If this is true, someone, preferably a current Part B candidate, needs to write in to MinLaw and LawSoc to put the concerns on record and force them to do something. It is unacceptable to have not finalised a syllabus or the exam format before commencing the course.

The professional futures of this batch of fresh grads are at stake.

To be fair, I wouldn’t say that the syllabus hasn't been finalised. They probably do have an idea about what it’s supposed to look like, just that theres a lack of effort in making sure all the lesson plans and materials are in place before course commencement, and so the continuous revisions and requests to refer to new documents in place of old. But yes, zero clue regarding the exam format and number of papers.

But I seriously doubt anything is going to be done about this anyway despite the obvious mess and displeasure amongst the candidates. It’ll just be pushed aside as a minor inconvenience blah blah blah. Or boomers will say that the young are being strawberries again and to suck it up blah blah blah.

Based on Aslant inhouse salary guide 2023, specialised roles - litigation/regulatory/investigation provides this scale:

0-2 PQE: 80K-150K
3-5 PQE: 120K-180K
6-9 PQE: 180K-250K
10-15 PQE: 250K-320K
General Counsel/Head of Legal: 320K onwards.

I assume "specialised roles" mean this is industry/sector-agnostic and is an aggregation of the salary bands of all litigation-focused inhousers across all industries.

But not sure how accurate it is too. The 0-2 PQE band seems on the high side and AFAIK there are very few inhouse roles that hire so junior 0-2 PQE lawyers

They were unclear with Part A as well. Info on passing mark was only released less than a month before the exams. Tutors seemed to be kept in the dark during the course and even giving the wrong info. They might make last min announcements again

bruh, the recorded lectures for part A by sile are dated 2015 LOL, 8 year old recordings. ridiculous sile

Thoughts?
 

Seniors, hope to hear your thoughts on this.

Was called 3 years ago and passed Parts A and B with no resits.

Currently in a small practice (10+), which is my Firm No.4. Salary is in the 6-7 range, which I know is really low for current PQE. Bonus is very low.

Spent over 1+ year at this practice. However, plus side, reasonable partners, quite nurturing, I get on well with most colleagues, but there isn't much work coming in.

Environment in current firm has helped me recover from the traumatic experience I had in a previous firm I was in. Firm 3 was an even smaller one, with <10pax. It still gives me flashbacks from time-to-time.

Firm No. 4 is partner heavy, with not many Assocs. Those who leave are due to the below market remuneration. Juniors have already come and gone, but I am still here. Am starting to lose motivation mainly because of this.

Amongst the Assocs, there is a possibility I may make SA next year due to the PQE level (they usually promote at the 4PQE level based on seniors).

However, I expect it to be more of a fancy title, with not much of an increment.

Should I make SA first before taking the jump to a bigger firm?

title doesnt matter. You may still be an assoc if you jump to the big 4 then.

To continue the series on the atrocities of the 2023 Part B Course, we just had the first contact session for family law, which this year also includes muslim law. Huge commendation to the lecturers and I am sure that they are trying their best to lecture candidates on family law and muslim law but labelling it as an overload of information would be an understatement.

How is it even realistic to have candidates learn what practitioners have learnt over decades, in 6 months? This is just grooming negligent lawyers, with a barely superficial understanding of niche areas of laws, claiming to have understanding in these areas to go out and advice clients on these areas.

They want us to be jack of all traits, reading through only mothership principles in so many different areas of laws and to just ignore the cases, for the purposes of the exam. Wouldn't this implicitly inculcate in candidates to have this nonchalant approach of treating the research and understanding on the law? Absolute madness.

What are lawyers thoughts and experiences with legal recruiters?


Good? Bad? A mixed bag?

Encountered a really rude ex lawyer turned recruiter.