Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I second this. Honestly juniors in the legal industry should stop responding to fear tactics. Employment is a two way relationship. It may not be an entirely equal relationship but you're not a property like an ox owned by a farmer.

ironically the mentality being fostered in us is that partners are the ones putting you on files, giving you work, and you should thank them for it (especially in a pool or big firm setting). slaves are taught to be thankful for being put to work.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's not worth it. As a senior associate in an international firm who has to shortlist CVs and interview candidates for positions, I can assure you that NUS FCH/SMU summa is more than enough to get you shortlisted for an interview. The rest depends on your CCAs and interview performance, and at no point have I ever seen the Oxbridge brand being used a a tiebreaker.

Don't believe me? Just check out the profiles of people working in many of the top international firms here. Lots of people from NUS/SMU.

People need to shed this colonial mindset that it is worth it to get into 5-figure debt just for the Oxbridge brand on your CV.

Ah I see. Does the fact that it is statistically easier or somewhat less competitive to get a first in Cambridge change anything as well?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ah I see. Does the fact that it is statistically easier or somewhat less competitive to get a first in Cambridge change anything as well?

Ah I see. Does the fact that it is statistically harder or somewhat more competitive to get a 2:2 in NUS Law change anything as well?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes since the Supreme Court is still a good reputational intermediary and will open many doors, especially in the international firms, after your JLC stint. Some of the top corporate and transactional partners in the international firms are ex-JLCs.

I don't necessarily think this is true. Speaking from experience, JLCs are more valued by Singapore firms than international firms. To put it bluntly, why the **** would an ang moh M&A partner care about an applicant's court experience?

JLC does provide some prestige, and beyond that it is a marker to prospective employers that the JLC is (1) very intelligent, and (2) very good at the law. As you can infer, these skillsets are more litigation focused. A transactional partner wouldn't necessarily be on the look out for these skillsets (where transactional experience counts as much as any legal expertise). If you were an M&A partner looking to hire, would you hire a JLC over someone who trained at a good M&A practice and has at least 1 year of practice under their belt? Trying to compare apples to apples here since I'm equating working at the courts as being as intellectually rigorous as working in a good M&A shop. I think that the JLC might find itself in an uphill battle - the partner would probably have a raw (but likely talented) product to work with, and that person might not necessarily catch on to transactional practice.

On the point about "top corporate and transactional partners in the international firms are ex-JLCs", my gut feel is that this is a bit overblown. The sample size is small. First, few JLCs go into corporate practice - most who leave the courts go into either AGC or a litigation practice. Second, many JLCs are hired into Singapore law firms (since it appears that Singapore law firms place more value on JLCs than international firms). So, taking that into account, the number of JLCs who both entered corporate practice and left to join international law firms is few to say the least. I'm happy to be corrected if more than 5 examples can be put forward - personally I've only ever seen one ex-JLC in an international firm as a corporate partner.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Ah I see. Does the fact that it is statistically easier or somewhat less competitive to get a first in Cambridge change anything as well?

Perhaps. Some employers might not know that Cambridge gives out firsts to basically the top 25% and regard it as equal to an NUS FCH. But people in the know will value the NUS FCH more highly.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Perhaps. Some employers might not know that Cambridge gives out firsts to basically the top 25% and regard it as equal to an NUS FCH. But people in the know will value the NUS FCH more highly.

Sour grapes NUS 2:2
No money go camb, no brain to make NUS FCH. Too bad bottom 50% U suck grapes.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sour grapes NUS 2:2
No money go camb, no brain to make NUS FCH. Too bad bottom 50% U suck grapes.

Sour grapes cantab.
Got money go camb, buay paiseh put your phony Cantab MA on firm profile tsk

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sour grapes cantab.
Got money go camb, buay paiseh put your phony Cantab MA on firm profile tsk

Man u r balding. Use a better profile peekture.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Perhaps. Some employers might not know that Cambridge gives out firsts to basically the top 25% and regard it as equal to an NUS FCH. But people in the know will value the NUS FCH more highly.

In the end NUS FCH (or any degree and degree classification) will get you so far. After that, it's about your intellect, charisma and common sense. I've seen some NUS FCH with truly abysmal attributes outside of being good at law exams.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

ironically the mentality being fostered in us is that partners are the ones putting you on files, giving you work, and you should thank them for it (especially in a pool or big firm setting). slaves are taught to be thankful for being put to work.

Being grateful is fine, but the partners don't own you. They are entitled to put their self-interests first, but so are you. When you need to leave for greener pastures, leave. Guilt-tripping, fear mongering is just low class.