Wow. What real work is that? You mean being bitter and getting triggered on an anonymous forum is real work nowadays? Do you charge out in USD for this time too?

Good recruiters know hiring managers will and can spokesperson for you or tell you what pay you should push for. Some are less useful but that’s the same like how some lawyers are from DRD and RHT.

Most recruiters aren't bright, let's put it this way, and they talk too much bull ****. I would know - one of my exes was a recruiter. the sex was good but the conversations? Let's just say a bit lacking in intellectual depth.

Unlike some of the other non-constructive comments, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to share some of your insights.

Building on this, are litigators less likely to find lateral hires? I tend to see a lot of corporate/projects lateral hires but I honestly can’t say the same for litigators.

HAHAHA a specific recruiter’s LinkedIn post came to mind when I saw this comment

Naturally litigation is more jurisdiction specific. If you have regulatory, IA or white collar/ investigations experience that would be more in demand.

Quinn Emanuel London just took a Singapore associate as a lateral. Our competition litigation team also does have the odd few Aussies or Kiwis - so rarer but not impossible!

Since we are on the subject of recruiters... I’ve worked with quite a few (both local and overseas) and finally landed a role. It’s always been a hit or miss lol and below is just my two cents’ worth.

1. Not all recruiters are created equal. A good recruiter listens to what you have to say ie role you’re looking for, type of work, culture etc and actively seeks roles suitable for you (as versus asking you to apply for every single role that pops up in the market).

2. Look at whether the recruiter has a good track record of placing hires in the team. This will typically indicate the recruiter has a good relationship with the hiring partners. I’ve come across recruiters who miss the nail on the head completely because they do not understand what type of candidate the partner is seeking but just puts forth your CV. Most recruiters do not tell you this but if they put forth your CV to a specific firm, depending on each firm’s policies, that recruiter may “own” you as a candidate for a year - this is especially common in London or international firms in SG.

3. Keep your CV under lock and key. Do not randomly mass send your CV to multiple recruiters (as tempting as it is). Avoid overly pushy recruiters who don’t take no for an answer. One of my friends had a recruiter put in their CV to a firm they’d expressly said no to applying to. That’s highly unethical. Stay far away from recruiters like this. I would recommend having a chat with the recruiter and testing their knowledge of the market and what roles they are aware of out there BEFORE sending your CV. This is especially so when working with recruiters who make cold calls/reach out to you on LinkedIn and my colleagues and I always find out we’ve received the exact same message. Discretion is key. Always helps if you have seniors/friends who worked with that specific recruiter before.

4. Information asymmetry - some recruiters play candidates off each other for highly competitive roles by sending the weaker ones in and then asking them the interview questions asked by the partners to more adequately prepare their stronger candidates. For each role, some recruiters may put forth many many candidates (can even be 20 CVs). The better recruiters will take a more targeted approach and intentionally put forth fewer candidates better suited for a specific role, and pour time and effort talking to you about the firm, doing interview prep, telling you each partner’s quirks etc. A good recruiter will have an in-depth understanding of the firm and the type of work the hiring team does. When you find a recruiter like that, they can be a powerful arsenal in your job hunt. Always check out a recruiter’s LinkedIn profile to gauge their level of experience.

5. At the end of the day, it’s important to remember that if you get placed, the recruiter makes $$ off you. I think using a good recruiter makes a huge difference (there are more bad than good apples) and it always helps to have someone in your corner when negotiating pay and sign-on bonus.

Not all recruiters will yield you results. It may not be that recruiter’s fault but could simply just be market conditions, over-supply and/or stiff competition for a specific role. Hope the above helps someone out!

anyone able to confirm?

What does of counsel mean in the Singapore law firm?

It means partnership minus the title of partner. But outrank senior associate anytime.

One of the more abused titles in recent times. For senior senior associates who are non-partnership track, or put there as a holding position until they get on the track. Also because it wouldn't be appropriate to give them consultant positions as the latter usually reserved for grey haired practitioners.

A&G uses it as an additional rung before junior partner.

Strangely, some firms also give rather junior lawyers the title of "counsel", probably just as a way of making their assocs feel better about themselves? Usually the newfangled or boutique ones. *cough Providence * cough

I thought of counsel is just like a lawyer who has an association with the firm but doesnt work full time.

Guys I know this is purely semantics but pls note there is a difference between “counsel” and “of counsel”

Counsel is just a description for any lawyer. Could be an associate or a partner. In firms that prefer to have a flatter structure, usually the smaller ones, they just call you counsel rather than associate. Adds a bit more legitimacy when meeting clients.

Now the “of counsel” is a very different animal.
In BM London, and not BMWL, they do have Of counsel which is essentially a local principal in BMWL.
Of counsel is a step after managing/senior associate and just before equity partnership. Some firms lik

In smaller local firms, sometimes “of counsel” is used to reward very exceptional talents in the legal industry before they can be of officially made up to partner because of the 3 year time bar. Other times “of counsel” is used to denote that the person involved with the firm is a very senior lawyer more than 10pqe but has no intention of being a partner.

So in bmwl local principal is condemned? What if the local principal is like at least 16 years PQE? Condemned anot? I heard the local principals behave like they some hot shot partners but seems like you are saying they are not proper partners? Is it is it

Lose the attitude.

Honest question here, but how do you network with people outside your own firm? Seems that alot of the partners generally know the partners from other firms (not sure if it is because the cohort used to be smaller or they're in the same field for so long)?

Why are you so triggered u from bmwl?

Duh. Some condemned of counsel there.

Harder during covid period. Try tinder, cmb or bumble. Helps if you are chio or sachok.

Yep in the past the call batches were much smaller. 150 or 200 plus max, and most studied only in NUS with a few going to the UK. So almost everyone knew everyone. Plus if you're in practice long enough, you will know and hear the same few names frm the same area of practice you're in.

