Salary.sg Forums

Salary.sg Forums (https://forums.salary.sg/)
-   Income and Jobs (https://forums.salary.sg/income-jobs/)
-   -   Lawyer Salary (https://forums.salary.sg/income-jobs/771-lawyer-salary.html)

Unregistered 25-05-2022 08:56 AM

Anybody moved from litigation to corp?
Was it difficult to adapt?
Did you switch in the same firm or went to a different firm? Why



I notice seldom people moved from corp to litigation. Any reasons?

Unregistered 25-05-2022 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 218986)
why you say smu never say nus. nus also global search. that one even funnier.

I pity whoever is the new NUS dean. Tiagong from inside politics very jialat. The current dean announce so many new stuff but the poor fellow who has to implement is the next dean.

Unregistered 25-05-2022 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219025)
Anybody moved from litigation to corp?
Was it difficult to adapt?
Did you switch in the same firm or went to a different firm? Why



I notice seldom people moved from corp to litigation. Any reasons?

Bump. Any insights as to the first question? Looking to make the jump too.

To answer the second question, I think the main reason is the rigour in terms of hard law required. Atleast that’s my opinion. Of course there is also the toll of the adversarial nature/court procedure that invariably comes with litigation but that can also be said of corp imo. Just of a slightly different form. Please critique and share your thoughts on this too, if any.

Unregistered 25-05-2022 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 218953)
Basically 'eat what you kill' litigation is dying. It may not look like it now but the pie is being reduced greatly.

There will still be SCs and top B4 teams monopolizing bet-the-company litigation but for the mid tier and run-of-the-mill litigators, good luck.

This area of practice is only going to be viable if you're a litigator servicing a particular industry with a steady stream of mandates from industry clients, such as insolvency, shipping, insurance, debt recovery and occasional defense of banks. But these are hardly the best paying matters due to institutional client cost-consciousness.

I'm the person you quoted and I concur with your post absolutely. The pie is already shrinking in late 2000s and with the judiciary introducing measures that essentially remove lawyers from the disputes, there will be many casualties in the coming years. I am guessing the first few to go will be you "specialist" family law firms that rely on volume (at the expense of billing lower fees). Future divorcing millennials will be savvy enough to Google all the court procedures that are easily available on the website and proceed on an uncontested basis to save costs.

Only criminal litigation will still be "alive" because most Accuseds will prefer a lawyer to defend them, rather than defend themselves as they may be intimidated by adversarial criminal proceedings.

That said, I think corporate is looking bleak too with advancement of AI being intelligent enough to draft simple SPAs, STAs, etc. Oh well, boomers and Gen X practitioners have already taken generous chunks of the pie and only the crumbs are left for millennial and zoomer practitioners.

Unregistered 25-05-2022 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219098)
I'm the person you quoted and I concur with your post absolutely. The pie is already shrinking in late 2000s and with the judiciary introducing measures that essentially remove lawyers from the disputes, there will be many casualties in the coming years. I am guessing the first few to go will be you "specialist" family law firms that rely on volume (at the expense of billing lower fees). Future divorcing millennials will be savvy enough to Google all the court procedures that are easily available on the website and proceed on an uncontested basis to save costs.

Only criminal litigation will still be "alive" because most Accuseds will prefer a lawyer to defend them, rather than defend themselves as they may be intimidated by adversarial criminal proceedings.

That said, I think corporate is looking bleak too with advancement of AI being intelligent enough to draft simple SPAs, STAs, etc. Oh well, boomers and Gen X practitioners have already taken generous chunks of the pie and only the crumbs are left for millennial and zoomer practitioners.


I don’t you’re in this industry or even if you are, probably one of the slacking ones in a sh*t town. Any lawyers who simply uses an AI/Practical Law-drafted document will get fired anytime soon. None of these transactions are the same and that is why lawyers are hired to review and to flag out the issues. I suggest you go read more in-depth, rather than just relying only headlines of those paid subscriptions that go “will corporate lawyers be replaced by AIs soon?”

