Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

any reviews on wongp specialist and private client dispute?

No. Just no. No amount of money (or prestige from the firm) is worth it.

Heard they have long hours. Going home at 10 pm is a pretty decent day from an opposing counsel i dealt with. haha

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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!

Thanks again for your and the others' responses.

Yes my end-game is to go in-house. The current (possibly wishful) strategy is to stay in private practice so as to reach as high an "exit salary" as possible for companies to match.

I do really agree with your weak bargaining position analysis though. It is not unlikely that I will end up hating corp with the same long hours in a Big 4.

Do you think it'd be possible to negotiate my salary for the Big 4 corp role? I just interviewed with them last week and nothing was mentioned about remuneration.

I guess I am ok taking a 10% paycut which would still give me more than $6k monthly, and not that huge a setback in terms of going in-house shortly after.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I passed Part A on my first attempt in 2018 and attended the seminars. I personally think for Part A, having a good set of notes is not sufficient because a large part of what they test resolves around (a) identification of issues and (b) application of legal principles. Of course, if you are able to achieve (a) and (b), then having a good set of notes may help you get that Distinction.

For Part A, you really need to be precise in your identification of issues and, in my experience, the people who failed are usually the ones who do not conclude properly or beat around the bush without firmly landing on what a charge against an accused person may be. (Overseas grads are probably used to winging their way out of exam questions but this is frown upon here)

Unlike Part B, which I think most of us here can confirm was the time of our lives and which we can really rely on a regurgitation of muggers / notes from seniors, Part A is more like an extension of an exam in university. The purpose of Part A is really to filter out who's ready for practise and who is not.

If you are NOT tight on finances, I think no harm paying for the seminars. My tutors (current NUS / SMU lecturers) were very helpful, especially my evidence law tutor who gave us real tips on how to spot issues during the exam.

What the other poster said was generally more helpful than what you said. What you said was akin to "when driving car you must open your eyes and watch the road". Correct, but not very helpful.

My own take on Part A:

At the risk of resuscitating that garbage about which university is better, it is generally an open secret that some UK universities are degree mills. Not every school a good school. I have met UK 2:1 grads who could not satisfactorily explain fully secret and half secret trusts to me, and even some who had to look up what an easement was.

Part A is also the rigour that they would have been subjected to had they studied at NUS. This is not elitist in anyway. Ask your friends that studied in the UK. There are people that attended school only once a year during exams; rest of the time doing god knows what. They can tell you which club will let you in, where to get 10 quid vodka, and all kinds of stuff that you couldn't or even wouldn't dare do in this country.

So yeah. Get your 2:1, but Part A is where you find out if it is worth the paper its printed on. It's not even to filter out who's ready for practice or not - it's literally to protect the profession and the public from incompetence. Legal practice, legal procedure, etc. you can all learn during TC and onwards. Its not a big deal and you have to be a thicko not to pick up on these things after doing it every day for a living.

But to tell me that director resign also means employment contract also terminated? Wtf. If anything, I interpret the Part A pass rates to mean that UK teaching and the quality of students going there is highly unsatisfactory. All these people posting here asking for help with Part A, maybe you should have paid attention in uni and not partied so much, or studied another degree instead.

I hope they keep Part A that way. No one is entitled to be a lawyer simply because they did a law degree, and the public ought to be protected from such incompetence. Its damn bloody disturbing. I'm not joking. Think of the time spent resitting as time you should've invested in studying properly instead of watching war horse in leicester square or going to the lake district or flying to croatia or whatever.

None of you would visit a doc who couldn't tell your liver from your heart, you all don't come and cry here when your legal fundamentals cmi.

Any thoughts re Drew/R&T/WP TMT?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Any thoughts re Drew/R&T/WP TMT?

Drew all the way. Cannot speak for the rest

I don’t think anyone can complain even if part A failure rates are at 50% or higher.

Look at stats. NY Bar Exams has a pass rate of 30%+ for overseas law graduates.
UK QLTS has a 50% pass rate for the MCT which is typically the control mechanism before you can sit for the second half oral vivas in London.

