like AmLaw rankings will reveal just how uncompetitive and unprofitable our local outfits are.

It will also foster dissatisfaction amongst the ranks of junior EPs and lower salaried masses when they realize just how much they've been shortchanged by the top few equity partners hoarding most of the profits in the big firms. The Big 4 can't risk this because of the danger of talent flight.

I'm very sure most of our local "Big 4" law firms are mediocre performers overall. Their revenue probably wouldn't even hit higher than top 30 in the The Lawyer 100's ranking of UK firms, given the size of Singapore's legal market.

The norm of financial transparency in markets like UK and US serve as KPI for law firm leaders. Managing partners in these markets are pressured to continually drive annual revenue and PEP increases, and many have been ousted or forced to step down over annual declining revenue or PEP, not to mention the hit to their firm's prestige.

Entire big law firms have been brought down by a "run on partner talent" when partners flee a law firm that is perceived to be declining, even though it was for all purposes still solvent and profitable. The example of BigLaw (Canadian) firm Heenan Blaikie comes to mind. Other examples in the US are Dickstein Shapiro, and Howrey LLP. These were perfectly solvent firms that faced a partner run and had to dissolve.

In Singapore, managing partners' only interest is in to ensure their inner circle (i.e. senior EPs) and themselves hoard and collect the most profit and maintain more or less the same amount of takehome every year. If they can increase the revenue pie, even better but not crucial. Less transparency benefits them because they will be less accountable to the other partners, the other stakeholders/salaried employees in the firm, and the broader market for their management performance (or lack thereof).

These are great points, and I would add that HK has also become quite transparent - at least at a junior level, and definitely more so than Sg. Recently discovered that Legal Cheek now has a page for HK law firms showing their trainee intakes, starting salaries, revenues, and a boatload of other relevant info. Granted, it's not quite as extensive as the UK/US - e.g. some international firms don't disclose pay or intake, and the local firms don't disclose their financials - but it's relatively easy to gauge based on the other firms that have done so, and more importantly, it's out there. Even some of the big local HK firms have their salary info publicly available. Why can't ours do the same?

I think it has something to do with the maturity of the legal markets - US, UK, and HK markets are generally larger and more developed. Singapore lags behind in this regard, but that's not an excuse fo the lack of transparency.