Unregistered 25-05-2022 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219025)
Anybody moved from litigation to corp?
Was it difficult to adapt?
Did you switch in the same firm or went to a different firm? Why



I notice seldom people moved from corp to litigation. Any reasons?

I moved from liti to corp quite early on (during TC) so not difficult to adapt.

The nature of work is quite different - far less research, more about finding the right precedent documents. The type of 'drafting' is also quite different. Both, however, require good high-level oversight as well as attention to detail.

You should always try and switch within the firm, before looking elsewhere. Due to firm politics it might not be possible, but you'll never know if you don't ask.

Corp is more generalist, while liti is specialised, so it's easier to switch from a specialised field into a general field. It's difficult to switch the other way round.

Having said that, there are far more opportunities as a corp lawyer (international firms, in house roles, and even roles outside the law). The skills you pick up as a litigator are not very transferable.

The only reasons you'd choose liti over corp is if you truly love the nature of work, or if you are gunning for equity partnership at a local/B4 firm (it's arguably easier than corp departments). Liti is also probably also more recession-proof.

Unregistered 25-05-2022 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219098)
I'm the person you quoted and I concur with your post absolutely. The pie is already shrinking in late 2000s and with the judiciary introducing measures that essentially remove lawyers from the disputes, there will be many casualties in the coming years. I am guessing the first few to go will be you "specialist" family law firms that rely on volume (at the expense of billing lower fees). Future divorcing millennials will be savvy enough to Google all the court procedures that are easily available on the website and proceed on an uncontested basis to save costs.

Only criminal litigation will still be "alive" because most Accuseds will prefer a lawyer to defend them, rather than defend themselves as they may be intimidated by adversarial criminal proceedings.

You must be from a Chinatown law firm since your view of litigation consists only of family and criminal law. There is a still a big demand for commercial litigators who deal with complex multi-million-dollar disputes for corporate clients.

I guess if you are doing brainless low-level work that can be easily Googled or automated away, then yes, you better start looking for other career options.

Unregistered 26-05-2022 07:03 AM

Am I the only one sickened and nauseated by the many humble-brag and false modesty posts lawyers and law firms have put up over the past day from being nominated or winning awards that in all likelihood they had their clients put them up for? Geez.

Unregistered 26-05-2022 09:51 AM

PSC vs Commercial practice
 
Any opinions on PSC (Legal), studying locally, versus commercial practice in a law firm? Which should I take up? In terms of remuneration, working hours, work life balance etc.

Any idea if Legal Service would be upping their salaries to compete with the law firms?

Unregistered 26-05-2022 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219140)
You must be from a Chinatown law firm since your view of litigation consists only of family and criminal law. There is a still a big demand for commercial litigators who deal with complex multi-million-dollar disputes for corporate clients.

I guess if you are doing brainless low-level work that can be easily Googled or automated away, then yes, you better start looking for other career options.

Sorry to burst your head-in-the-clouds bubble, but the bulk of local litigation is made up of cases *other* than complex multi-million dollar disputes. Even commercial litigation. We are looking at sub-SGD $10M disputes between local corporates and SMEs, or between HNWs. That's the 'middle and working class strata' of the litigation world. If that pie shrinks to unviability, the litigation sector in Singapore is pretty much finished.

The Big4 and DSC teams have their own problems being squeezed from int'l arbi by the foreign firms.

If you can't see a problem with hollowing out of the existing pool of local litigators and inability to replenish the next gen of litigators because there's no market for it, then you need to come down from your ivory tower. Access to justice is very important not only to the common man, but the typical Singapore local corporate.

I have no skin in this as I'm in-house counsel and we regularly instruct a variety of firms on the corporate panel. Cost control is my priority. Most of our disputes are not bet the company type, and even if we instruct B4, we push their rates down to mid-tier levels because we're not paying SC rates to deal with a simple $2M performance bond case.

Unregistered 26-05-2022 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219128)
I moved from liti to corp quite early on (during TC) so not difficult to adapt.

The nature of work is quite different - far less research, more about finding the right precedent documents. The type of 'drafting' is also quite different. Both, however, require good high-level oversight as well as attention to detail.

You should always try and switch within the firm, before looking elsewhere. Due to firm politics it might not be possible, but you'll never know if you don't ask.

