Malaysian here. Don't listen the post above - law firms don't discriminate against Malaysians who graduated from local law schools, and the starting pay of B4 now is already more than the qualifying amount for EP.

My learned friend's advice is not correct. I know foreign students from NUS/SMU Law ordinarily getting called and getting TCs in Singapore law firms. There is even a foreign student (valedictorian) from SMU who became JLC. The only restriction on top of my mind is CC's TC where they explicitly admit citizens/PRs only.

There is no policy reason to restrict entry to the Bar. In fact, gahmen already filters at the university admission stage.

So, don't worry mate. Nothing to worry.

I am the poster above. Sorry, I shld have phrased it clearer - the LP(QP)R makes it clear that grads holding an OSU law degree have to be SC or SPR in order to be "qualified persons".

Non-SCs and non-SPRs (e.g. Malaysian citizens) NUS/SMU grads can be qualified persons. I agree with your point that the local law sch admissions stage functions as a filter (because how many non-SC and non-SPRs are admitted to NUS/SMU law every year, anyway?).

Taken together, these criteria can indeed be said to be expressions of a policy to limit the eligibility of "qualified persons" largely/substantially to SCs and SPRs, with a limited concession for non-SCs and non-SPRs (but if and only if they have gone through the local legal education route).

Actually for JD programs in SMU & NUS, there are many international students (more than 1 or 2) a year

s://sso.agc.gov.sg/SL/161-R15?DocDate=20171130&ProvIds=P1II-#pr5AA-

Saw this on a friend’s friend LinkedIn - I.e. what you find below is not my own and I dont take any credit for it. But it spoke to me and I could not agree more:

Adrian Tan's article on CNA appears to have escaped the attention of commentators here on LinkedIn. This silence is telling.

Perhaps we are quietly ashamed of being guilty of what Adrian identifies as ‘social comparisons and one-upmanship … dressed up as positive posts of career victories and “authentic” confessions of personal struggles’, and we cope by simply ignoring this stark indictment.

But this is an important conversation we need to have.

We live in a world obsessed with comparison and ranking. We are painfully aware that a lot of these are inauthentic, and we battle mightily against them especially when it concerns, for example, the well-being of our children. We decry the ranking of our schools, we lament the impact of academic streaming on students, and we constantly question whether examinations are holistic modes of assessments.

But when it comes to our careers, we cease our revolutionary struggle. We caw loudly when we find ourselves listed in one of the innumerable lists of Top 10, 20, 30, 40 young [insert name of profession]. We want to be recognized as (over)achievers by the cabal of so-called market researchers who feast on our belief that humble bragging is a necessary professional skill and a fundamental first step in business development.

We pat each other’s backs offering “Good work!”, “Well done!”, “Congratulations!” and other perfunctory felicitations when our connections bray about their achievements, fully aware that it is a quid pro quo, and they are expected to do to the same for us.

We tell the world how unexpected it is that we find ourselves on one of those "Top 40 under 40" lists, when in fact the worst offenders amongst us have intensely lobbied their colleagues, friends, families, and connections to help cast a vote in their favor.

If we continue to partake in this frenzy of ego-stoking behavior, this platform will slowly but surely become a repository of embellished tales, a record book of countless results of market surveys detailing the alleged “best of” and “Top” this and that, and a marketplace of manufactured identities.

Can we change this? Absolutely. Let us be authentic. Let us endeavor to only offer insights and opinions that add genuine value to conversations, whatever they may be. Let us think very carefully before using this platform merely as a trophy cabinet to show off all our achievements. Above all, let us be kind to ourselves and to our connections by not fomenting a toxic culture of one-upmanship.

Everybody loves a good comeback story, and everyone wants to root for the underdog. But if you spend your days telling others how you beat the other side, how you overcame such long odds to succeed, and how “humbled and privileged” you are for doing the job that you are paid to do, you have not spent that time making the world a better place.

P.S. The phrase “humbled and privileged” desperately needs to be outlawed, along with its cousins “thoughts and prayers” and “thought leadership”.

Speaking as a client (inhouse counsel), those Legal 500 and Chambers rankings really do factor into my decision and decision from management as to which law firms to engage or appoint to the panel.

Authenticity and genuineness do not.

That might work for high street firms servicing the man on the SBS bus, for his divorce and occasional misdemeanour.

For MNCs, I expect that the inhouse dude has an uphill task selling his bosses on why they should go with Tan Ah Kow Law Practice for their US$100m arbitration instead of a B4. The rankings really do help with BD.

If you're a PR then it's easy. No need to worry. If you're not a PR you need to apply for an exemption just to take Part B, the firm also needs to prove that they have considered other local candidates before picking you. If you're not PR you have a more difficult sell.

would like to ask, what are the main differences between litigation and corp work? uni student looking to apply for TC soon. Thanks

What’s the difference between the sun and moon? Aspiring Astronaut looking to venture into space.

