Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If I may add on, for a NUS grad, it makes no sense to do a LSE LLM.
NUS law is ranked very highly.
NUS law is only inferior to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge (“HYOC”) Law.
It makes absolutely no sense for a NUS grad to downgrade and do a LSE LLM.
If NUS grad intends to pursue career in academia/legal service, then it makes sense to do a HYOC LLM.
Otherwise there is really little advantage in so doing.
If you’re a RI/HCI straight As person, and you intend to work in London Magic Circle, then straight away apply for Oxbridge.
It’s pretty pointless to apply for NUS law and not be satisfied working in the big four in Singapore, and then asking why you are unable to get into a London MC/SC.
The selection bias argument is totally irrelevant here.

Here are the practical uses of doing a non-HYOC LLM:

1. I agree with you only insofar as Singapore corporate / litigation is concerned. NUS will give Ox/Cam a run for it's money, as evidenced by the number of high flying litigators and corporate lawyers from NUS. Look at the SC list as an example. Majority did not get a first from NUS.

2. Why does QS rank certain schools above NUS? I think it has to do with international repute. NUS law is the best at Point 1 above, but beyond our shores it doesn't have that much reach. It is still a White dominated world. The biggest companies are UK/US and not home-grown. If we advise them on Singapore matters, NUS is best placed. If we advise them on UK/US matters, any school that is well-regarded abroad is best placed.

3. This is why LSE / Upenn / NYU / Stanford would make sense. The international side of any FLA / MC / SC etc is likely to do US or UK work. The barrier to entry is an understanding of how those legal systems work. NUS trains you in Singapore law, but some aspects are better left to those with UK / US backgrounds. This is why if you went to NUS, you would consider getting to those LLMs as an entry ticket. To get to those LLMs, you need a FCH.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If I may add on, for a NUS grad, it makes no sense to do a LSE LLM.
NUS law is ranked very highly.
NUS law is only inferior to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge (“HYOC”) Law.
It makes absolutely no sense for a NUS grad to downgrade and do a LSE LLM.
If NUS grad intends to pursue career in academia/legal service, then it makes sense to do a HYOC LLM.
Otherwise there is really little advantage in so doing.
If you’re a RI/HCI straight As person, and you intend to work in London Magic Circle, then straight away apply for Oxbridge.
It’s pretty pointless to apply for NUS law and not be satisfied working in the big four in Singapore, and then asking why you are unable to get into a London MC/SC.
The selection bias argument is totally irrelevant here.

Here are the practical uses of doing a non-HYOC LLM:

1. I agree with you only insofar as Singapore corporate / litigation is concerned. NUS will give Ox/Cam a run for it's money, as evidenced by the number of high flying litigators and corporate lawyers from NUS. Look at the SC list as an example. Majority did not get a first from NUS.

2. Why does QS rank certain schools above NUS? I think it has to do with international repute. NUS law is the best at Point 1 above, but beyond our shores it doesn't have that much reach. It is still a White dominated world. The biggest companies are UK/US and not home-grown. If we advise them on Singapore matters, NUS is best placed. If we advise them on UK/US matters, any school that is well-regarded abroad is best placed.

3. This is why Upenn / NYU / Stanford and LSE would make sense. The international side of any FLA / MC / SC etc is likely to do US or UK work. The barrier to entry is an understanding of how those legal systems work. NUS trains you in Singapore law, but some aspects are better left to those with UK / US backgrounds. This is why if you went to NUS, you would consider getting to those LLMs as an entry ticket.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Real OP here - not the "Harvard" guy.

My point was that everyone in the SG market only sees the delisted uni grads who come back after their LLB and end up working in small-mid firms. They don't see the other section of grads who don't come back but instead start their careers in London or HK. This perpetuates the impression that NUS > delisted unis because they are comparing the prospects of the average NUS law student against those from the bottom half of the delisted uni cohorts, hence selection bias.

If you just check Linkedin, you can see that there are far more delisted grads working in the London offices of US/MC/SC/international firms than NUS grads. Yes, the proximity of the uni will have an effect on representation in the office, but many firms conduct wide outreach when it comes to recruitment (e.g. HSF's dedicated Indian uni recruitment programme or Slaughter's tradition of partners flying to US unis to interview candidates). If NUS was really held in that high regard in the international scene, you would see firms having similar dedicated recruitment programmes.

