so this is what corporate lawyers do when they finally have a weekday evening to themselvez

Why are big 4s and a couple of other law firms, including international, still hiring associates when times are bad?

Work needs to be done? Some teams will still have work coming in - for sure (think insolv).

Now with many people taking pay cuts or on no-pay leaves, the last thing they have on their mind is to find a lawyer. Only criminal/insolvency lawyers are having a steady flow of work, the rest are facing decreased work flow.

Too much over-simplification here from people going on about how legal work is "not a necessity" and easily cut when companies are not doing well.

Being a lawyer means you're providing advisory services. And in many cases, legal advice is absolutely necessary if you're planning to go ahead with virtually any major commercial transaction (see M&A, financing, restructuring) or litigation. As such, we are a protected industry that is relatively stable in a recession compared to many other professions (I am not saying everything is fine, note the "relatively"). Now, clearly the economy has slowed meaning many underlying transactions have stalled or cut entirely, and obviously you don't need legal advice if there is no deal or you don't have the money to hire a lawyer to sue, and SG doesn't allow hiring on contingency. That's the fallout in certain firms in certain departments you are observing. But this doesn't mean that legal services aren't still absolutely essential in many ways.

Certain departments in many firms are still doing well - thriving, in fact, because of the economic downturn. It's also a matter of economics. M&A has slowed locally, but you can see it's actually sped up in many parts of the US and Europe. This has to do with structural differences in the companies.

Anyone who just parrots the "the economy is doing bad so lawyers aren't needed" trope clearly lacks the intellectual nuance to be a good lawyer, but then again what was I expecting from an internet forum.

lawyers' work being essential have nothing to do with their clients' ability (or lack thereof) to pay them

criminal pro bono also considered essential what. please lah spare us that crap about nuance

I fully agree with your first sentence, and nothing in what you said has anything to do with the points I make in my post. I argued that lawyers are essential, and I said nothing about the connection between that and their fees.

Do you just type with your brain disconnected?

Thanks for proving: (1) My point, and (2) see above about a lack of a nuance.

you're adding very little to the discussion on the near-term prospects of the SG legal market.

i survived the GFC in one of the big4 firms.
what happened then was many mandates were made subject to increasingly lower fee caps, international firms included.
thank god recovery came quick.

What is the minimum requirement for academia these days?
Is it a PhD?

The newer faculty all seems to start off their academic careers with a PhD minimum. Like Dean of NUS.

Any current trainees been told that they will or will not be retained?