Corp is more generalist, while liti is specialised, so it's easier to switch from a specialised field into a general field. It's difficult to switch the other way round.

Having said that, there are far more opportunities as a corp lawyer (international firms, in house roles, and even roles outside the law). The skills you pick up as a litigator are not very transferable.

The only reasons you'd choose liti over corp is if you truly love the nature of work, or if you are gunning for equity partnership at a local/B4 firm (it's arguably easier than corp departments). Liti is also probably also more recession-proof.

Thanks for the insight. Just a follow up - any reason why one should seek internal transfer before looking else where?

Unregistered 26-05-2022 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219170)
If you can't see a problem with hollowing out of the existing pool of local litigators and inability to replenish the next gen of litigators because there's no market for it, then you need to come down from your ivory tower. Access to justice is very important not only to the common man, but the typical Singapore local corporate.

I have no skin in this as I'm in-house counsel and we regularly instruct a variety of firms on the corporate panel. Cost control is my priority. Most of our disputes are not bet the company type, and even if we instruct B4, we push their rates down to mid-tier levels because we're not paying SC rates to deal with a simple $2M performance bond case.

If there is "no market" for a service like you claim, or if the market refuses to pay the fees that the workers who are capable of doing those jobs wish to charge, then those workers *should* switch jobs to where their services are more highly valued. That's exactly how the free market is supposed to work, so where's the problem?

If this means that the litigation industry is hollowed out at the mid to low-end, then so be it. It simply means that litigation is an economically inefficient way of resolving low-value disputes, and it is right that society as whole should find cheaper ways to deal with such disputes (e.g. mediation, less reliance on adversarial procedures), which is exactly what the govt is trying to do.

Unregistered 26-05-2022 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219170)
Sorry to burst your head-in-the-clouds bubble, but the bulk of local litigation is made up of cases *other* than complex multi-million dollar disputes. Even commercial litigation. We are looking at sub-SGD $10M disputes between local corporates and SMEs, or between HNWs. That's the 'middle and working class strata' of the litigation world. If that pie shrinks to unviability, the litigation sector in Singapore is pretty much finished.

The Big4 and DSC teams have their own problems being squeezed from int'l arbi by the foreign firms.

If you can't see a problem with hollowing out of the existing pool of local litigators and inability to replenish the next gen of litigators because there's no market for it, then you need to come down from your ivory tower. Access to justice is very important not only to the common man, but the typical Singapore local corporate.

I have no skin in this as I'm in-house counsel and we regularly instruct a variety of firms on the corporate panel. Cost control is my priority. Most of our disputes are not bet the company type, and even if we instruct B4, we push their rates down to mid-tier levels because we're not paying SC rates to deal with a simple $2M performance bond case.


I work for a "shitty chinatown law firm".

Most of my clients are local SMEs who need lawyers to assist with smaller cases. I'm talking about disputes in the range of $10k to $5mil. There is a big market for lawyers who are willing to take up these cases.

These clients can't afford/don't want to pay B4 fees for non complex litigation. In the event the dispute becomes more complex than we can handle halfway through, we have contacts with lawyers in all the B4 firms whom we regularly pass cases on to.

Yes, you can't bill as much for these cases.

Yes, salaries cannot compare to B4 salaries.

But generally speaking, most of us who choose this life choose it becuase of the good hours, nice people, decent money, the ability to choose clients and also i think the ability to dictate your life as you wish - there is a certain value to being able to dress as you wish (and not be judged), to come in late (and not get **** for it), to leave office to run errands when you need to (and not have seccys bitching), to take leave/long leave when you need to (without feeling guilty) and to generally have a life outside of work.

Mind you, most of us accept that the we will never be rich or famous or have many reported cases... but i think most of us also believe that we are giving good value-for-money services to clients to who need it.

Anyways. Life.

Unregistered 26-05-2022 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219228)
I work for a "shitty chinatown law firm".

Most of my clients are local SMEs who need lawyers to assist with smaller cases. I'm talking about disputes in the range of $10k to $5mil. There is a big market for lawyers who are willing to take up these cases.