The composition of the legal fraternity has changed with the influx of so many foreign grads from so many different subpar overseas law schools, and the expansion of local law school places too.

There’s also something wrong about this new generation of lawyers.

Last time when we were dating among our law classmates (I mean in the 70,80,90 and 00), we just married the first one.

Now I think I’m hearing from my trainees/LAs that they date to try out and then breakup etc. like 6-7 breakups is normal. Which makes me very appalled.

So I guess now people don’t value human relationships and interpersonal relationships that much. Loss of code of honour, etc

Do the few panel law firms in SG generally have a good rep?

I just finished my 3 month probation and my team is just amazing. So much so that I constantly live in fear that it's a trap.

I go to work at 10.30 - 11am though my official start time is 9am. Nobody says anything but I always felt it was because I work through the night, on weekends and also stay overnight at office when I feel like my work is piling up.

The big boss of the firm came and spoke with me ytd at my desk and asked me to learn to pace myself, spend time with my family and make sure I dont burn out. He also implied he doesnt approve of working at my maximum all the time and this should be reserved got emergencies.

I've got a **** ton of work tho but seemingly a great deal of space to cope with it how I feel best.
Like if you are good and can finish 12 hours of work in 6 hours, can use the rest to have life.

I used to work for chinatown law firms and this firm immediately matched what I felt was 'high', idk if I generally lowball myself but I felt this firm has treated me the most reasonable pay wise out of the 6 previous firms I worked for. I'm in litigation and from the 'new' local uni, mid career switch.

I feel like I'm not good enough to take up their culture because I'm slow and a perfectionist, so have to keep putting in the hours on the side. But what I'm more interested in is, does anyone have any views on or heard anything on the grapevine for bonuses/pay increment got the major panel insurer facing firms in singapore?

Doing the mid career switch really hurt my finances and though I cannot ask anyone I know personally, it would be appreciated if I could get a sense of whether I hope for some financial recovery from firms like these. I'm not looking for big4, Corp pay. I like litigation and am happy with that pay scale.

yea cos last time ur gf hadnt sucked off at least 10 other dudes before u came along

Hahaha. I'm sure. Some 16 year above PQE local principal.

Starting almost 10...

BMWL - according to friends who are still there
Based on call dates, no front load
2021: 9+
2020:10+
2019:11+
2018:13+
2017:14+
2016:15+

2019 is 13+ 2018 15+ 2017 17+ 2016 almost 20 or higher depending on what practice area

Ya they paying mc rates. I believe u..

anyone knows whether r&t or drew has a frontloaded component?

Local law student applying for disputes TC soon - is it better to start out in an SC team at local big 4 or disputes at BMWL?

If i go to BMWL for the higher pay, is it worth sacrificing training under an SC? At such a junior level, does it even matter if I'm in an SC team? - given that I will be learning the ropes and probably wont be working too closely with the SC.

It does matter - a lot. You learn the most in your first 2 years, esp in disputes, and even if you dont see the SC the culture and work habits are set top down.

If you are looking to really grow, don't go anywhere outside the B4 for disputes.

What are rht rates?

it's true you (have to) learn the most in the first two years. and that brings me to my next point.

uh. other disputes practitioners can chime in but this is too sweeping a statement. If you want to act for B4 clients, then yes. but in terms of learning the trade, imho disputes is the one area where the playing field is pretty level amongst firms as it's largely based on the mentoring you get from the lead counsel (cf corporate work where firm brand plays a larger role).

So more relevant to look at who is likely to be your mentor.

E.g. would you turn down an offer from Michael Hwang chambers over B4 disputes?

Actually the discussion here is pretty sub par. It will be nice to have someone breakdown the different career paths according to practice and someone who actually knows clear salaries and progression instead of school slamming and all the nonsense. Anyone ?

The previous posts say how great bmwl is and potential for partners to be made SCs and also great juniors etc. Head is great and super hands on give personal training so guess you should go bmwl and also get more money - no brainer

Singapore lawyers are in general quite sub par and this forum is quite reflective of this. You want to compare with American and Canadian JDs just go look at the depth of their career discussion in toplawschools.com and lawstudents.ca forums. Those are discussions by real professionals. Even the law discussions on Whirlpool forum (for australians) are better.

This place is unmoderated and full of young kids trolling.

Harvard/Oxbridge/AU>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NUS/SMU > SUSS

That's why NUS/SMU NQ pay has been the same for the last ten years, while Harvard/Oxbridge/AU grads get paid six figures on graduation, no questions asked.

NUS/SMU grads must enjoy circlejerking on anonymous forums as a form of catharsis to make up for earning the hourly wage equivalent of a burger flipper in superior countries lol

I don't think legal work has or should have pay grades across the board, like in the civil service or elsewhere. A lot of it depends on the individual

I think fellow lawyers will automatically recognise that "my friend at B4 makes $x so I should too" makes for a very poor argument if said person is hopelessly incompetent. The nature of work and output differs widely. If it were all the same, then why even have a taxation regime, or protest against scaled costs in liti, right?

Most of this discussion is a good guide, but this post is really just a push back against that sense of entitlement. NQ: Think long and hard before you claim the work you do is worth you being paid nearly $6k a month, because very, very few of you are worth it. What the firm is actually paying for is the potential promised by your uni and your grades.

Yes it's a great place bmwl litigation department

Lmao this is horrendously wrong. If you don't know anything, best to shut up. Latest approximate salary scale is as follows:

Trainee - S$3,000
NQ - S$8,000
2PQE - S$9,500
3PQE - S$11,000
4PQE - S$12,500+ (Can be higher - salaries from 4PQE onwards are black box)
5PQE - S$14,000+
6PQE - S$15,500+