Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Terrible that they're using the Bar Exams as a gatekeeper for who gets to practice. Very inefficient allocation of resources. We moving towards a system like Japan where only 10% of aspiring lawyers pass the qualification examinations

Very inefficient for so many kids to be reading law in 2nd and 3rd tier universities overseas

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Salary post for those interested after qualification (compilation from prev threads)

CC: double-digits
Baker: 7.5k
WP: 6k
R&T: 5.8k
A&G: 5.6k
Drew: 5.6k
Rodyk: 5.5k
TSMP: 5k
L&L: 4.5k
RHT: 4.5k

Legal service (incld JLC): 4.8/4.4k (with NS, 1st/2.1); 4k/3.8k (wo NS, 1st/2.1) - seems low but this is payable from part b/RLT onwards and there is a further increment after 1 year or so

Can someone confirm that big four increases their NQ salary (for those qualified in August 2017) by $1k from 1 January 2018?

happy new year 2018 to all
may I know whether market is recovering this year so that the glut situation will be better? Any solutions so far by the law society or Ministry?
It has been 5 years of glut.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

happy new year 2018 to all
may I know whether market is recovering this year so that the glut situation will be better? Any solutions so far by the law society or Ministry?
It has been 5 years of glut.

It won’t recover. Firstly if you look at the news, there’s very few listings in Singapore, and a lot of companies are delisting. I won’t mention names - but a couple of the Corp finance team in some law firms have closed. Secondly, on the dispute resolution front, a lot of companies are opting for arbitration/ mediation to resolve conflicts. Gone are the days of a steady stream of high stakes, publicly visible litigation in the courts.

Thirdly, on the demand side, the omnibus insolvency legislation is an attempt to make Singapore a well sought after forum for insolvency proceedings. However, only time will tell the success of this. Same for the SICC.

Fourthly, there are a lot of international firms (with international lawyers) competing for work in the corporate space (everything except litigation). These are firms with good branding and have good retainers with international companies. It is hard for local firms to ever compete on this front.

Fifthly, law schools produce hundreds of graduates every year. There are not enough law firms to absorb these graduates if people do not leave the industry. Recent measures are aiming to solve the attrition of young lawyers. These will further compound the problem because if people do not leave the industry, how are new graduates going in to the law firms?

Sixthly, the hours in a law firm is very long. This is because most law firms operate on a lean concept. This means that whenever there is a spike in legal work, the associates in that team have to work very hard. Most leave once they are burned out. Law firms then get in newly qualified associates who are much cheaper and have greater enthusiasm. This contribute to more negative publicity and create a lot of competition at the junior level, leading to a lot of politics. When that happens, it drives up demand for associates but supply stays fairly constant because of the attrition. More people burn out and more junior asssociates join where they have large shoes to fill because the learning curve is very steep. When more people leave, there seems to be a shortage and then people are looking at increasing supply. The demand and supply at every point does not really match leading to more structural issues.

Why can't law firms change the way they work by reducing the hours, have greater mentorship, and create a more conducive environment for the young associates?

In long run, these associates will gain more in terms of staying longer, and contributing to the firm and the industry as a whole. No?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why can't law firms change the way they work by reducing the hours, have greater mentorship, and create a more conducive environment for the young associates?

In long run, these associates will gain more in terms of staying longer, and contributing to the firm and the industry as a whole. No?

Short answer is that there is no incentive to do so when partners are under pressure to just bill and meet their monthly or annual targets. Their focus is on the short to medium term, usually in timeframes of 6 months to 1 year at max.

Everything they know about management they learnt from their bosses back in the 80s or 90s, and we know how little emphasis was placed on employee/personnel development back in those days.

It also doesn't help that due to the non-collaborative nature of law school and the nature of business of law, and perhaps self-selecting personality types, lawyers make terrible managers.

If you haven't realised already, a law firm is not so much a single economic entity but made out of groups of different businesses led by different partners with different economic goals.

It will take a fundamental shift in the delivery of legal services for any real change to occur, but unfortunately that will result in a lot of casualties especially at the junior level.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Short answer is that there is no incentive to do so when partners are under pressure to just bill and meet their monthly or annual targets. Their focus is on the short to medium term, usually in timeframes of 6 months to 1 year at max.

Everything they know about management they learnt from their bosses back in the 80s or 90s, and we know how little emphasis was placed on employee/personnel development back in those days.

It also doesn't help that due to the non-collaborative nature of law school and the nature of business of law, and perhaps self-selecting personality types, lawyers make terrible managers.

If you haven't realised already, a law firm is not so much a single economic entity but made out of groups of different businesses led by different partners with different economic goals.

It will take a fundamental shift in the delivery of legal services for any real change to occur, but unfortunately that will result in a lot of casualties especially at the junior level.

Another practitioner here at the junior level. Solid explanation. Just to add, if a recession comes, it’s usually the junior lawyers that have to go as well.

Any updates from the committee to look into the training contract situation since 2016?

If the working hours are long and the job security is lacking

Why are people still joining the legal profession?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If the working hours are long and the job security is lacking

Why are people still joining the legal profession?

Cos law/med are most prestigious professions in the world