These clients can't afford/don't want to pay B4 fees for non complex litigation. In the event the dispute becomes more complex than we can handle halfway through, we have contacts with lawyers in all the B4 firms whom we regularly pass cases on to.

Yes, you can't bill as much for these cases.

Yes, salaries cannot compare to B4 salaries.

But generally speaking, most of us who choose this life choose it becuase of the good hours, nice people, decent money, the ability to choose clients and also i think the ability to dictate your life as you wish - there is a certain value to being able to dress as you wish (and not be judged), to come in late (and not get **** for it), to leave office to run errands when you need to (and not have seccys bitching), to take leave/long leave when you need to (without feeling guilty) and to generally have a life outside of work.

Mind you, most of us accept that the we will never be rich or famous or have many reported cases... but i think most of us also believe that we are giving good value-for-money services to clients to who need it.

Anyways. Life.

I think the above applies if you have little to no financial obligations. If you have ailing parents, or kids with special needs, for heck you will choose this cushy chinatown office job.

I work in B4 and I know some who have very heavy financial burdens - they have no choice but to stay because of the pay. Yes, the toxicity is there but this is the price they are willing to foot to get the money for their family or loved ones.

I have a colleague whose family is involved in a legal battle and they need money. You think she likes to work in B4? Puiii! But in this world, 99% of the things can be solved with money and there is no choice.

So yeah... not all B4 people are mercenary jerks. Some do it because they have no other choices, nor do they have rich fathers to provide strong financial support

Unregistered 27-05-2022 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219188)
Thanks for the insight. Just a follow up - any reason why one should seek internal transfer before looking else where?

Just a bunch of practical reasons:
(i) Less disruptive to your CV, which is important if you want to apply elsewhere - recruiters / firms don't like it if you move firms too frequently.
(ii) Less likely to have to deal with the silliness that sometimes comes with changing firms, e.g. probation periods, bonus getting pro-rated / docked, pay getting docked, your PQE level taking a hit etc.
(iii) Easier to adept, as you already know your colleagues, the wider firm culture, the tech and admin aspects.

No harm in seeking other firms concurrently, just that all else remaining equal I would always choose an internal transfer.

Unregistered 27-05-2022 08:03 AM

in house
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219015)
Those who went in house from private practice do you regret it?

yes, you should explore and look. a few years for me already and making more than would have made in practice. look hard and long for perfect role

Unregistered 27-05-2022 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219294)
Just a bunch of practical reasons:
(i) Less disruptive to your CV, which is important if you want to apply elsewhere - recruiters / firms don't like it if you move firms too frequently.
(ii) Less likely to have to deal with the silliness that sometimes comes with changing firms, e.g. probation periods, bonus getting pro-rated / docked, pay getting docked, your PQE level taking a hit etc.
(iii) Easier to adept, as you already know your colleagues, the wider firm culture, the tech and admin aspects.

No harm in seeking other firms concurrently, just that all else remaining equal I would always choose an internal transfer.

For internal transfers, do you apply directly to the partner of the other team or go through HR? Most HRs I know are quite bureaucratical and do not like helping in such things.

Unregistered 27-05-2022 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219342)
For internal transfers, do you apply directly to the partner of the other team or go through HR? Most HRs I know are quite bureaucratical and do not like helping in such things.

They don't help because they cant. Which HR will dare to step on a partner's toe by facilitating the poaching of an associate to another team?

HR are powerless in law firms. In fact, think of most law firms as a collection of fiefdoms ruled by various bigshot EPs and their right hand men/women, and youll get the organisational picture as a starting point

Unregistered 27-05-2022 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219170)
Sorry to burst your head-in-the-clouds bubble, but the bulk of local litigation is made up of cases *other* than complex multi-million dollar disputes. Even commercial litigation. We are looking at sub-SGD $10M disputes between local corporates and SMEs, or between HNWs. That's the 'middle and working class strata' of the litigation world. If that pie shrinks to unviability, the litigation sector in Singapore is pretty much finished.

The Big4 and DSC teams have their own problems being squeezed from int'l arbi by the foreign firms.

