Roughly what percentage of law graduates eventually gets called to the bar and have a successful career as a full lawyer and command those high salary. Not a lawyer myself but really curious regarding this.

Most US firms in Singapore CAN pay Cravath, but only a few WILL pay - either (1) outright at the start of employment, or (2) after "earning" the right to receive Cravath.

Firms that pay Cravath outright - Milbank, MoFo, Cooley

Firms that will make you "earn" Cravath - Sidley Austin, Dechert, Latham & Watkins, White & Case, Jones Day, Gibson Dunn, Skadden.

Intel could be wrong so YMMV.

IMHO Cravath is not sustainable if you're only looking at the Singapore market. Cravath payscale = Cravath billing rates. SEA market is nowhere as mature as the US / UK markets, so not many Singapore-only clients (or even some regional clients) can afford or want to pay Cravath rates especially if they don't need US-law expertise or not targetting the US market.

Dual qualification
 

When lawyers say they're dual qualified, does that mean they're simply admitted to the roll of solicitors in the other jurisdiction (e.g. E&W, NY, Australia) or that they have a practising certificate for that other jurisdiction.

For Singaporean lawyers working at international firms that require dual qualification, are they required to maintain that other jurisdiction's practising cert? Or can they just practice (transactions, e.g. m&a) as a Singapore qualified lawyer, but simply be admitted to e.g. E&W (i.e. no need to maintain practising cert from E&W)?

aaa
 

lawyers cocky

lmao what full lawyer. Lawyer is lawyer

Practising lawyer salary scale quite standard one la.

Ex-practising lawyers like in-house legal counsel, insurance brokerage or P&I club, IP portfolio managers etc. are doing perfectly fine. Chao chao at least $15K or more per month with slack 9 to 5 hours. Ofc if they stayed practising law they will definitely earn more. But many lawyers especially women go in-house after they have kids because of good WLB. Is that considered high? It's all relative lor. Depends on what you want in life.

Thoughts on latest mass call speech by the Law Soc VP?

honestly no one rly paid attention lmao mass call was boring af

wah y nus law club election more exciting than sg presidential election

Details! What’s the point of staying this if you won’t give deets?

uncontested summor.

susu
 

sumo wrestler better

Linguistically, qualified to practise is different from practising (which would require holding a PC). So I think that answers your first question.

For your second question, are there actually firms that require dual qualifications? I have seen ads that require English qualification but not seen any example you are referring to.

Because they are trying to "persuade" young and impressionable law graduates to replenish the dwindling numbers of community law practitioners by making all of them study criminal and family law in-depth.

But they don't understand the reason why the turnover rate is high for community law practitioners is the poor pay + long working hours. Many practising in community law realize the piss-poor deal they are having compared to in-house counsels and have departed for green pastures.

As a lawyer, you are supposed to be minimally proficient in all of the jurisdiction's laws. Part B barely scratches the tip of the iceberg of legal knowledge in Singapore. As you said, they are mostly teaching you the bare basic "motherhood statements" (i.e. the more important aspects of each field of law). You are nowhere close to learning decades of legal knowledge in 6 months.

While the bar exam is imperfect, the other alternatives that I can think of seem worse. For example, would you rather they extended the bar course to a full year (or more) so that you are not "overloaded" with information in only 6 months? Or would you rather a situation wherein Part B candidates can pick and choose the types of law he is examined on (regardless of their importance) but then is allowed to practice in areas which he did not even study? Say what you want about the bar exam, but at least the current bar exam ensures that you have a minimum understanding of each area of law.

Anyway Part B of the bar is a rite of passage, the failure rate is not meant to be extremely high (especially when retakes are allowed). Don't stress too much over it.

Back in the day, my coursemates were strategizing on getting distinctions rather than complaining about the content. Oh how times have changed.

Daft.

Tell me the name of ONE lawyer who is familiar with the leading cases and main principles for ALL of the following: Ethics & Professional Responsibility; Banking & Fundraising; Corporate Governance; Insolvency & Corporate Restructuring; Intellectual Property; Mergers & Acquisitions; Competition Law; Taxation; Admiralty; Civil Litigation; Arbitration; Mediation Advocacy; Written Advocacy; Oral Advocacy; Criminal Litigation Practice & Procedure; Family Law Practice (inclusive of Muslim Law); Probate & Succession Planning; Real Estate Practice (Conveyancing); Employment Law; Personal Injury & Property Damage; Data Protection and Cyber Regulation; Law & Technology; Comparative Laws (inclusive of Civil Law); Conflict of Laws etc.

