Lawyer Salary

Why is it so many local uni peeps like to laugh at those from delisted universities?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why is it so many local uni peeps like to laugh at those from delisted universities?

Because a NUS 2.2 is better than a Nottingham FCH

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Because a NUS 2.2 is better than a Nottingham FCH

From years of practice I have seen people from different overseas (incl. those unis you mentioned) being retained in int firms/big fours and I have also seen many local grads for fail to get retained and some from local unis who didn’t make the cut. Although there are handful of those from these unis who don’t make it to their first choice for TCs, I have also seen plenty of local of graduates being stuck in the same situation too.

The point here is everyone’s career will play out differently and where you have graduated from only plays a small part. Get out of this forum and start networking. You will realise that the world is much bigger than such comparisons.

As someone who was trained in a mid-sized firm and is currently working at a Chinatown firm, I have to say that there should be no comparison between someone working at a small-sized firm and someone from the big four/international/MCs.

Different firms cater to different needs, different clientele. It is analogous to comparing between an apple and an orange. One can say that the pay is different. But everyone’s personalities are suited for different working environments and different clients. I personally prefer to deal with private clients rather than corporate clients. Some may prefer the otherwise.

Unless you are doing a constructive comparison as to which firm can do a specific type of work better (I.e whether D&N or Davinder Singh Chambers do a better job at international arbitration), then such toxic and quixotic comparison has to stop.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

slogged so hard and didn't get retained...sigh...can anyone advise me if doing a LLM in the meantime could be useful? where's good to do a LLM...UK or US or local? thanks.

I did an LLM with KCL. It counts for **** if your're looking at practicing. Not a wise move unless you have cash to burn or super confident you're going to be one of those superstars.

My LLM only came in handy when i decided to transit to an in-house role. I got offers from 4 MNCs when i decided to apply in-house. All listed companies, all regional roles - 3 European, 1 American. All 'preferred' applicants with international LLM.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As someone who was trained in a mid-sized firm and is currently working at a Chinatown firm, I have to say that there should be no comparison between someone working at a small-sized firm and someone from the big four/international/MCs.

Different firms cater to different needs, different clientele. It is analogous to comparing between an apple and an orange. One can say that the pay is different. But everyone’s personalities are suited for different working environments and different clients. I personally prefer to deal with private clients rather than corporate clients. Some may prefer the otherwise.

Unless you are doing a constructive comparison as to which firm can do a specific type of work better (I.e whether D&N or Davinder Singh Chambers do a better job at international arbitration), then such toxic and quixotic comparison has to stop.

I don't know if i'm reading too much into this, but i feel some frustration and angst behind this post... probably stemming from the number of times you've had to justify the value of the work that you do. If i'm reading too much into this, then you can ignore this post altogether. If not...

I think you'll realize that this industry doesn't care. I don't mean it in a bitter or mean-spirited way, just an observation from the past 5 years of practice.

The industry as a whole is apathetic. You cannot convince others to see value in people or things (work) they don't care about. It's also impossible to convince others to see a problem when they themselves don't experience it first-hand (many people don't see a problem with our justice system, the fraternity, the perception of community law and community lawyers, pro bono, etc.).

Its why 'community' law is considered '****' law in forums like these... and why lawyers who choose to practice 'community' law are treated as second class citizens in the "fraternity".

As a fellow Chinatown lawyer - my experience is that the "fraternity" is unlikely to ever stop comparing big firms (good) with Chinatown law firms (bad).

You have to be able to see value in yourself and the work that you do. I thoroughly believe in the work that i do and i similarly believe that my work improves the lives of my clients in some way or other (you will never win all your cases, but there is value in closure...).

I feel a lot of pride when i represent SMEs and battered women. Internal recognition is what will keep you alive and kicking. If you are expecting external recognition for what you do - you're not going to get it. Not in this lifetime anyway.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I did an LLM with KCL. It counts for **** if your're looking at practicing. Not a wise move unless you have cash to burn or super confident you're going to be one of those superstars.

My LLM only came in handy when i decided to transit to an in-house role. I got offers from 4 MNCs when i decided to apply in-house. All listed companies, all regional roles - 3 European, 1 American. All 'preferred' applicants with international LLM.

Yep. I've actually been in an interview with a big 4 senior partner who told me directly that his LLM "did nothing for his career, it was just a nice holiday".

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I don't know if i'm reading too much into this, but i feel some frustration and angst behind this post... probably stemming from the number of times you've had to justify the value of the work that you do. If i'm reading too much into this, then you can ignore this post altogether. If not...

I think you'll realize that this industry doesn't care. I don't mean it in a bitter or mean-spirited way, just an observation from the past 5 years of practice.

The industry as a whole is apathetic. You cannot convince others to see value in people or things (work) they don't care about. It's also impossible to convince others to see a problem when they themselves don't experience it first-hand (many people don't see a problem with our justice system, the fraternity, the perception of community law and community lawyers, pro bono, etc.).

Its why 'community' law is considered '****' law in forums like these... and why lawyers who choose to practice 'community' law are treated as second class citizens in the "fraternity".

As a fellow Chinatown lawyer - my experience is that the "fraternity" is unlikely to ever stop comparing big firms (good) with Chinatown law firms (bad).

You have to be able to see value in yourself and the work that you do. I thoroughly believe in the work that i do and i similarly believe that my work improves the lives of my clients in some way or other (you will never win all your cases, but there is value in closure...).

I feel a lot of pride when i represent SMEs and battered women. Internal recognition is what will keep you alive and kicking. If you are expecting external recognition for what you do - you're not going to get it. Not in this lifetime anyway.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I absolutely agree on your point that as community lawyers, we have a sense of fulfilment helping individuals especially when our work would hugely make an impact on the lives of our clients. My work includes family and criminal law; I have to deal with the emotions of my clients and I do enjoy the challenge that stems from that. I just fail to see the point of comparing firms who serve FTSE100 clients and firms who assist battered battered women and children. I also have to add that the white noise stemming from external recognition can be very loud sometimes.

However, as idealistic as this sounds, I hope that the legal fraternity can avoid such comparisons so as to avoid situations where someone joins a big four corporate department as opposed to community law in a smaller firm even if that is something they would prefer doing. Perhaps law school professors ought to bring this message across to law students.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

i think if u dun have much work experience, v hard to get accepted to Harvard / Columbia (you will see more partners to-be there). i hear Harvard / Yale focuses on recruiting those that will surely get into academia, while Stanford focuses on tech-related courses if u wanna do corporate / tax / international law, focus on Penn, NYU and Georgetown. heard Penn and NYU are the best for corporate law. on the other hand, LSE LLM is like a supermarket LLM...if you have NUS LLB, very high acceptance rate.

yup i heard LSE LLM is a guaranteed entry. but in general UK LLMs might be of greater use because, well, UK law and Singapore law are more similar.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

yup i heard LSE LLM is a guaranteed entry. but in general UK LLMs might be of greater use because, well, UK law and Singapore law are more similar.

Lmao no wonder the undergrads with 6-7% acceptance get to laugh at the LLMs. Didn't know it was easy to get into, thought you'd need a good 2.1 from a reputable university