If you can't see a problem with hollowing out of the existing pool of local litigators and inability to replenish the next gen of litigators because there's no market for it, then you need to come down from your ivory tower. Access to justice is very important not only to the common man, but the typical Singapore local corporate.

I have no skin in this as I'm in-house counsel and we regularly instruct a variety of firms on the corporate panel. Cost control is my priority. Most of our disputes are not bet the company type, and even if we instruct B4, we push their rates down to mid-tier levels because we're not paying SC rates to deal with a simple $2M performance bond case.

Exactly. Have a candid talk to any commercial litigation partner in the B4 and they will say the future is bleak for commercial litigators when MNCs will rather pick their compatriots to represent them in international arbitration than the B4. No matter how globalised the world is, tribalism is still a thing. Those who still think there is a hot demand for "complex commercial litigation" are clearly not in the industry themselves. Or trolls.

Unregistered 27-05-2022 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219228)
I work for a "shitty chinatown law firm".

Most of my clients are local SMEs who need lawyers to assist with smaller cases. I'm talking about disputes in the range of $10k to $5mil. There is a big market for lawyers who are willing to take up these cases.

These clients can't afford/don't want to pay B4 fees for non complex litigation. In the event the dispute becomes more complex than we can handle halfway through, we have contacts with lawyers in all the B4 firms whom we regularly pass cases on to.

Yes, you can't bill as much for these cases.

Yes, salaries cannot compare to B4 salaries.

But generally speaking, most of us who choose this life choose it becuase of the good hours, nice people, decent money, the ability to choose clients and also i think the ability to dictate your life as you wish - there is a certain value to being able to dress as you wish (and not be judged), to come in late (and not get **** for it), to leave office to run errands when you need to (and not have seccys bitching), to take leave/long leave when you need to (without feeling guilty) and to generally have a life outside of work.

Mind you, most of us accept that the we will never be rich or famous or have many reported cases... but i think most of us also believe that we are giving good value-for-money services to clients to who need it.

Anyways. Life.

Hear hear. Legal practice is not an efficient way to be rich anyways. And famous? You aren't going to be famous just because you are an excellent commercial litigator, the masses only care about sensational criminal cases. If you really want to be famous, you should consider picking up LASCO cases and hope that your arguments will convince the judges not to sentence your client to death, then you be famous.

It is already telling when one of the youngest lawyers to be made SC has made a mid-career switch to be a JC in the Supreme Court and now a HCJ.

Unregistered 27-05-2022 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219170)
Sorry to burst your head-in-the-clouds bubble, but the bulk of local litigation is made up of cases *other* than complex multi-million dollar disputes. Even commercial litigation. We are looking at sub-SGD $10M disputes between local corporates and SMEs, or between HNWs. That's the 'middle and working class strata' of the litigation world. If that pie shrinks to unviability, the litigation sector in Singapore is pretty much finished.

The Big4 and DSC teams have their own problems being squeezed from int'l arbi by the foreign firms.

If you can't see a problem with hollowing out of the existing pool of local litigators and inability to replenish the next gen of litigators because there's no market for it, then you need to come down from your ivory tower. Access to justice is very important not only to the common man, but the typical Singapore local corporate.

I have no skin in this as I'm in-house counsel and we regularly instruct a variety of firms on the corporate panel. Cost control is my priority. Most of our disputes are not bet the company type, and even if we instruct B4, we push their rates down to mid-tier levels because we're not paying SC rates to deal with a simple $2M performance bond case.

With the Courts aggressively pushing ADR to litigants, it will affect all levels of litigation regardless of its complexity. Your client may be a good client but they will take up ADR if they can avoid paying more legal costs. It won't be surprising if the judiciary will impose a "hard cap" on legal costs for even complex multi-million dollar disputes like what they did with NIMA/PIMA.

