I spoke in relation to A&G, but wouldn't necessarily say the same for the other B4 and smaller firms (although I suspect WongP is likely in a similar albeit slightly weaker position as A&G).

While it is true that Singapore's financial sector may not be large enough to support a large amount of corporate lawyers or big players in the market, SG law is still very protectionist in terms of (i) regulation and (ii) number of government and government linked clients who will engage local firms 'no matter what'. I don't really see this changing any time soon, so I don't think A&G / WP are in any danger of losing their business to international law firms (who, as I mentioned, I don't think will undercut B4).

Looking to other jurisdictions, I'm conscious that Australia is still run by a mix of Aus firms and Aus / UK JV firms at the top end, while Hong Kong is entirely dominated by UK / USA firms. The question is whether SG will go the way of Aus or HK...

TLDR: I agree with you re the smaller firms, but still think A&G and WP will be fine and profitable because of the protectionist nature of the SG legal industry, and because local firms will 'always' quote lower fees than MC / intnl firms.

The pie is not quite as you describe. You can think of the market for transactional work in Singapore as split into three flavours: (1) a multi-jurisdictional transaction whose main governing law or jurisdictional nexus is not SG but may have a small SG nexus, (2) a multi-jurisdictional transaction whose main governing law or jurisdictional nexus is SG and (3) a purely SG transaction, big or small. In turn:

(1) - The main limiting factor for SG firms here is that they only do SG law work. As such, their only role in such transactions is to be SG local counsel, and the fees for such work are quite small. The international firms are obviously equipped to be lead transaction counsel on such matters (and these files are where the crazy fees come from - think 10 mil+ in fees), and they are basically just competing among themselves for these mandates.

And even on the local SG counsel point, in the past 15-20 years or so, many international firms have come into the local market, have hired many of (and imo the most capable) locally trained SG associates and they are now more than able to handle SG local counsel work. And I think you would be surprised to know that B4 and international firm quotes for local SG counsel work are actually very close, and the international firms are getting a bigger and bigger share of this pie as time goes on. Hence there is quite a bit of squeeze on the local firms for SG local counsel work under (1).

That being said, local counsel work is a steady but comparatively minor revenue stream for B4 or international. What these firms want and need are major multi-jurisdictional files (think billables in excess of a million SGD minimum) where they are leading transaction counsel, which brings us to (2).

(2) - Some of the corporate teams in the local firms are equipped to handle this type of work, and there is a delicate balance between WP and AG and the international firms in this category. It's probably about 50-50 where it's an international or local firm running the show, but the thing about this category of work is that there really isn't very much of it, mainly because SG law is still not favored on the international stage for major transactions. I am optimistic this might change in the future, but this is the current reality.

(3) - The big deals in this category go to WP or AG and the rest of the corp firms pretty much just get the bottom feeder stuff, with an occasional bone being thrown to R&T or SLB. There really isn't any way for the international firms to get in here because this is the true bread and butter of local firms and their quotes are waaaay too low. The international firms simply cant compete with the sweat shops for this work because they actually want to pay their associates fairly.

So from the above, you can see that the local firms and international setups are really not in direct competition most of the time, except for SG counsel work under (1) and (2), which are not really big pies to begin with. The pie is getting significantly bigger in general for (1) in recent years, but the local firms really have no way of vying for the increased work because they are limited to SG law.

This is really insightful thanks! So safe to say that if you want to lateral over into international firms, the best bet is to start in A&G or WP corp? And also try to get E&W or NY qualified?

Don't need so many steps, just go to any large corp dpt can liao.

Yes start in WP / AG. The rest of the local firms are tier 2 to the international firms where their corp depts are concerned.

For foreign qualification, it is less important. Only specific firms who do specific niche areas of work care about it, and even then they are usually more than willing to hire you and then sponsor your bar fees if do well enough in the interviews.

Is blackoak a good firm if I wanna do R&I?

I noticed frm their website that many of their assocs in the photos are no longer around. I s their turnover high?

Its a very good firm. Those associates you are referring to all moved on to better positions.

question about the grading system between nus and smu
 

hi guys

recently matriculated into smu but most of my friends went into nus

just a question about how to convert smu grading system into the nus one? what's the nus equivalent of Summa Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, Cum Laude, etc. Thanks!

There is no direct conversion since SMU uses a different grading system. The best estimate would therefore be by way of percentiles. In recent years, the top 10% in SMU are summas and so a Summa from SMU = FCH at NUS. The next 20% or so obtain Magna and thus all Magnas would fall under the percentile of those in NUS getting a Second Upper. The next 40% or so at SMU obtain a cum laude, which can be mapped also to a Second Upper. The remaining 30% obtain Merit or High Merit, which I suppose is equivalent to a Second Lower.

