In a small firm

What an ignorant post. DRD and Bakers are worlds apart these days. Bakers is organised into regional profit centres these days, where as DRD is a 100% franchise model. The standards between Dentons offices differ to a scary extent. Bakers are getting the most prominent files these days, have made a number of prominent recent hires, and the recent pay hike reflects the forward looking strategy and growing profile of the firm. DRD on the other hand are languishing after departure of Mr Jeyeratnem, and console ownself by having many 'senior partners'.

Why Baker got one CECA disputes partner speak with thick ang moh accent. They sign treaty with India also? Or they moving to chennai business Park.

While it is undoubtably true that there is a "Macdonalds" mindset attached to verein or "franchise" style international firms like Dentons, Baker or DLA, it is also true that Baker/DLA pays higher than big4. I do believe there is a difference between "int" firms in SG that pay local rates, and "int" firms that pay >big4 rates.

Money attracts talent, or at least a sufficient level of talent. Obviously firms like Baker SG are not top choices for a variety of reasons (for e.g. the good corp talents will go to true int firms, and no litigator who values their long-term career is going to go to Baker disputes), but I'll have to admit that they are tempting with their "in-between" trans-Atlantic (i.e. less that UK but higher than SG) rate. Even though they are not as well regarded overseas as the true "int" firms, the fact that they pay higher than b4 helps alot in establishing their "rank" among the firms in SG.

Obviously, they can't compete with strong local firms (tier 1s) or the truly int firms (much higher pay), but they occupy a middle ground position where they have some reputation, and higher pay. I don't think it is white-worship bringing people to higher-paying "int" firms, it's just that money talks.

For Dentons Rodyk, I do think you are spot on, as their Rodyk name carries more weight in SG than Dentons. Indeed, their branding could be a lot stronger, since Dentons as a "global" firm doesn't have much cohesive branding (as they are new/asian-majority and therefore not the top choice of Caucasian firms).

Regardless, insofar as they keep paying local rates, they will be regarded as a local firm, and therefore, will have to be content with being "Rodyk". No matter how strong the branding is, if the pay isn't correspondingly higher, you won't get the "brand reputation" of the "int" firms.

Sadly its not competitive with its name sake im us/uk

Isnt the reason for the pay hike to dissuade juniors who have been leaving in droves to intl firms such that the inertia is high when u get only 2ish k now when they jump to a uk firm and the only wise target is now to (another) us firm.

Yeah its not like u see lee & lee people go around calling themselves hogan lovells

Any idea whats k&l gates straits law like? More intl or more local. Many sources say they pay <big4

Sorry, noob here. What is wrong with Baker disputes. I was under the impression that it is on the up.

lmao its a local firm through and through. actually they've remained small, quite partner/top heavy, and don't seem to have expanded at all in years. Headcount expansion is a sign of healthy firm business growth.

If you look at their lawyer profiles, quite a fair number are transplants from k&l gates' foreign offices. which means local lawyer headcount is actually even lower than lower mid tier firms like CNP.

Think you need to brush up on your comprehension or get your eyes checked. No one is claiming that DRD = Baker right now. Literally said that DRD was like Baker a decade back, when they were still on a franchise model. It was only subsequently that Baker moved onto its current regional profit-sharing structure.

As regards pay, KLG is slightly better than local mid-tier but still shy of b4. Make of that what you will.

Don't call it KLG, it is obv Straits

Its gonna be real embarrassing for the firm to call it by its tieup name such as KLG dentons taylor wessing. When yknow it can be snipped away at any time by the int'l side. See RHT. End up just as a divorced woman having to explain to others why you should stop calling her Mrs Z from now on.

I guess on the bright side they have fancy website profiles for everyone

How about withers khattar wong. Whats the pay there like folks. Is it more khattar or more withers

How abt virtus law / Stephenson Harwood? Whats the pay there like. I saw the corporate team hired 2 girls from non big 4 mid size / boutique firms. Does it mean I stand a good chance going there from a big 4?

Oh that explains why all the legacy k&l gates singapore peeps hsd to leave prior merger - realised no need to pay semi intl rates when the local side can do it for cheaper than big 4 rates and wages

it depends on how strong the FLA merger structure is. i understand tt in some FLAs like Morgan Lewis Stamford and Withers KW, the Singapore EPs are also EPs of the global firm, and they have to be made global EPs on their own merit & business case. This makes a divorce less likely because they are pretty welded at the hip and integrated financially. Altho they must remain separate entities due to regulatory requirements including rules on non-SG lawyer ownership. I believe Stamford pioneered this structure.

for other looser FLAs or JLVs, probably by intention, e.g. Eversheds HarryE and RHT Taylor Wessing, there's probably arrangements allowing parties to review and walkaway after X years. Their financials aren't integrated, and local partners aren't necessarily partners of the international side. Since Dentons is a verein and separate profit pools in each of their local offices, there may be a chance that Dentons and Rodyk divorce in the future too.

If you're in the know, you'd know that for many of these true combinations, the international side is very ruthless about profitability and ask many non-performing local partners to go if they aren't delivering the required P&L metrics.

The sad fact is, many local partners are just not as productive, or have that good books of biz, or are of the same calibre as their international peers.

There was indeed a review clause for EHE at the three year mark which we know how that went. Gerald Singham is the Global Vice Chair and ASEAN CEO of what is now the largest law firm in the world - due in no small part to the franchise structure. But it is also this verein structure that places less pressure on local partners to perform - they keep what they earn and there's no profit sharing anw.

Where did u get the impression from lol

You made a good point about the differences in partnership profit sharing, and how tightly linked they are to their intl side.

