Lawyer Salary

Now what's the salary in Big 4 like from first year associate up to junior partner?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Actually the statistics show otherwise - LSE has a 6% admission rate and a cap of less than 20 Singaporean students versus a school that takes 200+ a year. Which is more selective? Look at the numbers.

So selective, I'm not so sure. Prestige arguments, I'm also not so sure if you look at the pedigree of who graduated from LSE vs who graduated from NUS, in Singapore and internationally. NUS makes good Singapore lawyers at the top 5-10% (and not the average and bottom). LSE makes Singapore and international lawyers and a lot more than just legal drones.

The reason why there is a lack of representation in Singapore is that LSE takes in 10% of NUS cohort per year or less. A good proportion stay in the UK, the rest come back. They also go on to do things other than law (the benefit of an LSE degree).

But the practice of Singapore law, NUS. This is a fact of utility rather than prestige, because it is 4 years SG law vs 3 years UK law. Should the argument be reversed, LSE would be more prestigious to an international law firm doing UK law by virtue of having 3 years LLB in UK law, which is a stupid comparison.

Sure arguments can be made either way. But the fact is you're 100% not prejudiced locally by choosing LSE. Two people have already given you the statistics, so you are able to make an informed choice. However, no one also has refuted the fact that you need to be top 10-20% of NUS to work at an international firm at the outset.

Second, half (?) of the NUS batch gets a 2.2 (correct me if I'm wrong). Take that into account. At LSE, Oxford and Cambridge you won't have to cannibalise your own classmates.

Local connections, yes. This is important.

Covid - yes, stay in Singapore.

Whoever took the time on Father’s Day to write this, excellent account.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Whoever took the time on Father’s Day to write this, excellent account.

At the heart of it we're just care bears who care about our junior to be

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Heck care SILE la. Nb they charge us $7k for a course that costs almost nothing to them. Still need pay for some e-learning nonsense.

tiagong the course tutor all paid 1k/hr. dunno how true but some of them rly damn good and go above beyond. others are like how tf u manage to con sile into letting u teach sia

plus got cpd somemore

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Actually the statistics show otherwise - LSE has a 6% admission rate and a cap of less than 20 Singaporean students versus a school that takes 200+ a year. Which is more selective? Look at the numbers.

So selective, I'm not so sure. Prestige arguments, I'm also not so sure if you look at the pedigree of who graduated from LSE vs who graduated from NUS, in Singapore and internationally. NUS makes good Singapore lawyers at the top 5-10% (and not the average and bottom). LSE makes Singapore and international lawyers and a lot more than just legal drones.

The reason why there is a lack of representation in Singapore is that LSE takes in 10% of NUS cohort per year or less. A good proportion stay in the UK, the rest come back. They also go on to do things other than law (the benefit of an LSE degree).

But the practice of Singapore law, NUS. This is a fact of utility rather than prestige, because it is 4 years SG law vs 3 years UK law. Should the argument be reversed, LSE would be more prestigious to an international law firm doing UK law by virtue of having 3 years LLB in UK law, which is a stupid comparison.

Sure arguments can be made either way. But the fact is you're 100% not prejudiced locally by choosing LSE. Two people have already given you the statistics, so you are able to make an informed choice. However, no one also has refuted the fact that you need to be top 10-20% of NUS to work at an international firm at the outset.

Second, half (?) of the NUS batch gets a 2.2 (correct me if I'm wrong). Take that into account. At LSE, Oxford and Cambridge you won't have to cannibalise your own classmates.

Local connections, yes. This is important.

Covid - yes, stay in Singapore.

Just want to correct the part about 2.1/2.2, they've changed it now so I think more people are able to get 2.1s. As long as you get a B average (which in previous years has been calculated as around a 3.4-3.5 because they use your actual score for subjects to calculate, not the GPA for each subject) you can get a 2.1. It's still of course never easy wherever you go be it NUS or LSE, and NUS law is not a total breeze, but there's room for mistakes and room to improve in both. There are many cases where people don't do as well at the start, but manage to pull it up, and life's all okay.

Agree that arguments can be made either way and both have their merits I think if you can do well in NUS, the connections that you get are good enough even if LSE may have a lower admission rate.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Actually the statistics show otherwise - LSE has a 6% admission rate and a cap of less than 20 Singaporean students versus a school that takes 200+ a year. Which is more selective? Look at the numbers.

So selective, I'm not so sure. Prestige arguments, I'm also not so sure if you look at the pedigree of who graduated from LSE vs who graduated from NUS, in Singapore and internationally. NUS makes good Singapore lawyers at the top 5-10% (and not the average and bottom). LSE makes Singapore and international lawyers and a lot more than just legal drones.