The above is just a rough estimate now and may very well vary due to grade inflation/deflation. Another factor that some may consider is the relative standing of SMU vs. NUS since they perceive NUS to be better.

There is no direct way of converting since SMU uses a different grading system. The best estimate would therefore be by way of percentiles.

Currently, the top 10% at SMU are Summas and so a Summa from SMU = FCH at NUS. The next 20% or so obtain a Magna, and this falls within those getting a Second Upper at NUS. Another 40% or so obtain a Cum Laude, which also falls within those getting a Second Upper at NUS.

The remaining 30% or so are awarded a Merit or High Merit which I suppose is equivalent to a Second Lower. Anything lower than a Merit (GPA 3.0/4.0) disqualifies the person from being admitted to the Bar.

The above is just a rough estimate, and may vary due to grade inflation/deflation. Another factor that some may consider is the relative standing of SMU vs. NUS.

there should be a way to call out toxic directors and partners. there's otherwise no check against their behaviour. what do you all think.

This is a bit of a trivial pet peeve but do you get extremely irritated by some law firms' extremely large and obnoxious email signature blocks? Containing unnecessary info, graphics etc.

Some of these are single images or graphics so they're also not possible to trim off.

I notice that some juniors always include the full sig block for each and every email they send. Why can't they follow their partners and not bother to use a sig block at all? Or a simple text based one.

They can't control it. It's set by the firm's tech department.

Just quit la. There are many abusive partners in sinkie law firms.

Genuinely grateful for this insight. I suppose the squeeze is mostly felt in the bucket of LOCAL counsel work in relation to (1) (as you mention, LEAD counsel work in (1) was never for the taking for local SG law firms anyway).

My point was never to compare the profitability or capabilities of B4 with internationals, but to highlight that there is a secure type of work (bucket (3), and to some extent, (2)), in which A&G and WP really dominate, without much threat from internationals in the future. This pie is not large, and anyone outside of A&G / WP are fighting for scraps, but it's big enough for the A&G / WP equity partners to make a tidy profit, especially when you consider the constant stream of SG law work from the government and government linked companies.

Glad you added much nuance to the discussion!

Partners and Of Counsels get their positions through massive hard work.
Just gotta tough it out

It is a good place if you value freedom, breadth of work, especially as a junior lawyer. Unlike the Big 4 (or bigger places in general), working in a boutique like BlackOak requires its juniors to carry out higher order functions that typically are the purview of more senior lawyers in bigger firms.

That being said, being in a boutique like BlackOak is not suitable for everyone, especially if you are someone that works better in a structured environment. The best way to put it would be that you learn different things in a boutique versus in a bigger firm.

I heard that BlackOak pays really well (especially for junior positions), even better than the Big 4.

Ultimately, the survivors in the legal industry will be the international firms, B4 and Chinatown firms. The international firms will take a generous slice of the pie, followed by B4 and the scraps will be left for the mid-sized firms.

The Chinatown firms will still be around as they are never competing for the same pie as those above, but a "niche" pie filled with cheapskate clients. But they will survive as their overheads are low.

The mid-sized firms will be slowly eliminated as they are only getting the scraps and they can't afford to lower their fees due to their high overheads.

Does anyone know what the typical junior associate salary bands are for mid tier mid-sized firms like Harry Elias Partnership, CNPLaw, K&L Gates Straits, Morgan Lewis Stamford, Withers Khattarwong, Bird & Bird ATMD and Duane Morris & Selvam?

Have the recent Big 4 salary increases spurred a similar adjustment in payscales?

The bulk of the firms have gone international and are paying intl rates. They wont die out like the poster above thinks. Rather it is the big4 and the local firms with no tieups that will die out

Everyone will die in the end as this is fact of life. It’s an enshrined principle of Dao that everything has its end.

1 PQE here seeking advice!

Pretty decent CV, but wholly disputes focused. Not optimistic about the future of disputes work in Singapore hence considering a jump to corporate work, with a view to going in-house some time down the road.

Understand this is a fairly commonplace career move but wanted to tap on the forum's collective wisdom on whether this is wise, what to do/not do, etc.

Many thanks in advance.

I am the way, the truth, and the life.* No one comes to the father but through me.

Just do it (I moved from liti to corp as a trainee and don't regret it).