It is not a matter of reading a 20 page primer with 'motherhood statements' for each subject. If that were so, no candidate would be complaining. SILE and the course conveners expect them to read all of the leading cases in all of these these subjects. One subject alone can have up to 130 cases in their syllabus. Do the math.

I won't be surprised if the failure rates exceed 60%.

So is it a rite of passage or is it meant to have to be lawyers a minimum understanding of each area of the law? Can’t cut it both ways buddy.

In any case, 6 months enough for you to confidently say you have a minimum understanding of all the examined areas of law? I seriously doubt it and any qualified counsel in any field, not just legal, to make such a claim.

If this is what the ministry wants lawyers to graduate and practice as, then extending the bar course would be the only logic way of doing it. Not cramming everything into 6 months. As it stands, it seemingly contradicts anyways, since the ministry have extended TCs to a year long, to allow for a longer buffer to practice the intended area that one wishes to practice in. So what really is the point of training candidates in part b to be “multi disciplined” (read in quotes because of the half-assed attempt to do so in 6 months) if they go out to a longer training in a specific discipline?

Seems to me that it’s just poor or the lackthereof in proper, adequate planning, since the genesis of all this back in 2018.

bombed out of LL HR interview any insights?

Hi. I am a 2022 Part B Course candidate who got called to the Bar in 2023. Yes, my batch was the guinea pig batch for SILE to trial and error with the new syllabus and exam format etc.

I just want to say that your worries and concern for the Part B exams is not without reason. I think almost everyone in my batch had the same feeling as we entered the course. There was no instructions on the passing rate for exams or when the exams would be held or the format of each of the exams etc until the end of course lecture which was held in November 2022 iirc.

I am not saying that it does not matter but I also cant really agree that it does? Afterall we learn the module to grasp the idealogy behind the practice of it and not for the sake of exams. If the examiners decide to change it from open-ended to MCQ the night before the exam, it should not really be a matter of concern. If you know your stuff, you will pass.

Also we must understand that the tutors and lecturers are also active solicitors who have their own full time job. I am not sure if they are paid but I highly doubt so considering that we have DPPs from AGC giving us tutorials and lectures on Criminal Law. We cant expect them to volunteer for a 1 year course now can we.

Regarding the leading cases of each module's syllabus, I think there is a need to relook into how you are approaching your studies. I am not saying that what you are doing is wrong but we must appreciate that Part B is an open-book exam and you do not need to memorize "130 cases" for each module. All you have to do is read the case, understand what the legal principle is, write it down into your notes so it is easier to refer to in the exam. One thing I noticed is that although the syllabus dumps lots of cases for you to read, its mostly 5-10 cases explaining the same legal principle and all you need is the leading case coupled with some of your intellectual inputs as to why it is more logical/reasoned than its comparative dissent.

I had no trouble reading 100 cases for each module and then making my notes for each exam. In fact, I only needed 2 days to study for each module before the exam. Yes, I only started preparing for the final exams in December 2022 in middle of November 2022. For some context, I am a foreign university graduate who took the Part A and then the Part B bar course and examinations so I am not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed. If you come from a local uni like NUS or SMU who had the opportunity to go through vigorous academic structure you will definitely have no problems with the Part B.

I understand that the Part B course 2023 has an increased number of modules, and since I have not taken a look at how in depth each module is, I will not be commenting on how challenging it is. However, given that someone like me who is amongst the bottom of my batch in terms of intellect only required 2 days to revise for each module for 8-9 examinations +2-3 practical examinations, I am sure having 25 modules would just require more time to prepare for your batch. It is manageable. Even if it isn't, part and parcel of being a lawyer is learning to adapt and overcome. You can do it.

As many have said before me, Part B is just a rite of passage. People are overthinking too much about its difficulty. Part A was the slaughterhouse imo. Passing rates was like 25-30% including retakes, make one mistake and you fail.

At least now they compacted idk 25 modules into just 6 examinations? Correct me if I am wrong. There is only a certain number of things they can test you on within the time constraints of 2 hours for each examination. They would not be asking you for an experienced lawyer's opinion on the material syllabus. If anything, I would describe Part B as a procedural exam where you just learn the basics of how it is practiced. I also remember each examination having several mistakes in their questions/answer choices and a lot of time was spent halting us and telling us the errors during the actual examination. This took up like 15-20 minutes of our exam time not to mention the added stress etc. (Arbitration cough*) had like 18 mistakes in the exam script and it was hilarious because their projector screen in the exam hall could not fit all the mistakes.

