Lawyer Salary

sumo wrestler better

Originally Posted by Unregistered

When lawyers say they're dual qualified, does that mean they're simply admitted to the roll of solicitors in the other jurisdiction (e.g. E&W, NY, Australia) or that they have a practising certificate for that other jurisdiction.

For Singaporean lawyers working at international firms that require dual qualification, are they required to maintain that other jurisdiction's practising cert? Or can they just practice (transactions, e.g. m&a) as a Singapore qualified lawyer, but simply be admitted to e.g. E&W (i.e. no need to maintain practising cert from E&W)?

Linguistically, qualified to practise is different from practising (which would require holding a PC). So I think that answers your first question.

For your second question, are there actually firms that require dual qualifications? I have seen ads that require English qualification but not seen any example you are referring to.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.

Because they are trying to "persuade" young and impressionable law graduates to replenish the dwindling numbers of community law practitioners by making all of them study criminal and family law in-depth.

But they don't understand the reason why the turnover rate is high for community law practitioners is the poor pay + long working hours. Many practising in community law realize the piss-poor deal they are having compared to in-house counsels and have departed for green pastures.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.

As a lawyer, you are supposed to be minimally proficient in all of the jurisdiction's laws. Part B barely scratches the tip of the iceberg of legal knowledge in Singapore. As you said, they are mostly teaching you the bare basic "motherhood statements" (i.e. the more important aspects of each field of law). You are nowhere close to learning decades of legal knowledge in 6 months.

While the bar exam is imperfect, the other alternatives that I can think of seem worse. For example, would you rather they extended the bar course to a full year (or more) so that you are not "overloaded" with information in only 6 months? Or would you rather a situation wherein Part B candidates can pick and choose the types of law he is examined on (regardless of their importance) but then is allowed to practice in areas which he did not even study? Say what you want about the bar exam, but at least the current bar exam ensures that you have a minimum understanding of each area of law.

Anyway Part B of the bar is a rite of passage, the failure rate is not meant to be extremely high (especially when retakes are allowed). Don't stress too much over it.

Back in the day, my coursemates were strategizing on getting distinctions rather than complaining about the content. Oh how times have changed.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As a lawyer, you are supposed to be minimally proficient in all of the jurisdiction's laws. Part B barely scratches the tip of the iceberg of legal knowledge in Singapore. As you said, they are mostly teaching you the bare basic "motherhood statements" (i.e. the more important aspects of each field of law). You are nowhere close to learning decades of legal knowledge in 6 months.

While the bar exam is imperfect, the other alternatives that I can think of seem worse. For example, would you rather they extended the bar course to a full year (or more) so that you are not "overloaded" with information in only 6 months? Or would you rather a situation wherein Part B candidates can pick and choose the types of law he is examined on (regardless of their importance) but then is allowed to practice in areas which he did not even study? Say what you want about the bar exam, but at least the current bar exam ensures that you have a minimum understanding of each area of law.

Anyway Part B of the bar is a rite of passage, the failure rate is not meant to be extremely high (especially when retakes are allowed). Don't stress too much over it.

Daft.

Tell me the name of ONE lawyer who is familiar with the leading cases and main principles for ALL of the following: Ethics & Professional Responsibility; Banking & Fundraising; Corporate Governance; Insolvency & Corporate Restructuring; Intellectual Property; Mergers & Acquisitions; Competition Law; Taxation; Admiralty; Civil Litigation; Arbitration; Mediation Advocacy; Written Advocacy; Oral Advocacy; Criminal Litigation Practice & Procedure; Family Law Practice (inclusive of Muslim Law); Probate & Succession Planning; Real Estate Practice (Conveyancing); Employment Law; Personal Injury & Property Damage; Data Protection and Cyber Regulation; Law & Technology; Comparative Laws (inclusive of Civil Law); Conflict of Laws etc.

It is not a matter of reading a 20 page primer with 'motherhood statements' for each subject. If that were so, no candidate would be complaining. SILE and the course conveners expect them to read all of the leading cases in all of these these subjects. One subject alone can have up to 130 cases in their syllabus. Do the math.

I won't be surprised if the failure rates exceed 60%.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As a lawyer, you are supposed to be minimally proficient in all of the jurisdiction's laws. Part B barely scratches the tip of the iceberg of legal knowledge in Singapore. As you said, they are mostly teaching you the bare basic "motherhood statements" (i.e. the more important aspects of each field of law). You are nowhere close to learning decades of legal knowledge in 6 months.

While the bar exam is imperfect, the other alternatives that I can think of seem worse. For example, would you rather they extended the bar course to a full year (or more) so that you are not "overloaded" with information in only 6 months? Or would you rather a situation wherein Part B candidates can pick and choose the types of law he is examined on (regardless of their importance) but then is allowed to practice in areas which he did not even study? Say what you want about the bar exam, but at least the current bar exam ensures that you have a minimum understanding of each area of law.

Anyway Part B of the bar is a rite of passage, the failure rate is not meant to be extremely high (especially when retakes are allowed). Don't stress too much over it.

So is it a rite of passage or is it meant to have to be lawyers a minimum understanding of each area of the law? Can’t cut it both ways buddy.

In any case, 6 months enough for you to confidently say you have a minimum understanding of all the examined areas of law? I seriously doubt it and any qualified counsel in any field, not just legal, to make such a claim.

If this is what the ministry wants lawyers to graduate and practice as, then extending the bar course would be the only logic way of doing it. Not cramming everything into 6 months. As it stands, it seemingly contradicts anyways, since the ministry have extended TCs to a year long, to allow for a longer buffer to practice the intended area that one wishes to practice in. So what really is the point of training candidates in part b to be “multi disciplined” (read in quotes because of the half-assed attempt to do so in 6 months) if they go out to a longer training in a specific discipline?

