Lawyer Salary

It is artificial to segment the market like that. If there really is an oversupply, people will just take whatever comes, regardless of specialisation. What do you think law grads will do if they can't get that training contract in the corporate practice group of a big4 firm they wanted? Sit at home and do nothing, or accept that training contract offer from mid/small size firm doing general legal work (including the bulk of what you call community and criminal law)? From the firms' perspective, reputation of alma mater and individual ability (ie the results on your transcript) matter more than "a heart to do good". Brutal but true. It's a business afterall. No prizes for guessing who will more likely lose out in a saturated market.

To answer the question above, corporate lawyers earn more because their clients (usually companies) can afford to pay more fees than your average person undergoing divorce or being charged with a criminal offence. White collar crime is an exception (that is why most big firms with a criminal law practice only do such cases), but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Criminal law does not necessarily pay less, though it often does. Think about the fees which will be paid to the guys defending the CHC officers. Or the lawyers representing each PAP minister in the numerous defamation suits over the years. Or Susan Lim's lawyers. When the litigant employing a criminal lawyer has deep pockets, the fees will invariably reflect this.

However, in small practice criminal law - your client is either:

(1) a rioting Bangla worker
(2) a Filipino maid who has snapped and killed/attacker her employer
(3) a distraught housewife who has been abused by her alcoholic, unemployed husband

or some other variation of the above. A class of persons who deserve legal representation, but can't quite afford it. Who will pick up and foot your invoice at the end of the day? And even if they can and do pay, where is your next file/case coming from?

On the contrary, in corporate and finance work your clients are banks or powerful multinationals which have the budget to pay hefty legal fees. The workflow is continuous, repetitive and pretty much guaranteed once the relationship is there. Corporate and finance work is a far better money spinner.

CHC is involves a white collar crime and this type of cases account for a very small proportion of criminal cases. Defamation suits and the Susan Lim case are not criminal cases.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

CHC is involves a white collar crime and this type of cases account for a very small proportion of criminal cases. Defamation suits and the Susan Lim case are not criminal cases.

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that Litigation in general tends to be relatively less lucrative than corporate and finance work. The only way to earn sustained lucrative fees in litigation is to seve clients with deep pockets - Civil litigation involving corporate disputes. Criminal litigation tends to be characterized by really poor paymasters, and it's not easy to survive doing purely criminal law.

I think one of the posters earlier has already pointed out...an oversupply of law graduates doesn't mean those who can't get hired by the big firms will go to the smaller shops doing criminal and family law. Yes in a perfect world, we can envisage an overflow of graduates to the less lucrative areas because they have no choice, but this is not a perfect market.

Small firms don't give out many training contracts or hire many trainees! Do you seriously think the shortage of family lawyers will be plugged just by forcing the glut of graduates into these paths. We can have an oversupply of 10,000 law graduates and it won;t solve the problem one single bit if none of these solo practicioner firms are hiring!!!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Criminal law does not necessarily pay less, though it often does. Think about the fees which will be paid to the guys defending the CHC officers. Or the lawyers representing each PAP minister in the numerous defamation suits over the years. Or Susan Lim's lawyers. When the litigant employing a criminal lawyer has deep pockets, the fees will invariably reflect this.

However, in small practice criminal law - your client is either:

(1) a rioting Bangla worker
(2) a Filipino maid who has snapped and killed/attacker her employer
(3) a distraught housewife who has been abused by her alcoholic, unemployed husband

or some other variation of the above. A class of persons who deserve legal representation, but can't quite afford it. Who will pick up and foot your invoice at the end of the day? And even if they can and do pay, where is your next file/case coming from?

On the contrary, in corporate and finance work your clients are banks or powerful multinationals which have the budget to pay hefty legal fees. The workflow is continuous, repetitive and pretty much guaranteed once the relationship is there. Corporate and finance work is a far better money spinner.

Do you think then that the above reasons has led to the shortage of community lawyer in addition to the fact that it pays less as well?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think one of the posters earlier has already pointed out...an oversupply of law graduates doesn't mean those who can't get hired by the big firms will go to the smaller shops doing criminal and family law. Yes in a perfect world, we can envisage an overflow of graduates to the less lucrative areas because they have no choice, but this is not a perfect market.

Small firms don't give out many training contracts or hire many trainees! Do you seriously think the shortage of family lawyers will be plugged just by forcing the glut of graduates into these paths. We can have an oversupply of 10,000 law graduates and it won;t solve the problem one single bit if none of these solo practicioner firms are hiring!!!

actually most of my seniors who could not get into their first choice firms, usually the big 4s, ended up joining smaller firms to do gain litigation experience in hope that better opportunities will open up to them in future.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

actually most of my seniors who could not get into their first choice firms, usually the big 4s, ended up joining smaller firms to do gain litigation experience in hope that better opportunities will open up to them in future.

But are they really doing community man-in-the-street work, or simply mid and lower-market commercial litigation in a smaller firm? There is quite a wide range of firms in between the big4 and small outfits doing real community law practice.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Do you think then that the above reasons has led to the shortage of community lawyer in addition to the fact that it pays less as well?

Oh it definitely does. The Big4 firms wouldn't touch such cases with a 10-foot-pole - not unless there's loads of publicity involved (such as in a high profile murder case with loads of juicy tabloid coverage). If there is, they'll be willing to take a hit on their time costs in exchange for the publicity and marketing which comes with taking on the case.

In any case, the underlying motivation for a Big4 firm taking on such a case would never be founded in altruism.

It's not fair to blame lawyers for being mercenary though. QP renewal fees, office space and professional insurance premiums are expensive, and lawyers can't be always taking on cases which don't put bread on the table just out of the goodness of their hearts.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

actually most of my seniors who could not get into their first choice firms, usually the big 4s, ended up joining smaller firms to do gain litigation experience in hope that better opportunities will open up to them in future.

which school are you from, if it isn't too much to ask.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Oh it definitely does. The Big4 firms wouldn't touch such cases with a 10-foot-pole - not unless there's loads of publicity involved (such as in a high profile murder case with loads of juicy tabloid coverage). If there is, they'll be willing to take a hit on their time costs in exchange for the publicity and marketing which comes with taking on the case.

In any case, the underlying motivation for a Big4 firm taking on such a case would never be founded in altruism.

It's not fair to blame lawyers for being mercenary though. QP renewal fees, office space and professional insurance premiums are expensive, and lawyers can't be always taking on cases which don't put bread on the table just out of the goodness of their hearts.

I see. What do you think of the prospects of law students returning from the UK gaining a training contract with the Big 4 in light of current events?