The reason why there is a lack of representation in Singapore is that LSE takes in 10% of NUS cohort per year or less. A good proportion stay in the UK, the rest come back. They also go on to do things other than law (the benefit of an LSE degree).

But the practice of Singapore law, NUS. This is a fact of utility rather than prestige, because it is 4 years SG law vs 3 years UK law. Should the argument be reversed, LSE would be more prestigious to an international law firm doing UK law by virtue of having 3 years LLB in UK law, which is a stupid comparison.

Sure arguments can be made either way. But the fact is you're 100% not prejudiced locally by choosing LSE. Two people have already given you the statistics, so you are able to make an informed choice. However, no one also has refuted the fact that you need to be top 10-20% of NUS to work at an international firm at the outset.

Second, half (?) of the NUS batch gets a 2.2 (correct me if I'm wrong). Take that into account. At LSE, Oxford and Cambridge you won't have to cannibalise your own classmates.

Local connections, yes. This is important.

Covid - yes, stay in Singapore.

Sorry not sure why my previous reply wasn't posted, but actually more than half of the NUS batch gets at least a 2.1! It's not easy or anything, it'll be tough both in NUS and LSE, but there's room for improvement and room to make some mistakes in both so it'll be okay. Because for NUS now as long as you generally get a B for all your subjects, the way they calculate is with your raw score so it turns out that it only takes about a 3.4-3.5 to get a 2.1, and any percentage of the cohort is able to get a 2.1 now, although of course there are still a chunk of people who don't.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

usu only if legal exec or para at law firm. many of my friends do (not b4) cos need money

Do they check?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Do they check?

isn't there some form u have to fill in and to get pemployer to sompah or smth

want to do just do properly why do until got smth to hide one. kid if u didnt know this alr and cheated ur way thru 4 years of nus, listen up now and listen good

law soc places a premium on integrity. dishonesty or even the appearance of dishonesty is met with disbarment. this isn't sch anymore. u dont ask around for the mcq ans anymore.

u lucky u ask here, u ask ur boss (if u even make it that far) this kind of qn next time u see u dont end up doing grabfood the next day. every passing generation rly cui ttm

Originally Posted by Unregistered

law soc places a premium on integrity. dishonesty or even the appearance of dishonesty is met with disbarment. this isn't sch anymore. u dont ask around for the mcq ans anymore.

u lucky u ask here, u ask ur boss (if u even make it that far) this kind of qn next time u see u dont end up doing grabfood the next day. every passing generation rly cui ttm

Simi integrity. Chinatown car langga law firms buddy buddy with car workshops everyone also diam diam.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am the OP wanting to make the switch. Thanks for the response. Never thought of doing anything disputes related anymore because I dislike going to court.

I am thinking of going in-house (at or around the same pay) or do corp at another big 4 (likely with pay cut based on speaking to other laterals).

No guarantee I won’t hate corp, but my mindset is that if it allows me to stay in private practice and potentially enjoy it, maybe it’s worth a shot? Can always go in-house later.

Why do you wish to stay in private practice? That would be my first question. Most people stay in private practice because they see it as good money or a viable future career path (partner). I can think of very few other reasons why people stay in private practice.

So here is my two cents. I'm the OP you quoted by the way.

If your end game is to go in-house anyway, then you might as well move now. Regressing in your PQE means taking a somewhat major paycut [pqe3-NQ] and you'll need another 3 to 4 years to match what you're currently earning.

And what happens if in the next 6mths to a year you decide you don't like private practice corp - you will be in an extremely weak negotiation position going in-house since your last drawn pay would be the equivalent to that of an NQ-1pqe. You would also not be eligible to apply for corp-intensive in-house roles, since you do not have the requisite experience in this area of law (at least from a HR perspective). What this means is that you will likely be relying on your liti exp/localisation to pivot into an in-house role - basically, you will be in the exact same position you're in right now - except with a really shitty last drawn pay.

Going in-house now would allow you to at least negotiate for a 20% pay rise from what you're currently earning (maybe not so much in the current economy, but i'd say you still have a good shot at getting a decent pay increase).

Ofc, many will argue that the pay increases for in-house counsels are much slower than private practice. This is true, i went from practice-in-house-practice.... but many of my peers who left practice at the same stage as you still manage to negotiate a decent salary at their respective PQEs. Think 4-5pqe at 8-10k and 6-8 PQE at 10-12K (pre-covid).

It would be interesting to know what you decide in the end... do keep us updated!