Eg: Family law, you are only needed to learn up to the point of how to draft a Statement of Particulars and ANJ v ANK. That is like 10% of what practice really is.

Take heart and soldier on. Law is not meant to be easy. But dont make it unnecessarily harder than it should be. Seek advice from your seniors or any colleagues you have in the firm you worked in or interned in before. Wish you all the best in Part B and looking forward to welcome you to this profession.

Absolutely disgusting show of just how disconnected and tone deaf the boomer lawyers are. Who the hell is still thinking about **** like Suits after going through 5 years of crap in law school + part B + TC, does he think he is talking to JC kids? And what is that crazy talk about money, productivity, and how WLB is impossible - finding it hard to get new warm bodies to exploit? Boo hoo, kids these days don't wana work any more

Also discovered that the guy is the founder of some exotic car club in SG lmao really matches the image he is giving off...

Please don't make me roll my eyes so hard, I'm scared I'll injure myself

So many words just to say nothing. I guess it’s the hallmark of being a lawyer right.

How exactly is the 2022 batch the “batch was the guinea pig batch for SILE to trial and error with the new syllabus and exam format etc.”? 2022 syllabus got change meh? So your worries were predicated on the uncertainty of passing rate and exam format? If so, how is that detrimental, substantially, given that the examinable content remains unchanged? As you’ve eluded to, “If the examiners decide to change it from open-ended to MCQ the night before the exam, it should not really be a matter of concern. If you know your stuff, you will pass.”

Nobody is disputing that the pre-revised syllabus is procedural and in that sense, seemingly a rite of passage. It’s pretty much industry knowledge at this point.

What is in contention is that post-revision, the additional syllabuses included are not necessarily procedural based. Coupled with the sheer amount of addition and the fact that candidates no longer get a choice and are forced to take on niche modules with little to no relevance to an aspiring practitioner.

Even taking your point that the post-revised part b is indeed procedural based, the increase in number of examined subjects (9 to 31) is manageable in your mind? Putting aside the efficacy of such methodology, I sincerely doubt it that is the case.

“I understand that the Part B course 2023 has an increased number of modules, and since I have not taken a look at how in depth each module is, I will not be commenting on how challenging it is” - but isn’t your entire post just to **** on people who are complaining and to subtle flex that you’ve passed the bar having only studied a month before the exam?

smlj people give you genuine honest opinion also can kpkb

not happy then dont take the bar la

how the fk is what he/she typed a subtle flex. if he/she want to flex he/she wont flex it to people like you who complain about every obstacle in their life. Flex to you got fk use, you are useless in the eyes of the industry, impress you wont give them any pay raise.

the next generation of lawyers need to grow the fk up and be humble. if you cant take constructive criticism then you better have the skills to back up your ego.

what they meant: part B is a rite of passage, dont need to overthink, not that difficult, is manageable course, can pass even with limited time to study

what new wannabe egoistic part b exam takers understood: they flexing on us

? One is giving their genuine honest opinion and but the other is just kpkb-ing? Because they don’t fall within your camp of opinions means they kpkb? Look into the mirror kid and learn to take constructive criticisms and cull your ego.

Way to miss the entire point of the posts btw. Perhaps your skills with this the Hokkien language would serve you well.

I am astonished to see how delusional the part b exam takers are nowadays. May I know if you are from foreign university or local university? Better still let me know which uni you from so I can tell my firm never to hire people from your uni.

I think the entire point of the posts is that current part B course candidates are trash compared to their predecessors.

First time I see people asking for exams to remain status quo or get easier.

Things will only get harder, competition will only get stronger.

Continue living in delusion. Just dont cry when you dont land a job because of your **** attitude.

Ignore the troll who thinks people apply for jobs after part B

Ignore the troll who thinks everyone is retained especially in small-mid sized firms.

Idk who the guy or girl above taking part B course is but from the way they took someone's opinion as an attack you can tell they probably did not get retained at any law firm.

anyone can see they have low EQ

what is funny is that they dont seem to have high IQ either if they are asking for part b to be status quo (from their petition)

cannot stop laughing at this batch

That's why the turnover rate for young lawyers is so high, especially in litigation. In the past, it was equally stressful but at least the pay was worth the stress. Now these old boomer lawyers who took generous bites off the cherry are now scrutinizing our pay and insist that law is a calling, pay is secondary. Very rich coming from these boomers who charged exorbitant fees previously and are now sitting in their GCBs. And conveniently ignoring the fact that costs of living have risen significantly.