Unregistered 27-05-2022 06:42 PM

I laughed when I saw the small pp energy of posters here flexing on "Chinatown law firms". I left the industry after 7-8 years of practice and was not from one myself, but hey, you do you. But let us see, a SC decides to join the judiciary despite being one of the top commercial litigators in Singapore and another fiery litigating SC's law firm merged with an American multinational corporation law firm, it is safe to say that things aren't going too well for litigation of all complexities. And lest we forget, the litigators who are jumping at any opportunity to be a corporate legal counsel. But continue thinking that only Chinatown law firms are affected while others already saw the ship sinking and are taking the first lifeboat out.

Unregistered 27-05-2022 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219405)
I laughed when I saw the small pp energy of posters here flexing on "Chinatown law firms". I left the industry after 7-8 years of practice and was not from one myself, but hey, you do you. But let us see, a SC decides to join the judiciary despite being one of the top commercial litigators in Singapore and another fiery litigating SC's law firm merged with an American multinational corporation law firm, it is safe to say that things aren't going too well for litigation of all complexities. And lest we forget, the litigators who are jumping at any opportunity to be a corporate legal counsel. But continue thinking that only Chinatown law firms are affected while others already saw the ship sinking and are taking the first lifeboat out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219405)
I laughed when I saw the small pp energy of posters here flexing on "Chinatown law firms". I left the industry after 7-8 years of practice and was not from one myself, but hey, you do you. But let us see, a SC decides to join the judiciary despite being one of the top commercial litigators in Singapore and another fiery litigating SC's law firm merged with an American multinational corporation law firm, it is safe to say that things aren't going too well for litigation of all complexities. And lest we forget, the litigators who are jumping at any opportunity to be a corporate legal counsel. But continue thinking that only Chinatown law firms are affected while others already saw the ship sinking and are taking the first lifeboat out.

Lol, I love it when people don't know what they are talking about but act like they do (not only this poster but the preceding posters talking about litigation "dying" as well). Litigation is an evergreen industry in SG. Both the amount of cases and the average quantum involved in SG has been trending upwards for quite some time, so I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, there's been an upwards tick towards arbitration, but you do realise that the top liti teams usually also do arbitration right? Or at least have another team doing arbitration that they push the work to.

In terms of the two SCs you mentioned.... You do realise that SCs joining the Judiciary is almost like a rite of passage? They have to do it so that they can call in favours in the future, not to mention build their resume for Tribunal work in arbitration. Most SCs dun stay in the judiciary longer than the fixed two-year term for Judicial Commissioners (specifically because they earn too much in private practice to continue staying). They aren't doing Judiciary work because they can't make a living in private practice (as you are implying).

Additionally, merging with large law firms is just good marketing, and also highlights that the SC's firm is profitable enough to bring him in as a global partner.

Also, you speak of litigators jumping to go in-house as though it proves anything, when it's just a general trend in every practice area. Most lawyers want to have work-life balance which is easier to find as in-house Counsel (not because they earn less or can't find work).

Are you an ex-litigator who couldn't cut it, so you now feel the need to act like you left because the industry was dying?

Unregistered 28-05-2022 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219424)
Additionally, merging with large law firms is just good marketing, and also highlights that the SC's firm is profitable enough to bring him in as a global partner.

Who is the SC that joined the US firm?

Unregistered 28-05-2022 12:29 PM

I think someone posted before that legal academia requires so much more sacrifice than just going straight into practice.

For this, it’s very easy to assess.
If you’re from branded universities, like your Oxbridge and Harvard, your trajectory in academia will be much more luminous than say someone with just local degrees.

If you are from local universities might be better to go straight into practice.

Academia is reserved for the very top but the very top inside also have no sure or guaranteed path of success. Now also need PhD. Not like 20-30 years ago a branded masters can get you quite far.

Unregistered 28-05-2022 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219168)
Any opinions on PSC (Legal), studying locally, versus commercial practice in a law firm? Which should I take up? In terms of remuneration, working hours, work life balance etc.

Any idea if Legal Service would be upping their salaries to compete with the law firms?

If PSC (Legal) scholarship does not allow you to go oxbridge, i think forget it. Means when you join legal service, you’ll fight with ur PSC oxbridge peers. Won’t be a good fight

Unregistered 28-05-2022 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219466)
If PSC (Legal) scholarship does not allow you to go oxbridge, i think forget it. Means when you join legal service, you’ll fight with ur PSC oxbridge peers. Won’t be a good fight

I guess the draw for OP is a guaranteed job in the SLS after graduation and no need to compete for a TC. Of course whether that's a good career move or not is up for debate.

