Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

anyone knows how much is rajah and tann trainees' sign on bonus and whether laterals are entitled to this bonus?

Similar qn, wondering for lateral NQs, will the firm usually also reimburse part b and call papers if stay on?

What’s more important
To be seen as smart, or to be seen as a high earner?

I’m asking this because in law Sch, the smart kids are always venerated
But when we head to practice, it’s always about who made partner first or who got poached by international firms first - and the thing is, these may not necessarily be the FCH folks

So how?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What’s more important
To be seen as smart, or to be seen as a high earner?

I’m asking this because in law Sch, the smart kids are always venerated
But when we head to practice, it’s always about who made partner first or who got poached by international firms first - and the thing is, these may not necessarily be the FCH folks

So how?

What a dumb question. Are you suggesting that being smart and being a high earner are mutually exclusive?

There are plenty of FCH folks who make partner earlier or get poached by international firms. But of course having a FCH is not the only predictor of how smart you are or successful you will be.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What’s more important
To be seen as smart, or to be seen as a high earner?

I’m asking this because in law Sch, the smart kids are always venerated
But when we head to practice, it’s always about who made partner first or who got poached by international firms first - and the thing is, these may not necessarily be the FCH folks

So how?

Who gives a ****? Only insecure people say this ****.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What’s more important
To be seen as smart, or to be seen as a high earner?

I’m asking this because in law Sch, the smart kids are always venerated
But when we head to practice, it’s always about who made partner first or who got poached by international firms first - and the thing is, these may not necessarily be the FCH folks

So how?

It really depends on your ability in practice. You can score well in exams but doesn’t mean you can solve the client’s problems.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What’s more important
To be seen as smart, or to be seen as a high earner?

I’m asking this because in law Sch, the smart kids are always venerated
But when we head to practice, it’s always about who made partner first or who got poached by international firms first - and the thing is, these may not necessarily be the FCH folks

So how?

In the uniquely Singapore system, getting good grades and FCH doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re smart tbh. more often than not from the ones I’ve interacted with they aren’t smart. They are just hardworking, kiasu and can memorise stuff well and regurgitate it well in the exam. Throw in one thing that they haven’t seen before suddenly brain stuck cannot think.

Which is why go out practice and meet clients all cmi.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

In the uniquely Singapore system, getting good grades and FCH doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re smart tbh. more often than not from the ones I’ve interacted with they aren’t smart. They are just hardworking, kiasu and can memorise stuff well and regurgitate it well in the exam. Throw in one thing that they haven’t seen before suddenly brain stuck cannot think.

Which is why go out practice and meet clients all cmi.

Rising up in the ranks and being a good rainmaker is a matter of personality, and luck. On the latter, having the luck of closely working with or being mentored by a good client-savvy rainmaking partner as a role model helps in that you can emulate his/her client-servicing and rainmaking skills.

If you're a mere big firm cog in the wheel and you work closely with those high IQ autism-spectrum perfectionist type junior partners who know how to produce perfect work product but can't connect or talk to clients, then good luck. All you'll pick up are good technical skills and aut istic obsession to perfection, but zilch rainmaking skills. Find another mentor ASAP.

Clients want to feel serviced. They don't care that your work product is perfect. They wouldn't even be able to tell what is and is not perfect.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What a dumb question. Are you suggesting that being smart and being a high earner are mutually exclusive?

There are plenty of FCH folks who make partner earlier or get poached by international firms. But of course having a FCH is not the only predictor of how smart you are or successful you will be.

I’m afraid you have missed my point entirely - so it would do you well to skip out answering this question altogether; hope that others can continue to chime in with more useful anecdotes

This is my point exactly. For those who are smart and high earners, that’s great. But what I meant was, if some are so smart, why aren’t they earning that much? One of the above posters shared that this could be because some partners are good at technical skills but poor at bookmarking - thanks for that great answer

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This whole 1 year extended TC and pseudo-qualification (called to bar but not practising) is almost farcically comical. And agreed that it's a big F U to newly graduated aspirants to the legal profession. Throwing them to the mercies of the market, which we know will take every opportunity to squeeze every drop of blood from their trainees whom they view as mere units of labour.

Anyone who thinks this will be effectual in raising some nebulous conception of standards is exactly someone who I'd expect had ridden the gravy train in decades past.

Nobody honestly believes it was to raise standards. The purpose was reducing the supply of lawyers given the influx of lawyers the past few years from less than reputable overseas universities. Unfortunately, because of SG's FTA with aussie, they can't just do the obvious thing and ban shittier aussie schools (like they did with the shittier UK schools a few years back).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Nobody honestly believes it was to raise standards. The purpose was reducing the supply of lawyers given the influx of lawyers the past few years from less than reputable overseas universities. Unfortunately, because of SG's FTA with aussie, they can't just do the obvious thing and ban shittier aussie schools (like they did with the shittier UK schools a few years back).

agree that the restructuring was probably to increase barriers of entry, and we do have quite a protectionist law society/community, but hey don't **** on people from those unis man