I think the only reason you'd stay in liti is if you love the practice. No point staying in liti any longer if you have decided to move. Just bear in mind that corporate work can be quite dull.

Join a B4 firm / SLB. B4 have been bleeding corp assocs to international firms, so lot's of vacancies. Bigger firms get bigger / more complex deals and offer far better exposure and training (structured and on the job training).

If you're already in a B4 firm, consider asking for an internal transfer.

Rough it out for 2+ years and then move in house or to an international firm.

M&A, banking/finance, finreg, cap markets all give you good exit options.

Hi Im from UniSim political science. How do i become a lawyer? Didnt bother to find job so I am 30yo now without any work experience

30 year old
where do you get the money to do law if you never work before?

Why not get a job work a few years then study law?

Most partners are seriously a holes (at least the ones I have seen). Taking every opportunity to exploit and milk their employees.

any kind of lawyer with decent work life balance?
I've heard a lot of lawyers work awful hours, and have no work life balance. I don't see the point in becoming a lawyer just to be miserable for the rest of my life. Are there any areas of law/employers where lawyers can have work life balance?

I heard lawyers for the government have better working hours, tho i dont know how true that is

Once you take money from them you become their wage slave. You will have to work till you drop so they can go home at 5pm. Deal with all the prblems relating to the file while they scold you when there are hiccups. At the end of the matter, they will tske the bulk of the fees and you will only get a pittsnce despite having done all of the work. Thats the sad reality for most incoming lawyers

Do consider a career as in-house lawyer. It can be pretty darn good, depending on your organisation. Sometimes you may have to deal with some firedrills but far less often than private practice where everything is urgent.

Sure your pay may not be as good as the top (ie B4 and international) law firms' payscales, but it is still very good relative to many other corporate ops functions and oftentimes can beat mid-tier law firm salary.

There's a reason why majority of in-house lawyers are women and that's where they excel. Because in-house gives them family time. And its lots of corporate type work, which requires attention to detail (women generally excel in that).

The narrative that the legal industry is overworked and miserable is really only applicable to private practice. Why do you think in-house lawyers are not the ones constantly whining on this forum? Because they're out there enjoying their dinners with their families.

What about corporate lawyer compared to litigation lawyer?

does the former has better work life balance and less stress?

Both are equally stressful. A piece of advice:

To do nothing.

This foundation concept is key to the noblest kind of action according to the philosophy of Daoism – and is at the heart of what it means to follow Dao or The Way. According to the central text of Daoism, the Dao De Jing: ‘The Way never acts yet nothing is left undone’. This is the paradox of wu wei. It doesn’t mean not acting, it means ‘effortless action’ or ‘actionless action’.

To do nothing is the noblest form of action humankind can undertake.

As always with lawyers, it depends.

In my opinion however, the general rule is that litigation is more stressful.

You're in a much more combative environment, which often translates to a toxic internal team culture.

Timelines are far more relevant and common, and the consequences of missing them are more dire.

Adding to the stress is the make or break, all-in mentality of litigation.

You will live in the office during trial / arbitration.

On the flip side, depending on the team corporate can be more stressful, a sort of slow burn, if you end up working on many transactions at the same time as there is no 'downtime between trials'. Just a never-ending churn of transactions. Also possible that corporate clients can be more demanding, and because timelines are set by clients instead of the court, they can be much more unreasonable.

Thinking of applying to a disputes team. If my goal is to work in an international firm in the future (MC firms etc) would it be better for me to apply to a b4 team or a firm already with an international tie up like rodyk, baker, hogan lovells etc?

If your goal is to go to a MC firm, you have much better chances in Corp than disputes.

Big 4 or FLAs?
 

If the goal is to go to an MC or US firm for corp, would it be better to start your career in a legitimate FLA (e.g. Ashurst, Simmons, etc.) where you actually do the 2 year TC or PTC + 18 months, or start out in Big 4/BMWL?

Is it common for partners to tear up your drafts and redo everything, or am I just not there yet

Just choose the best team you can get into with a reputation for doing high-quality, demanding and sophisticated disputes work (ideally with a significant arbitration component). These are usually the SC teams in the B4 - though keep in mind that even among B4 SCs, some are more highly regarded than others.

Whether your firm has an international tie-up is basically irrelevant to the hiring decisions of top international firms.

This is obviously toxic and partner not giving clear instructions.

Complain to law society

Is it common where partners give unclear instructions (without even calling to explain the matter and merely sending you entire email chains for you to figure out)? And if your draft is not 100% they will just cross it out without giving any feedback then talk behind your back?