Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thanks bro ya I heard of people who think highly of themselves after working at Singapore side of a FLA. They call themselves international, but are paid measly sums of money.

NRF and Ascendant have different payscales - can anyone confirm this? Anyway most FLAs seem to be cutting pay and retrenching.

Sobering post.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thanks very useful.

As an aside, how do you guys tahan the hours and stress? I’m 2PQE and feel like quitting already.

Remember that out there someone at B4 gets hours stress and scoldings

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Would also add that the scene varies and one shouldn't be too simplistic and look only at tier/firm, for instance, US-qualified tax lawyers in WKW would get far more than the local people. And places like DSC which pay Big 4 rates can pay very well if you get the huge bonus that may come with it.

Also, UK FCHs are, to be honest, not very outstanding in this day and age, given that so many people from the UK have FCHs, unless the FCH is from Oxbridge or (maybe) UCL/LSE (e.g. UCL regularly has a >20% FCH rate, which is not very impressive). For instance, last time any UK FCH could get into JLC with not much difficulty, nowadays, almost all UK grads who get into JLC are scholars and most of them are from Oxbridge (or maybe UCL/LSE at the very least). Heck, even NUS FCH is no longer as valuable given that 10% (>20) people per year get it nowadays (but still more valuable than most of the UK FCHs).

Sure but how many people here are actually us qualified tax lawyers. We are obvs looking at sg qualified lawyers. Agree nonetheless that we are not statistics. Each person’s experience can vary. Eg Some paralegal routes end in full associate in the international arm, some do not. What is helpful is the average figures and experience just as a gauge, as well as the new TC avenues.

Indeed there is FCH dilution. But nonetheless an employer 10-20 years past uni years just want to know at least a semi-legit place can give assurance to intellectual capability. An FCH wherever from just gets you a foot in. At the end of the day it still boils down to the interview and how the candidate comes across (not counting those places that just wants a warm body and can’t be bothered to give a proper interview).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Would also add that the scene varies and one shouldn't be too simplistic and look only at tier/firm, for instance, US-qualified tax lawyers in WKW would get far more than the local people. And places like DSC which pay Big 4 rates can pay very well if you get the huge bonus that may come with it.

Also, UK FCHs are, to be honest, not very outstanding in this day and age, given that so many people from the UK have FCHs, unless the FCH is from Oxbridge or (maybe) UCL/LSE (e.g. UCL regularly has a >20% FCH rate, which is not very impressive). For instance, last time any UK FCH could get into JLC with not much difficulty, nowadays, almost all UK grads who get into JLC are scholars and most of them are from Oxbridge (or maybe UCL/LSE at the very least). Heck, even NUS FCH is no longer as valuable given that 10% (>20) people per year get it nowadays (but still more valuable than most of the UK FCHs).

Fully agree. But idk why people get mad when you suggest a lower tier school first class is not the same as a NUS 2.1 or a 2.1 from any of the schools above. People hate you when you spit fax.

Maybe they feel it affects their sense of self-worth and esteem.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thanks bro ya I heard of people who think highly of themselves after working at Singapore side of a FLA. They call themselves international, but are paid measly sums of money.

NRF and Ascendant have different payscales - can anyone confirm this? Anyway most FLAs seem to be cutting pay and retrenching.

Confirmed, Ascendant pays mid sized and NRF pays big4+.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Looking forward, I think what would help many people at this forum would be the question of what would then take an applicant to stand out amongst hundreds of other applicants? We have seen for ourselves that it is very apparent that an associate position has about more than hundreds of applicants be it NQ or 3 PQE level.

The number one factor is Fit. You must fit culture and practice areas. A pretended interest is not good enough (mind you, they are seasoned cross examiners and corporate heavyweights who can cut through the BS). Any place that is worth their salt will ensure this, as you are a useless hire if you hate what you do.

A FCH without Fit is useless. A FCH will impress but won't get hired without a personality, culture and practice area Fit.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Confirmed, Ascendant pays mid sized and NRF pays big4+.

Cheers, thanks - did not want to be inaccurate. But also to anyone who is still having FLA delirium note that they are cutting pay and staff (either direct or indirectly by no retention).

Please don't ruin someone's future by suggesting otherwise unless you have other insider information to say that the above isn't true. The last thing you want is a law student relying on the info and being led on into thinking his or her chances at retention / securing a job is high.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Fully agree. But idk why people get mad when you suggest a lower tier school first class is not the same as a NUS 2.1 or a 2.1 from any of the schools above. People hate you when you spit fax.

Maybe they feel it affects their sense of self-worth and esteem.

Academic wise, don't disagree, but after a while you realise it doesn't really mean anything once you start practice and get more senior. So there's no real need to compare so much also.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The number one factor is Fit. You must fit culture and practice areas. A pretended interest is not good enough (mind you, they are seasoned cross examiners and corporate heavyweights who can cut through the BS). Any place that is worth their salt will ensure this, as you are a useless hire if you hate what you do.

A FCH without Fit is useless. A FCH will impress but won't get hired without a personality, culture and practice area Fit.

Agreed. Whilst someone’s pseudo passion in a practice area can usually be seen through at the interview level, do you think partners/interviewers are apt at seeing through the interviewee’s personality fit then

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The number one factor is Fit. You must fit culture and practice areas. A pretended interest is not good enough (mind you, they are seasoned cross examiners and corporate heavyweights who can cut through the BS). Any place that is worth their salt will ensure this, as you are a useless hire if you hate what you do.

A FCH without Fit is useless. A FCH will impress but won't get hired without a personality, culture and practice area Fit.

This is a bit simplistic.

At the TC level, hiring is usually done en mass (unless you apply for CC and the likes). Usually, the main considerations are:

1. Grades - being in the top 20% of the local cohort or in Oxbridge helps quite a bit.
2. Moots
3. Fit - however, at this level, its more of a 'don't get blackmarked during internship" thing rather than a "real" fit thing. This is also a bigger consideration for smaller firms / depts - for the Big 4 hiring 20-30 people at one shot, I doubt this is of material concern.
4. Connections - if you have any, it helps. If you don't, then you have to fight using (1) to (3).

Once you get more and more senior, good grades are still helpful, but get gradually outweighed by (5) relevant experience (very very important as you get to mid level) and (6) BD / rainmaking ability (very very important as you get to partner level). Fit also plays an increasingly important role, but IMO (5) and (6) more.