Seems to me that it’s just poor or the lackthereof in proper, adequate planning, since the genesis of all this back in 2018.

bombed out of LL HR interview any insights?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Daft.

Tell me the name of ONE lawyer who is familiar with the leading cases and main principles for ALL of the following: Ethics & Professional Responsibility; Banking & Fundraising; Corporate Governance; Insolvency & Corporate Restructuring; Intellectual Property; Mergers & Acquisitions; Competition Law; Taxation; Admiralty; Civil Litigation; Arbitration; Mediation Advocacy; Written Advocacy; Oral Advocacy; Criminal Litigation Practice & Procedure; Family Law Practice (inclusive of Muslim Law); Probate & Succession Planning; Real Estate Practice (Conveyancing); Employment Law; Personal Injury & Property Damage; Data Protection and Cyber Regulation; Law & Technology; Comparative Laws (inclusive of Civil Law); Conflict of Laws etc.

It is not a matter of reading a 20 page primer with 'motherhood statements' for each subject. If that were so, no candidate would be complaining. SILE and the course conveners expect them to read all of the leading cases in all of these these subjects. One subject alone can have up to 130 cases in their syllabus. Do the math.

I won't be surprised if the failure rates exceed 60%.

Hi. I am a 2022 Part B Course candidate who got called to the Bar in 2023. Yes, my batch was the guinea pig batch for SILE to trial and error with the new syllabus and exam format etc.

I just want to say that your worries and concern for the Part B exams is not without reason. I think almost everyone in my batch had the same feeling as we entered the course. There was no instructions on the passing rate for exams or when the exams would be held or the format of each of the exams etc until the end of course lecture which was held in November 2022 iirc.

I am not saying that it does not matter but I also cant really agree that it does? Afterall we learn the module to grasp the idealogy behind the practice of it and not for the sake of exams. If the examiners decide to change it from open-ended to MCQ the night before the exam, it should not really be a matter of concern. If you know your stuff, you will pass.

Also we must understand that the tutors and lecturers are also active solicitors who have their own full time job. I am not sure if they are paid but I highly doubt so considering that we have DPPs from AGC giving us tutorials and lectures on Criminal Law. We cant expect them to volunteer for a 1 year course now can we.

Regarding the leading cases of each module's syllabus, I think there is a need to relook into how you are approaching your studies. I am not saying that what you are doing is wrong but we must appreciate that Part B is an open-book exam and you do not need to memorize "130 cases" for each module. All you have to do is read the case, understand what the legal principle is, write it down into your notes so it is easier to refer to in the exam. One thing I noticed is that although the syllabus dumps lots of cases for you to read, its mostly 5-10 cases explaining the same legal principle and all you need is the leading case coupled with some of your intellectual inputs as to why it is more logical/reasoned than its comparative dissent.

I had no trouble reading 100 cases for each module and then making my notes for each exam. In fact, I only needed 2 days to study for each module before the exam. Yes, I only started preparing for the final exams in December 2022 in middle of November 2022. For some context, I am a foreign university graduate who took the Part A and then the Part B bar course and examinations so I am not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. If you come from a local uni like NUS or SMU who had the opportunity to go through vigorous academic structure you will definitely have no problems with the Part B.

I understand that the Part B course 2023 has an increased number of modules, and since I have not taken a look at how in depth each module is, I will not be commenting on how challenging it is. However, given that someone like me who is amongst the bottom of my batch in terms of intellect only required 2 days to revise for each module for 8-9 examinations +2-3 practical examinations, I am sure having 25 modules would just require more time to prepare for your batch. It is manageable. Even if it isn't, part and parcel of being a lawyer is learning to adapt and overcome. You can do it.

As many have said before me, Part B is just a rite of passage. People are overthinking too much about its difficulty. Part A was the slaughterhouse imo. Passing rates was like 25-30% including retakes, make one mistake and you fail.

At least now they compacted idk 25 modules into just 6 examinations? Correct me if I am wrong. There is only a certain number of things they can test you on within the time constraints of 2 hours for each examination. They would not be asking you for an experienced lawyer's opinion on the material syllabus. If anything, I would describe Part B as a procedural exam where you just learn the basics of how it is practiced. I also remember each examination having several mistakes in their questions/answer choices and a lot of time was spent halting us and telling us the errors during the actual examination. This took up like 15-20 minutes of our exam time not to mention the added stress etc. (Arbitration cough*) had like 18 mistakes in the exam script and it was hilarious because their projector screen in the exam hall could not fit all the mistakes.

Eg: Family law, you are only needed to learn up to the point of how to draft a Statement of Particulars and ANJ v ANK. That is like 10% of what practice really is.

Take heart and soldier on. Law is not meant to be easy. But dont make it unnecessarily harder than it should be. Seek advice from your seniors or any colleagues you have in the firm you worked in or interned in before. Wish you all the best in Part B and looking forward to welcome you to this profession.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thoughts on latest mass call speech by the Law Soc VP?

Absolutely disgusting show of just how disconnected and tone deaf the boomer lawyers are. Who the hell is still thinking about **** like Suits after going through 5 years of crap in law school + part B + TC, does he think he is talking to JC kids? And what is that crazy talk about money, productivity, and how WLB is impossible - finding it hard to get new warm bodies to exploit? Boo hoo, kids these days don't wana work any more

Also discovered that the guy is the founder of some exotic car club in SG lmao really matches the image he is giving off...