There are many legal practice areas and reducing it to a corp vs liti dichotomy will not stand you in good stead when looking to apply, especially to big firms where you express interest in specific practice groups. The competition will probably be able to articulate better why they should be hired instead of you by demonstrating a deeper interest in a particular practice area apart from simply "I want to do corp work".

That said, it is not too late to start researching. Lots of resources out there. Chambers student is a good resource even though it is UK-centric, so glean the general points that are not jurisdiction specific:
://chambersstudent.co.uk/practice-areas

I often see people transfer from litigation to corp, but not the other way round.

Any reason?

Corp got less time pressure, and it is less law and more "document review" - i.e. not really legal-based. Half the time you copy past precedents and past forms to suit to your current needs. It's also easier to bill corp clients for money, so you generally can report full-hours spent.

Litigation has more time pressures due to court deadlines, and more direct "results" such as whether you win/lose, which means you get shouted at more, whereas for Corp you can coast by since the document will be reviewed 10s of times before everything is done, and can be slowly amended (most of the time). Even if you screw up, the Company hiring you might not know till 10s of years down the road, by that time you're pretty safe lol. The clients that hire you are usually arguing over money, meaning that they will not be keen to spend too much money unless you're super good. You also need to think on your feet alot more than corp (while copy-pasting skeletal structures exist, you still need to think up the relevant arguments for each individual case).

Therefore, if you're burned out, or if you're not that good a lawyer, you can go to Corp and chill out, akin to people moving in-house. Most corporate lawyers don't go to liti, because if you're burned out from Corp you definitely can't handle Liti, and you have more exit opportunities in-house anyway.

I truly marvel at how someone who clearly has no big firm experience in either corp or liti can be so delusional as to come to this forum and spout nonsense like that

Astonishingly bad take.

Is your corporate law experience from drafting wills in Chinatown firms?

Lol all the Corp Lawyers with chip on their shoulders trying to pretend their job can't be done more efficiently by bots or paralegals.

Plain and simple reality is that Corp is easier than Liti. Corp is easier to pick up and has less time pressure so people who cannot tahan Liti can still go to Corp. Of course, this is for bigger firms, for smaller firms both corp and liti are easy.

Additionally, if you're good at Corp, you have more chance to join int firms which are generally barred from conducting SG-based litigation through licensing issues in SG unless they have local partners (not that they want to do local liti anyway since the value is usually smaller than their int markets like UK US).

I see lawsociety careers listing site, almost daily there are litigation openings, but seldom on corp.

If it is true that litigation is tougher, for the same salary should I apply to do corp instead?

Most of these firms advertising on LawSoc portal are small shops doing sh*tlaw work. Most s hitlaw work is litigation. You can imagine what they pay is like and why they have trouble attracting hires...

Think about it:

the lowest end of the corp law market is simple contract drafting/review. You can charge your SME boomer client $5K for reviewing a simple SPA or franchise agreement that your associate can review in < 5 hours and you take 0.5 hrs to cursorily check. BAM, close file and bill. EzPz. Rinse n repeat.

The lowest end of liti market is doing car accident claims for taxi drivers or some stupid slip and fall claim by some boomer auntie. After 5 months of ping-pong with the defendant or insurer lawyers, countless adjournments in court, getting scolded by the judge, chased by the client for being so slow, maybe even going all the way to trial n slogging it out with trial prep, your party-and-party costs are what? $5K plus disbursements. Total joke.

My advise to junior lawyers is: if u arent good enough to join a big firm doing sophisticated corp or liti work, the only other tolerable option is to join a boutique firm doing corp/real estate. Basically some cushy transactional area.

Doing liti in sh*tlaw chinatown firm is just asking to be underpaid n miserable. Best to stay away or go in-house entirely.

Ok underpaid like how much? Can share?

Litigation is far less forgiving than corp, so if you can't survive corp you probably can't survive liti either.

While hours can be bad in both, in corp you are basically paid to structure transactions and complete legal paperwork for the client so that they can person their business activities. Client is happy if it achieves its commercial objective without falling afoul of the law.

In liti something has gone wrong, there is a dispute, and you are paid to match wits with someone on the other side who is literally looking to tear down your client and your case at every opportunity. Usually it's zero sum and only one side can win, so 50% of the time you are losing and having to explain to the client why you lost. And you have to go to court and be scolded by judges/registrars if you screw up the procedure or the law.

Just from the nature of the work alone, you can see why one is more intellectually and psychologically demanding than the other.

You will be lucky to start at $4K for a NQ bro. And don't expect $1K increments for every PQE year like the big firms. In a "bad year" and every year seems to be bad, ur boomer partner will probably tell you: sorry cant afford to pay u more. Suck thumb.

