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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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?” |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
(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. |
in house
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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:
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Hahahhahahahahahha. That’s all I need to say in response to the absurd suggestion. |
Quote:
|
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 ? |
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? |
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
and advise what is the worse case best case so medication settlmenet can work within range |
Quote:
is litigation really that bad? I am a law student. if liti is so sh-t then why would people still choose liti? |
Quote:
|
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