I don’t recommend doing Law to people who can’t handle stress and competition.

I went back to dental school (in Australia), after graduating from NUS Law years ago, and I certainly don’t regret it.

Sure, I don’t earn as much as those in international firms, but I am drawing a comfortable salary of $18000/month as a dental surgeon in Q&M (around 5 years of experience)…

This is despite the fact that I failed dental school twice and had to repeat in my third and final year…

But you omit the fact that your overseas dental education had cost a bomb in tuition fees and COL (moreso due to your extended educational period due to repeated failures). This is a very poor ROI. You could have used the spare $ to invest in property and live off the rent comfortably, while working as locum solicitor or some slack inhouse counsel or even non-law job at lower pay.

Can the "2023 Part B impossible" poster stop replying to yourself, mods on this forum sleeping istg

We're here for the salary discussion, find another shoulder to cry on because nobody who's passed gives a crap lmao

We've got enough collective IQ here to turn the rest of ASEAN into First World Countries - kindly spare 1 or 2 brain cells and update this kamsahamnida

BMWL (2020)
NQ - 7.5
1PQE - 8.5
2PQE - 9.5
3PQE - N/A

WP (2020)
NQ - 5.4
1PQE - 6.8
2PQE - 8.0
3PQE - 10

D&N (2020)
NQ - 5.8
1PQE - 6.4 - 6.8
2PQE - 8.0
3PQE - 9.2

A&G (2020)
NQ - 5.6
1PQE - 6.6
2PQE - 7.6
3PQE - 9.0

R&T (2020)
NQ - 5.8
1PQE - 5.8 - 6.6
2PQE - 7.2 - 7.6
3PQE - 8.0 - 8.8 - 9.3

DRD (2020)
NQ - 4.8 - 5.0
1PQE - 6.3
2PQE - 7.5
3PQE - 8.5

SLB (2020)
NQ - 5.4
1PQE - N/A
2PQE - N/A
3PQE - N/A

You weren't retained after Part B?

Even among my friends who started out in mid sized firms about 5 years ago, it was super rare for people to not get retained. You needed to be incompetent as hell, as if though you studied jackshit in an overseas backwater uni. It was only a thing for the small Chinatown firms who told the TC applicants upfront that they can't afford to hire them as an associate after their training.

lol your road seemed extremely circuitous, painful and expensive. I don't think its a positive example of anything though.

hate to break it to you but for the time that you took pivoting to DDS + 2 years repeating years + registration + 5 years exp, all my friends are in experienced/senior cushy in-house counsel roles earning around or more than that. and we weren't high fliers in international firms or Big 4 EPs. all of us were average non-FCHs, either second uppers or lowers, started out in mid-sized some more.

factor in the cost of your unsubsidized dental degree + living expenses + actual opportunity cost of income + discount for present value of money...

Law can be a grind in the early years but pivoting 180 to the health sciences is an even more unwise endeavour imo

Could not agree more. No idea what the sharing was for. Just happy for the dentist that his/her parents could afford the fees for overseas dental school.

50K local Uni + 400K overseas Uni fees spent just like that.

not to mention that some practitioners and a high profile senior member of the bar have begin castigating him on Linkedin

6 PQE here, sadly this is the reality and even for competent trainees from NUS Law they may not get retained.

5 years ago was my era and now as someone who is also in charge of the hiring of NQs, there are people who apply after Part B as they did their TC after part B.

Should try to keep up with the statistics if you wanna talk **** about the new lawyers.

That being said, the 2023 part b taker is taking a piss if he thinks life is hard for his mere 31 modules that are downsized significantly to fit into 2hour exams. Tell me you have not worked in a law firm without telling me you have not worked in a law firm.

Everyone can tell you are the 2023 part b complain kid. Stop making up absolute bullcrap. Not getting retained has almost nothing to do with being incompetent as hell. Its about how many vacancies the firm is retaining that year which is up to the partners.

Those not retained just apply elsewhere. Its not uncommon for big 4 firms to have several trainees but only retaining a few.

You lost me there at "even among my friends" because I already know you have 0 experience.

Now can we go back to what we are all here for? Lawyer Salary.

That 1-2 punch about overseas unis and likelihood of non-retention evidently hit a raw nerve for some