4K???? Drive grab sua

Ok la been there done that. Started out in small firm doing chapalang, from State Court claims to contracts. Went to mid size firm doing liti. Pay marginally better but boring af . I tell u, working for mid tier local firm is really the dumps. Boring local clients, boring colleagues, boring office, lame firm culture n some weirdass uptight rules. Basically, like any typical sinkie-run company.

Gtfo from there and managed to land inhouse role. I'm not paid fantastic by any means but the amount of free time to shake leg is really unbeatable man. Shiok max. Full WfH. Morning answer a few emails, usually stupid question from sales teams. Bounce some docs back n forth. Pangkang by 430pm go jio friends to drink, meet gf for dinner. Friday is unofficial half day can gym during lunch. Boss and office all slacking anw.

Tldr, slogging it out in a small or mid market local firm is really bo hua one. Same amount of grind is foisted on u without the prestige or pay of a large firm. Know what u want n never stay contented to be exploited.

Intro leh can?

I'm working at a top local liti firm, and your role still sounds amazing lol. But most inhouse work is for Corp rather than Liti, how you change one lol.

Am doing structured finance at a Magic Circle firm at the moment. Hopped over from a Big 4 2 years ago.

I think at the baseline, Liti is more demanding than Corp work. But when we are comparing Big 4 and above where the complicated structures and market leading deals come in, I wouldn’t exactly say a corporate lawyer’s life is better or easier than a litigation lawyer.

Ultimately, to each his own. The real reason why people swap more from liti to corp is because liti is really in a realm of its own, with its own customs and rules. Whereas for corporate, the barrier to entry is not as high.

Inevitably, if associates get jaded practicing court work, they usually have to transit to corporate practice before going in-house - that is another reason - whereas corporate lawyers go in-house directly.

anyone knows wither khattarwong starting salary for NQ now? right after passing part b, thanks in advance!

There’s a reason why you only ever hear of people switching from liti to corp and never the other way round. Anyone who suggests that corp is even remotely at the level of lawyering and stress and quick thinking as litigation is either someone who has never practiced or a corporate lawyer who is butthurt by reality.

Not in those areas but those in family and criminal law are especially stressed and overworked given the nature of the work and stakes involved. Very commendable work but rewards not commensurate with effort and stress.

meh, honestly if one is so affected by "stakes" etc then its not meant for you. the best lawyers i've met (even junior ones) are not easily flustered regardless of stakes

It's not as difficult to jump from liti to inhouse as most people think. Actually, moving when you're junior is better since your salary expectations are lower, so the prospect of matching their budget is higher. No matter how experienced you are as a litigator, it doesn't translate directly to relevant exp in the hirers' eyes for in-house so you're better off leaving early.

There are actually a ton of slack inhouse roles around even in good companies. Many of your friends have probably landed these roles though they would probably not broadcast the fact that they're relaxing half the time. Switching from billiable work to business support or business-as-usual role, changes the very nature of the job and its hours. Fire drills are rare, unlike private practice where you're fighting a bushfire every other Friday.

If corp is so **** then why so many people still go corp

Correction: If lit is so **** then why so many people still go liti

Lmao drop this stupid liti vs corp debate. It's as pointless as arguing about overseas vs local unis. Past a certain point, it's apples & oranges.

It's trite to everyone who's applied for TCs that there are more liti roles than corp. Corp teams are more selective, while there's an abundance of liti roles in big and small firms.

That said, I believe good litigators are born not made. At the top end, the best litigators are extremely sharp and bright with incredible mental stamina i.e. SCs and High Court judge material. If you're middling, liti is a slog, both as a junior, and as a partner struggling to build your book.

Corp has the advantage of a wealth of exit options, not merely inhouse but adjacent roles in the industries they service too. Liti is more limited.

Find what aligns with your aptitude and interests.

Sounds like you got stuck in a small firm family law practice and are trying to console yourself by putting down small firm corporate lawyers. lmfao

Imagine if a boutique corporate associate came in and started trashtalking Chinatown law firms. Equally as sad.

Not him or her, but I assume you’re not a corp lawyer at all given your clear lack of ability to notice details. He or she very clearly said he or she doesn’t do criminal or family work, making it close to impossible that he or she is in a small Chinatown law firm which necessarily dabbles if not specializes in that.

Geez. The standards nowadays.

Because everything you read on the net is the truth and taken at face value?

Incoming butthurt litigation lawyers who can never make it into Magic Circle or White Shoe firms.

Who gets paid more liti or corp lawyers?

Corp by and large.

But if you make it to SC-level, then liti (but then again, corp global heads / managing partners make serious bank at that level too and might still earn more).

From what I've gathered from this forum, what good is liti if it has less pay + more stress lmao