Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You should re-think your comment.

OK noted. Because a rando on a salary forum said so.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

OK noted. Because a rando on a salary forum said so.

Okay, then I'll substantiate.

The previous method for determining FCH in NUS law was that the top 5% of the cohort would receive it.

After 2016, it became the top 10% or above 4.5 CAP. However, because the bell curve in law school is so strict the 90th percentile student always has a CAP below 4.5. I know of one student two years ago who got FCH with a 4.28.

I'll explain what this means (because you clearly don't think before you post or can't at all): While it does exist, the 4.5 CAP cutoff has always been and will always be irrelevant to determining whether a student gets FCH, which means that other than the % going up, FCH in law school are determined exactly the same as they were before. Nothing has changed.

I'm usually more polite here, but someone who can post something so stupid and then have the gall to say that the recent batches are graduating from a course which is "so slack" doesn't really deserve that. So, cheers.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Am an assoc in big 4, corp department. large slowdown in work over the past few weeks. To respond to the query above, from my sensing with the partners there is a very slight sentiment that they might want to cut retention rates this year because there's not enough work even for the current assocs much less the trainees but it's still tentative as it is still unclear how badly exactly this crisis will hit the local economy.

My best guess is wait for the end of this circuit breaker -> start of may also coincides with when retention is usually offered in firms. you will only know then.

Will it come to a point where the big firms retrench assocs?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Will it come to a point where the big firms retrench assocs?

I honestly think that it hasn't come to that yet.
But if things get worse, then yes.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I honestly think that it hasn't come to that yet.
But if things get worse, then yes.

Livelihoods are at stake here, yet we have nerds arguing over FCH thresholds.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Livelihoods are at stake here, yet we have nerds arguing over FCH thresholds.

Guess cos no fch cannot go oxford bcl

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Livelihoods are at stake here, yet we have nerds arguing over FCH thresholds.

The nerd is the one typing the wall of text about the FCH, CAP blah blah blah as though anybody is interested. Dunno whether the guy has even finished his training contract yet.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Will it come to a point where the big firms retrench assocs?

To get back on topic....

For big firms, we’re not there yet. These firms are underworked in some departments and overworked in others right now. For junior assocs, they can work for another department if things get too bad. There is that flexibility for that option to be viable. The situation isn’t bad enough that senior assocs and partners can’t meet their billables.

"For junior assocs, they can work for another department if things get too bad. There is that flexibility for that option to be viable."

What about senior assocs? are they not transferable like junior assocs?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

"For junior assocs, they can work for another department if things get too bad. There is that flexibility for that option to be viable."

What about senior assocs? are they not transferable like junior assocs?

It's about the cost to the client as well as the nature of the work. If a senior litigation assoc goes to do corp work, s/he will really only be able to handle the basic (i.e. NQ assoc level work). His hourly rate is not justifiable.