But a FLA is still a FLA. Which means legally, whether it is Stamford law, DRD, or EHE. They are legally, distinct entities from the intl practice.
Bec tieups like these survive on a cooperation basis, they are not true offices created out of the international firm. So do not expect intl remuneration packages, or a dramatic increase in PEP for the Singapore side.

How to spot FLAs? Easy. If any part of their name, has got a Singapore variant (example Stamford, Rodyk, Harry Elias, RHT) & the SG side was in existence prior to the tieup (so exclude cavenagh which is created by Clifford chance)- They are not true internationals, period. :D

What is the salary scale for WP associate?

What about lateral hires at around from 1PQE

Are you from a small firm hoping to jump to a bigger firm and hoping not to have a PQE cut? Unless you're from some super cui firm you have nothing to fear.

They aren't going to cut your PQE if you're only 1PQE lol, the salary scale is quite rigid till SA level approaching partner level.

what's the usual scale?

I heard its a great place for training though

Whenever I see female lawyers walk past me in the office, I imagine ****ing them, I also imagine that their pussies are unshaven and super hairy, although they may be well groomed on the outside. After that I imagine them peeing on me, with their dribble splashing all over, that hissing sound is super hot when they need to go urgently after a few hours of intense drafting!!!

RodneyBuh
 

<a href=s://reduslim.health/>reduslim forum al femminile</a>
RodneyBuh

Top choice. Great training and great pay. With healthy work life balance and caring seniors and partners.

The CECA partner accent really thick. Not the Indian George Clooney. The other one.

Both r good

Seriously guys, stop screwing around with the newbie lawyers and law students. People might actually think you're serious when u say nonsense like this.

anyone moved from B4 to international firms?

At which PQE (sg scale) did you move?

what were the salaried before and after the move?

what about the hours?

did you make a move out of a recruiter’s referral?

many thanks

anyone moved from B4 to international firms? Yes, but if you want to have a better chance, go for Corp work, it's a lot harder as a liti assoc.

At which PQE (sg scale) did you move? Most move around 2/3 PQE, due to UK's 2 year trainee scheme. You maybe downgraded to UK NQ level at 2 PQE.

what were the salaried before and after the move? I assume you mean what is the difference in salary scale for b4 and int firms. It depends on which "int firm" you go to, whether they are paying cravath scale (rare), MC scale, transatlantic scale, or some other int scale. But you definitely will get a pay bump as a 2PQE SG associate because SG associates are criminally underpaid in general.

what about the hours? More focus on BD, the yearly billable requirement usually stays the same or may even drop. Again, depends on the int firm and the b4 dept you came from, there isn't a one-size-fit-all "all firms are slacker/longer hours than b4".

did you make a move out of a recruiter’s referral? Other than the top-scorers, a lot of people are referred by friends or just self-apply. Cold recruiter calls doesn't really work unless they have a mandate. Remember that the recruiter needs to be paid, so companies are more willing to take you directly than having to pay added costs (barring certain exceptions like a highly specialised field/team that no one wants to go to).

Why do lawyers / people who have studied law often advise others against doing the degree?

They speak as if they have studied another degree or worked in other jobs and industries before but truth is most took a traditional path of education to becoming a lawyer.

I'm not sure what people in legal are comparing to? Or is it just in them that they r more vocal?

There's a difference between studying law and practising law. I think some people advise against both, some advise against only one of the two (in some jurisdictions you can practise without spending your uni years doing a law degree), some advise against practising for too long. So it all depends on who you speak to and what their background is.

My guess is that a lot of people that become lawyers generally could have pursued a wide variety of other studies at university and also probably studied quite hard both pre-u and during university (to the neglect of other activities such as socialising/having fun and developing knowledge/skills in other domains).

So I suspect there's sometimes this regret of spending all that effort and then finding themselves (in their own perception) stuck in a career they don't like when they could have done so many other things? This will be be the case especially when kids (many of whom scored top marks at pre-u level) get grinded down to below average of the class in uni or starting their career with firms that don't pay or train them as well as they think they deserve (or both). That is perhaps one explanation apart from the usual stories of long hours and pay that is incommensurate to the effort etc

Also maybe lots of people complain about their job/degree but perhaps due to law having some status people pay more attention to it?

Having been doing this for a while, another possible issue with some Singaporean kids is that they might not have thought hard enough about what they want to do in their lives and why. Some of these kids choose a degree / vocation based on some graduate salary survey or the perceived prestige/popularity of a degree. e.g. CS is the hot thing now. It's not necessarily going to lead to satisfaction for everyone.

Having done both law and non-law I don't regret any of it.

And to your last point: i think in this forum most people like to compare to those that make more money than them, e.g. investment bankers, techies? but then i wonder why be a professional (subject to all sorts of codes and ethical rules) if the aim is to mint money?

Who are u to say its not serious? N if people wanna believe forums then sucks for them too bad la

Wow, just wow . No words.

Btw which firm you from bro? EDMW?

lol i think even edmw has matured over the years

But on serious note, which firm has good lookers ?

interesting. thank you. so it's about not doing as well as before academically or not to their expectations and then thinking that other industries have it easier? :)

i think its funny to compare w those in big tech or high finance because it's not much easier to make it into investment banking or high finance when people with a fancy MBA or pass CFA level 1 or boutique firm experience can be considered as a competitive applicant for a role. there are people with both qualifications even. and then there are ppl here comparing schools......

even after getting in, the person has to be on their toes all the time because there are truckloads of ppl trying to get in as compared to the legal industry where restrictions are placed left and right.

as for tech... they are so welcoming to the industry but what they dont say is the amount of coding that has to be learned and the number of bugs that have to be fixed and the uphill climb to be that good.