Unregistered 28-05-2022 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219168)
Any opinions on PSC (Legal), studying locally, versus commercial practice in a law firm? Which should I take up? In terms of remuneration, working hours, work life balance etc.

Any idea if Legal Service would be upping their salaries to compete with the law firms?

If money is what you want then you should not apply PSC. Get into a top UK law school and work in a MC firm in London thereafter.

Another factor that should be considered is your interests in public law v corporate law/commercial litigation. Applying the PSC Scholarship means you will be bonded to do the former for a few years.

Unregistered 28-05-2022 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219424)
Lol, I love it when people don't know what they are talking about but act like they do (not only this poster but the preceding posters talking about litigation "dying" as well). Litigation is an evergreen industry in SG. Both the amount of cases and the average quantum involved in SG has been trending upwards for quite some time, so I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, there's been an upwards tick towards arbitration, but you do realise that the top liti teams usually also do arbitration right? Or at least have another team doing arbitration that they push the work to.

In terms of the two SCs you mentioned.... You do realise that SCs joining the Judiciary is almost like a rite of passage? They have to do it so that they can call in favours in the future, not to mention build their resume for Tribunal work in arbitration. Most SCs dun stay in the judiciary longer than the fixed two-year term for Judicial Commissioners (specifically because they earn too much in private practice to continue staying). They aren't doing Judiciary work because they can't make a living in private practice (as you are implying).

Additionally, merging with large law firms is just good marketing, and also highlights that the SC's firm is profitable enough to bring him in as a global partner.

Also, you speak of litigators jumping to go in-house as though it proves anything, when it's just a general trend in every practice area. Most lawyers want to have work-life balance which is easier to find as in-house Counsel (not because they earn less or can't find work).

Are you an ex-litigator who couldn't cut it, so you now feel the need to act like you left because the industry was dying?

Couple of misconceptions here:

Most of the SCs who join the judiciary eventually stay there for years, if not until they retire. The ones who have left after a JC term in recent years were the non-liti folks (eg Edmund Leow, Lee Kim Shin). So no, joining the courts is not about building the CV for tribunal work or to call in favours. It's usually a one-way street.

There has also been some talk in the market that some of the SCs who had recently joined the Courts did so because their books of business were waning, but this is purely hearsay.

It is true that there will always be demand for litigation, and there will always be the top end of the market to grab for the top tier folks. But there are a few features of being a disputes lawyer that make it "bo hua" for most people:

1. Mid to high level disputes work is very time consuming and mentally taxing, while at the same time requiring alot of detailed work and project management as well. Unlike in corp or transactional practice areas, you can't substantially rely on precedents, and you often have to relearn everything for every file. While corp life is not a bed of roses as well, and comparing on an apples to apples basis, life as a disputes lawyer is generally speaking, not as good, especially when you take into account the contentious/argumentative nature of the work. The work done for a $10m dispute can arguably even be more intensive than a $100m transaction because of the contentious nature of disputes.

2. Disputes work, at least at the higher end, is quite credentialist, more so than in non-contentious practices. Your lack of a FCH or the fact you are from a "lesser" uni will work against you more than in the non-contentious practices.

3. At the assoc level, your ability to move into high paying intl firms is very much less than your corp peers. See recent years where all of the b4 corp depts have been depleted by intl firms - not so for disputes. You are also arguably at a disadvantage for most of the best inhouse roles as well, because these typically prefer corp or reg experience.

4. At the partner level, previous posters have highlighted the squeeze in fees at the lower to mid end work, as well as the fact that you are being squeezed by intl firms at the higher end for arb work. Also, if you are keen on higher end work, disputes is a "superstar" centric practice area, i.e. all the big work naturally gravitates to the SCs, so as a junior partner in a bigger firm, it may be very difficult to build a good book or even be first chair, especially as most of the SCs will be sticking around for a long time. I think for corp this is less of an issue, as there is less pressure to be the "lead" counsel on transactions.

