Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I believe it is broadly accurate, plus minus things like NS factor for guys, scholar/non scholar and so on.

You can add an estimate of about S$1k plus for each timescale progression, meaning that the base for 5A would be about monthly of $10k upwards. This is excluding performance, mid and end year bonuses which may add up to additional 4 months.

will promoting to grade 4 entail a large jump in compensation? perhaps >20k/mth after bonuses?

pros and cons of joining the legal service?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

pros and cons of joining the legal service?

senior assoc pay in firms will significantly outpace legal service after the first handful of years

but legal service offers better work life balance and perks as well so it depends on what you want

Originally Posted by Unregistered

will promoting to grade 4 entail a large jump in compensation? perhaps >20k/mth after bonuses?

Not necessarily. Maybe 20k a month if we’re taking 15k monthly x 16 months.

But don’t forget that 15k is the ballpark for JP in local big 4. One can expect to get to salary partner in 7 years or so. Yes one will have to show book and all that but it’s not necessarily the case that one will be promoted to super scale within 7 years in the legal service. It is not too uncommon for legal officers who are competent but not particularly outstanding (ie. get the daily work done but no stand out cases) to remain at grade 5B even after 10 years. For context, 5A is the grade just before super scale and typically comes with some people management responsibilities.

To answer the question about pros and cons, I do not agree that it has significantly better WLB. You might have better WLB in house. On the contrary, hours in the legal service have been progressively longer over the years (maybe not in every role but especially for certain hot spots). So please do not join labouring under the illusion that it brings a very stable pay in return for logging off at 6pm. With the more attractive exit options for starting off in private practice, unless you are a scholar it makes more sense to spend the energy of youth going the typical route in private, ie. local -> try to lateral to international or shift in house, learn what you can, can consider public when you’re looking to slow down in your 40s.

I would say main advantage is not WLB but not needing to be concerned about your billing rates / shrinking book (compared to private practice) and profitability.

Bumping up this post which addresses the pros and cons of different routes in law including legal service. Seems fairly accurate. There are similar views on pages 176 and 1591 of this thread.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Perhaps OP is not a parent yet and do not understand fully that parents usually do not judge their kids on ROI. It is just a modern parenting thing. People get agitated and defensive once you talk in terms of sucess or failure.

To my mind there are many different "tracks" out there for lawyers, none of them are superior to another. They all have their pitfalls and suit different types of people.

Private Practice - You get to hone the actual lawyering craft. Earn more if you make it and jobsecurity is more or less there. You get to be anal about drafting and be the quick fix expert in the cases you do. At the upper end though, private practice is a sales job and you have to either follow someone with many clients or earn or own clients. Otherwise, you lose value quickly because there are many bright SA who also mastered the basics of lawyering and cannot charge so much.

In house - this is a complicated field because every company is different and in different industries. There are some inhouse who are working their socks off while some have plenty of time to chill. Some stay long and earn big but increasingly there are also very junior inhouse roles akin to paprlegal. Reality is that as inhouse, you are a cost center and in most mncs you or even the GC do not have much say in things that matter because you do not bring in the bacon. Job progression and security are real concerns. The CEO has no much reason to promote you when he can find another more junior one outside. And many senior inhouse counsels struggle to find jobs when displaced. Partly is because of inhouse skill set is centred on contract management and company specific nuances. Many inhouse actually do not have unique value add or commercial insights even after working 10,15 years.

Legal Service - it is whole mammoth on its own and the immediate feeling is that you are so insignificant. Definitely a fair share of intellectual and cutting edge work but i think the day to day mundane will definitely get to you. You probably need to have passion in public interest and some political sense otherwise your commercial sense will get you nowhere in this area.

Gov Policy Making roles - many thinks this is same as Legal Service but it is not. Legal Service can send you into such roles as secondment though. Essentially such roles make changes to laws and regulations in specific areas and obviously law trained persons have a bit of an edge. Such roles are multi dissiplinary and experience here do make you more versatile since you can be inhouse, public policy roles, government relations role as well next time. Downside is that legal is just one of the many niche skills in this field. You have to prove yourself alongside the econs, accounting , and engineering grads. The sense is law grads have some advantages because good drafting and presentation is highly valued in public service. You also will have the legal and reg knowledge to help in the legis drafting. Another downside is poor pay package butnthe siliver lining is excellent job security and hey our top public servants are known to rake in v good pay ... if you make it up the ranks

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not necessarily. Maybe 20k a month if we’re taking 15k monthly x 16 months.

But don’t forget that 15k is the ballpark for JP in local big 4. One can expect to get to salary partner in 7 years or so. Yes one will have to show book and all that but it’s not necessarily the case that one will be promoted to super scale within 7 years in the legal service. It is not too uncommon for legal officers who are competent but not particularly outstanding (ie. get the daily work done but no stand out cases) to remain at grade 5B even after 10 years. For context, 5A is the grade just before super scale and typically comes with some people management responsibilities.

To answer the question about pros and cons, I do not agree that it has significantly better WLB. You might have better WLB in house. On the contrary, hours in the legal service have been progressively longer over the years (maybe not in every role but especially for certain hot spots). So please do not join labouring under the illusion that it brings a very stable pay in return for logging off at 6pm. With the more attractive exit options for starting off in private practice, unless you are a scholar it makes more sense to spend the energy of youth going the typical route in private, ie. local -> try to lateral to international or shift in house, learn what you can, can consider public when you’re looking to slow down in your 40s.

I would say main advantage is not WLB but not needing to be concerned about your billing rates / shrinking book (compared to private practice) and profitability.

WLB is indeed generally better in LSC and very much so JSC though

Not a lawyer, but would like to ask how are civil lawsuits on defamation usually settled? And is it really easy to sue people and get money off defendants in Singapore? And is it common to encounter frivolous defamation claims from clients in this day and age?
(Just curious following the recent well publised lawsuit between Raymond ng vs Calvin Cheng)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not a lawyer, but would like to ask how are civil lawsuits on defamation usually settled? And is it really easy to sue people and get money off defendants in Singapore? And is it common to encounter frivolous defamation claims from clients in this day and age?
(Just curious following the recent well publised lawsuit between Raymond ng vs Calvin Cheng)

If you’re not a lawyer, then your purpose of asking after reading this case is? There is someone you are thinking of suing for defamation?

I’m not a defamation expert and neither is this a comment on the above case, but I would imagine that as with most disputes, availability or otherwise of cold hard cash can be a material factor in how defamation suits are commenced, settled, protracted etc. By the time a civil suit goes to court, it is usually because parties believe so strongly in their respective cases that alternative means of resolving the dispute have failed. In a 50-50 case where both parties cases have some plausibility, the difference may lie in the team that has more resources to consider every single argument out there v a one or two man show working on your matter.

Of course it depends what is at stake but personally I would be slow to be trigger happy in bringing defamation suits all the way to court, unless one is absolutely sure one’s own closet is squeaky clean and nothing embarrassing will emerge under cross examination

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not a lawyer, but would like to ask how are civil lawsuits on defamation usually settled? And is it really easy to sue people and get money off defendants in Singapore? And is it common to encounter frivolous defamation claims from clients in this day and age?
(Just curious following the recent well publised lawsuit between Raymond ng vs Calvin Cheng)

Put me in the screenshot when some bodoh writes up a legal opinion for you for free and you take it to show to your friends/family/etc

is CHP a good firm to join for corp?