Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hahaha. Should have been clearer. I wrote about the father-son team, but i did not write about a certain firm which hires mostly on connections - though i'm pretty sure i know which firm the poster is talking about.

I also disagree that permanent hires are decided based on merit alone. That's why we have rain-makers. There was even a HC judgment which described the role of rain makers and essentially said they serve a very real purpose (even if their legal skills suck).

Just saying. Law firms are a business. You need to get clients somehow.

Hihi. Same poster again. I wrote about the father-son team.

I forgot to add that it's been written elsewhere - i'm not sure if you can still find this account - but it is known that the said firm keeps a list/chart of who's related to whom.

Again, just saying.

Btw, i realized that it seems as though i'm saying those without connections etc can't make it. I do not take this view. While a lot of kiddos do get in through such connections, i also know a lot of people who don't and still manage to get into good positions with good pay.

I'm also one of those no connection people. I'm pretty happy where i am - but i also recognize i'm very lucky. If i wasn't so lucky, i would be one of these bitter posters hating on people who get in using connections.

No hate, just facts of life.

You can still make it if you don't have connections! Many of us do!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

hahahaha. disagree with this perspective. in fact, i even know a team in a pseduo-international firm where the son works directly for the father who is the partner.

What? Serious? Who?

Anyway if my family were in law practising might be less shitty if I were to practise with them. Nothing to do with merit/connections.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Depends on the firm, you are right about the big 4 legal exec pay, but are you at a big 4?

Sometimes these are not real "job offers" but a goodwill gesture to assist trainees in bad times.

Some firms can't afford to retain as many trainees as they wish to but don't want to put them out to dry. So it's basically - you can continue hanging around the office at a really low pay until you find a full-time position elsewhere. In the meantime, you can take off for interviews as and when you like and no notice necessary. If you find something, go ahead and accept.

jo Teo say employers cannot mandate that applicants disclose their last drawn

does anyone have experience with how refusing to disclose your last drawn actually goes down? ( i dont think employers ever could mandate it, she was just clarifying)

don't want to accept a lowball because times are bad and have it follow me for the rest of my life

job market literally turning into carousell

i wonder how mburg's (person who started the thread) friend is doing these days

Hi I'm in a local uni looking to do a Masters, has anyone received a conditional offer before from a UK uni? Is the condition usually just a "2:1" or a specific CAP/percentage? I've secured a TC in September last year but will go if I get one that is worth the extra year

Is a safe 2:1 enough or do many schools need a FCH?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi I'm in a local uni looking to do a Masters, has anyone received a conditional offer before from a UK uni? Is the condition usually just a "2:1" or a specific CAP/percentage? I've secured a TC in September last year but will go if I get one that is worth the extra year

Is a safe 2:1 enough or do many schools need a FCH?

You have to share the name of the university otherwise we can’t advise.
It differs from university to university.
KCL will readily accept you with bare 2:1.
LSE need a middling 2:1

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You have to share the name of the university otherwise we can’t advise.
It differs from university to university.
KCL will readily accept you with bare 2:1.
LSE need a middling 2:1

Cambridge minimum first class. Strict rule. But most people have other subject prizes as well. Same for Oxford. They are indeed the creme de la creme of law.

Harvard references are very important. Traditionally only FCH although have seen exceptions though very very rare for a non FCH to even qualify for Harvard.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You have to share the name of the university otherwise we can’t advise.
It differs from university to university.
KCL will readily accept you with bare 2:1.
LSE need a middling 2:1

Thank you you hit the nail on the head haha I was looking at LSE UCL or KCL, think the rest may not be worth it if I already have a TC. What would UCL accept? And what is considered a bare/middling/high 2:1?