Tldr, if you want to compare returning delisted uni grads against NUS grads, at least compare them against the corresponding segment of NUS grads - i.e. the low 2:1s and 2:2s. You will see that uni doesn't really matter, its just about individual capability.

Lmao at the "Harvard" guy nice troll.

I am from a delisted school too and I think the top 1% of NUS is Razer CEO

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am from a delisted school too and I think the top 1% of NUS is Razer CEO

The top 1% of Leeds is Leslie Cheung.

The top 1% of Leicester is Bob Mortimer.

The top 1% of UCL is Jeremy Bentham.

As someone with an UOL (external) LLM, New York Bar and SG Bar (pqe 8) this is what I have to say in terms of salary and prospect

Law is not my first career although it was my first degree. I spent 6 years fufilling my bond as I was sponsored for overseas law studies. During the 6 years bond (non law career), I decided to do an LLM just for love of studying and did all the fun and albeit employers think a bit useless subjects such as UN rights of women, children rights etc. Prior to the end of my bond I qualified for NY bar then SG bar subsequently.

Following which I began my career in big 4 law firm. And no one cares for LLM or NY bar. Salary was lockstep according to SG PQE. After a few years I went in house at a big local company and again no one cares for it.

However, the only good thing was that these qualifications make employers look twice at you. I felt that as I grew more senior the NY bar came in more handy to MNC particularly US MNC. Which for many years felt like a white elephant to me. The LLM is only useful to take the conversation somewhere. Ultimately companies look for PQE.

Looking back. I think if money was a constraint I would rather spend it on being doubled bar then an LLM. But having said that as I took all the fun subjects I didn't regret it. Though I really don't remember much from those subjects having never put it into practice at all.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The top 1% of Leeds is Leslie Cheung.

The top 1% of Leicester is Bob Mortimer.

The top 1% of UCL is Jeremy Bentham.

Ok like this debate is damn simple. Just choose who the richest/most influential alumni from your school is versus another school. Then you know where you stand. Name as many as possible so we can see your prospects of being successful upon being conferred a degree there.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

3. This is why Upenn / NYU / Stanford and LSE would make sense. The international side of any FLA / MC / SC etc is likely to do US or UK work. The barrier to entry is an understanding of how those legal systems work. NUS trains you in Singapore law, but some aspects are better left to those with UK / US backgrounds. This is why if you went to NUS, you would consider getting to those LLMs as an entry ticket.

Well said, and of course, thanks for putting this in context.
My intention was to advice the NUS grad who asked whether it made sense for him to do a LLM after grad from NUS. Clearly it depends where he/she was going to do it.
It’s a no brainer if it’s a LLM from Harv, Yale, Oxbridge.
Anything after that, you’ve to think hard weighing the cost and time as against PQE.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

When asked to clarify on his/her concept of selection bias as raised, OP from allegedly Harvard posts this. M o e lawn

Actually if you said you were said girl from local uni, why don’t list out how you can match pseudo Harvard law guy.

Harvard law guy suggested he was good because he spoke 2 additional European languages, had a piano licentiate and was a Shakespeare/hamlet buff.

I’m sure you had similar abilities non-academic skills as above.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

People seem to group in-house counsels under a single umbrella. In reality, there are many sub-categories within the in-house community and pay varies greatly [GREATLY] within these sub-categories. Generally, in-house counsels in the following roles will earn more than 6k at 3pqe:

(1) Banks - not compliance, but legal
(2) Regional in-house for F500/listed MNCs
(3) Fin-tech/Internet-related companies [think amazon, facebook, linked - all currently hiring btw!]
(4) IP counsels for pharma/luxury branks/brand enforcement teams

For the above roles... you should be thinking 7k-9k at 3pqe. I was at 7.5k (i thought it was low then, now i'm just glad i still have a job).

The kind of roles that pay 6k at 3pqe:

(1) Local companies.
(2) O&G/freight forwarding where the contracts are mainly standard form.
(3) Asian companies with a low pay-high bonus (depending on economy) kind of package. Think Japanese companies.

Isn't this low for 3PQE for your first 4 categories? i think it's now about 10 to 12k for (1) to (3), IP counsels less. and for 5pqe onward the pay is comparatively more, so i'm saying jump in only much later, not so early

i agree the figures for hte local roles (6k) 3pqe, is about that.