Lawyer Salary

Any insights into the SMU JD program? Did some sleuthing and it seems that the number of practising lawyers from the class of 2017 is far lower than compared to previous years?

Hi seniors, does any one have any insights on where people who fail part b (ie fail more than 2 papers) usually end up? Is it worth waiting another 6 months to take the re-examination, or, is it preferable to consider doing something else after one finishes one’s TC?

For the former, securing employment at a decent mid size firm post-re-examination seems difficult, and even if possible, the current outlook in the legal industry isn’t very bright - dismal salary generally if not in a decent firm.

For the latter, how common is this? How receptive are employers generally to law grads with zero internship experience outside the legal industry? What paths are available? MA programmes or consulting?

For context, I’m not from a degree mill and did decently well in law school. Also, even if I were to pass part b, I’m very inclined to consider alternative routes, not least because I’m not sure if I can see myself doing legal work for the next 30-40 years.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Any insights into the SMU JD program? Did some sleuthing and it seems that the number of practising lawyers from the class of 2017 is far lower than compared to previous years?

://treeofprosperity.blogspot.com/2017/04/my-jd-aftermath-1-adult-education-and.html

There you go. Don't bother doing it. "a) General message for aspiring JDs - Don't do it.

First of all, most professionals looking for legal conversion are probably doing it out of pragmatism so I don't expect most JD aspirants to be financially independent and studying for a degree out of sheer vanity like myself.

Anyway, I caught up with some class-mates last night and we all agreed that our decision to take the SMU JD was not rational in hindsight. None of us would recommend this course to others for now."

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Any insights into the SMU JD program? Did some sleuthing and it seems that the number of practising lawyers from the class of 2017 is far lower than compared to previous years?

Don't kumgong and do. JD from SMU, GLB from NUS, some koyok from suss all not useful when you can't land a job with it after.

Also, your prior job experience is disregarded from hiring. I got frens who tio snub by HR who say "your old job experience no count". No higher starting pay.

Some more if you wanna do, I think JD/GLB cheaper than the koyok from suss. Suss need pay arm and leg.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi seniors, does any one have any insights on where people who fail part b (ie fail more than 2 papers) usually end up? Is it worth waiting another 6 months to take the re-examination, or, is it preferable to consider doing something else after one finishes one’s TC?

For the former, securing employment at a decent mid size firm post-re-examination seems difficult, and even if possible, the current outlook in the legal industry isn’t very bright - dismal salary generally if not in a decent firm.

For the latter, how common is this? How receptive are employers generally to law grads with zero internship experience outside the legal industry? What paths are available? MA programmes or consulting?

For context, I’m not from a degree mill and did decently well in law school. Also, even if I were to pass part b, I’m very inclined to consider alternative routes, not least because I’m not sure if I can see myself doing legal work for the next 30-40 years.

If you didnt come from a degree mill and did decently well in school why would you be afraid of failing part b? Part b is impossible to fail if you are a half decent law grad

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you didnt come from a degree mill and did decently well in school why would you be afraid of failing part b? Part b is impossible to fail if you are a half decent law grad

Because he thinks getting a first from Kings is decent and that Kings isn’t a degree mill.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi seniors, does any one have any insights on where people who fail part b (ie fail more than 2 papers) usually end up? Is it worth waiting another 6 months to take the re-examination, or, is it preferable to consider doing something else after one finishes one’s TC?

For the former, securing employment at a decent mid size firm post-re-examination seems difficult, and even if possible, the current outlook in the legal industry isn’t very bright - dismal salary generally if not in a decent firm.

For the latter, how common is this? How receptive are employers generally to law grads with zero internship experience outside the legal industry? What paths are available? MA programmes or consulting?

For context, I’m not from a degree mill and did decently well in law school. Also, even if I were to pass part b, I’m very inclined to consider alternative routes, not least because I’m not sure if I can see myself doing legal work for the next 30-40 years.

Did you fail part b? If you did, then to be brutally honest, don't bother with the former option. It's hard to fail part b and firms know that. The failure rate is so low, you will be up against people who passed it at the first try. No prizes for guessing who will win the battle for employment.

Better off cutting your losses and doing other things. Don't do postgrads though. It's a trap. Best get called first. Your marketability will rise.

Once fail part b, it depends which firm you’re in.
In larger firms, they have no short of suitors. Consequently, they will use it as an excuse not to retain.

In smaller firms, depends on your relationship with boss.
If you can do your work, then if you fail one and resit and pass, no major consequences.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you didnt come from a degree mill and did decently well in school why would you be afraid of failing part b? Part b is impossible to fail if you are a half decent law grad

You’re incorrect. It is true part b is impossible to fail taking into account resits.
On first attempt, there are many who fail one subject.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Personally, I recommend you do the 4 years at NUS Law. After that, go do your BCL/LLM at oxbridge can liao. Here's why:

(1) tbh nus is as good as oxford. most of my profs were from oxford BCL/PHD anyway and teach in a similar fashion.
(2) you can get oxford profs as well when they visit - just take their intensives.
(3) exams are generally open book - why the hell you wanna memorise like mad?
(4) where is it you wanna practice? If you want to practice SG Law, don't waste 1 year for Part A and RLT - easier to just study at NUS for that additional period - heard of oxbridge people failing Part A (bless their souls).
(5) Do your BCL/LLM. you can then call yourself a oxbridge graduate as well. Can take a year off work/get firm to sponsor - life also good.

I recommend the reverse, if you can afford it. Go Oxbridge for undergrad and shoot for a FCH (it's easier than at NUS, plus it's actually possible to get good grades while having a good social life in the uk). If you really want, do an LLM at NUS (though i dont think it's worth it unless you want to practise a very technical area of law like shipping). Oxbridge grads most definitely would not lose out to NUS grads, here or anywhere else in the world. Oh, and I think most BCL/LLM(Cantab) would not refer to themselves as 'oxbridge grads', a term understood by most to be referring to someone who did undergrad at oxbridge.