Unregistered 28-05-2022 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219463)
I think someone posted before that legal academia requires so much more sacrifice than just going straight into practice.

For this, it’s very easy to assess.
If you’re from branded universities, like your Oxbridge and Harvard, your trajectory in academia will be much more luminous than say someone with just local degrees.

If you are from local universities might be better to go straight into practice.

Academia is reserved for the very top but the very top inside also have no sure or guaranteed path of success. Now also need PhD. Not like 20-30 years ago a branded masters can get you quite far.

“legal academia requires so much more sacrifice than just going straight into practice.”

Hahahhahahahahahha. That’s all I need to say in response to the absurd suggestion.

Unregistered 28-05-2022 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219491)
“legal academia requires so much more sacrifice than just going straight into practice.”

Hahahhahahahahahha. That’s all I need to say in response to the absurd suggestion.

The truth is some academics are better off being in practice.

Unregistered 28-05-2022 06:51 PM

Given that disputes works is so tough to move compared to corp lawyers

Anybody managed to move into international firm doing corp?

or

In-house roles from disputes ?

Unregistered 28-05-2022 08:11 PM

I find mediation a very risky trade for lawyers to do.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to be a mediator.
So why are lawyers still doing mediation?

Unregistered 28-05-2022 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219501)
Given that disputes works is so tough to move compared to corp lawyers

Anybody managed to move into international firm doing corp?

or

In-house roles from disputes ?


Tons of disputes lawyers move in-house every year, even those from small firms. If you don't like disputes, you will quickly figure out that moving in-house is your best bet career-wise, especially if you don't wanna start from ground zero again in corporate.

It goes without saying that the average corp lawyer finds it much easier to move in-house than a litigator. But if you're willing to go for less sexy or prestigious companies and industries and use it as a stepping stone. it's not difficult at all to transit from disputes to in-house.

Unregistered 28-05-2022 10:02 PM

But what is so unattractive about being a disputes lawyer versus a corp lawyer?

I always see litigation lawyers openings but seldom corp lawyers openings on jobs portal.

Unregistered 28-05-2022 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219520)
But what is so unattractive about being a disputes lawyer versus a corp lawyer?

I always see litigation lawyers openings but seldom corp lawyers openings on jobs portal.

This means that liti work is booming, and corp work is drying up!

Unregistered 28-05-2022 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219520)
But what is so unattractive about being a disputes lawyer versus a corp lawyer?

I always see litigation lawyers openings but seldom corp lawyers openings on jobs portal.

1. there are lots more disputes than corporate deals happening on a yearly basis. kacang puteh law firms are always doing kacang puteh lawsuits for kacang puteh clients.

even if kacang puteh clients enter into a kacang puteh transaction, they may even choose to forgo a lawyer and copy-and-paste internet precedents cos they think its a straightforward transaction...until sh_t hits the fan...and then they hire kacang puteh litigators to sort out their dispute.

2. the churn is greater in litigation since it is so sh_t.

Unregistered 29-05-2022 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219511)
I find mediation a very risky trade for lawyers to do.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to be a mediator.
So why are lawyers still doing mediation?

need lawyer to advise on propsects of successs if mediation fails
and advise what is the worse case best case so medication settlmenet can work within range

Unregistered 29-05-2022 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219526)
1. there are lots more disputes than corporate deals happening on a yearly basis. kacang puteh law firms are always doing kacang puteh lawsuits for kacang puteh clients.

even if kacang puteh clients enter into a kacang puteh transaction, they may even choose to forgo a lawyer and copy-and-paste internet precedents cos they think its a straightforward transaction...until sh_t hits the fan...and then they hire kacang puteh litigators to sort out their dispute.

2. the churn is greater in litigation since it is so sh_t.


is litigation really that bad? I am a law student. if liti is so sh-t then why would people still choose liti?

Unregistered 29-05-2022 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered (Post 219532)
need lawyer to advise on propsects of successs if mediation fails
and advise what is the worse case best case so medication settlmenet can work within range

That is mediation advocate not mediator


All times are GMT +8. The time now is 09:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2