Part A has always been a control of academic standards in Singapore. It deserves to be that way. Yet to set things in context, a NUS grad would have covered the 5 modules (plus other subjects) over 4 years. The overseas grad has to do it in 5 months.

Having said that, if you study hard, there is no reason to fail.
Part A is open book. When I was an undergrad in UK not too long ago, all our law exams were closed book. If you can even pass a closed book exam, I do not understand how you can fail an open book one.

wtf secret trust half and secret trust? Had to google them before i remembered what the hell they were before, but then again i came from a UK school (although i did pass my part A and B exams on my first try). lool do ppl really remember this?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

wtf secret trust half and secret trust? Had to google them before i remembered what the hell they were before, but then again i came from a UK school (although i did pass my part A and B exams on my first try). lool do ppl really remember this?

Well, as I said if you ask anyone in practice about the three certainties in trust law, they will probably not remember anything.
Heck, I did ask another classmate about certainty of intention, subject matter and object and she was like, do I even remember? It doesn’t even help in our M&A work.
So, frankly unless you’re an equity & trusts professor or a practitioner in the appeals team, knowing secret trusts and half secret trusts is not really going to help your work.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What the other poster said was generally more helpful than what you said. What you said was akin to "when driving car you must open your eyes and watch the road". Correct, but not very helpful.

My own take on Part A:

At the risk of resuscitating that garbage about which university is better, it is generally an open secret that some UK universities are degree mills. Not every school a good school. I have met UK 2:1 grads who could not satisfactorily explain fully secret and half secret trusts to me, and even some who had to look up what an easement was.

Part A is also the rigour that they would have been subjected to had they studied at NUS. This is not elitist in anyway. Ask your friends that studied in the UK. There are people that attended school only once a year during exams; rest of the time doing god knows what. They can tell you which club will let you in, where to get 10 quid vodka, and all kinds of stuff that you couldn't or even wouldn't dare do in this country.

So yeah. Get your 2:1, but Part A is where you find out if it is worth the paper its printed on. It's not even to filter out who's ready for practice or not - it's literally to protect the profession and the public from incompetence. Legal practice, legal procedure, etc. you can all learn during TC and onwards. Its not a big deal and you have to be a thicko not to pick up on these things after doing it every day for a living.

But to tell me that director resign also means employment contract also terminated? Wtf. If anything, I interpret the Part A pass rates to mean that UK teaching and the quality of students going there is highly unsatisfactory. All these people posting here asking for help with Part A, maybe you should have paid attention in uni and not partied so much, or studied another degree instead.

I hope they keep Part A that way. No one is entitled to be a lawyer simply because they did a law degree, and the public ought to be protected from such incompetence. Its damn bloody disturbing. I'm not joking. Think of the time spent resitting as time you should've invested in studying properly instead of watching war horse in leicester square or going to the lake district or flying to croatia or whatever.

None of you would visit a doc who couldn't tell your liver from your heart, you all don't come and cry here when your legal fundamentals cmi.

Yes and I also think there is an equal public policy in making Part B harder. There is no reason to have a mandated high failure rate of 50-70% at Part A and only 30% at Part B. If intellectual rigour is your cup of tea, make Part B have a 50-70% failure rate for parity.

No point defending high failure rates at Part A and low failure rates at Part B. This is inconsistent witb eradicating the incompetence you speak of. Unless, of course, there's something to hide. Last I heard from my juniors, NUS kids who took ACP also had a high failure rate. What's the other one, mediation? Whatever. Quite funny that their schoolmates come on and diss Part A on an anonymous forum.

It is notoriously easy at Part B. This is unsatisfactory. Just get some senior's NUS notes and study the day before and you expect to pass. Everyone knows, and the public should equally be protected from such incompetence.

I have met good lawyers from the degree mills you talk about and people from NUS who can't get the law right as hard as they try. So I don't really understand your stereotype. I have also gone up against people from NUS who don't know what they are doing.

Source: I also passed both on first try.