Lawyer Salary - Page 972 - Salary.sg Forums
Salary.sg Forums  

Go Back   Salary.sg Forums > The Salary.sg Discussion Forums: > Income and Jobs

Income and Jobs Discuss jobs, career options and of course salaries




Lawyer Salary

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #9711 (permalink)  
Old 18-11-2020, 03:00 AM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

FYI for all the law students out there interested in training at Singapore offices of international firms* - Legalcheek Singapore virtual law fair on 17 November.

s://.legalcheek.com/the-legal-cheek-singapore-virtual-law-fair/

Well, query how the TC of the JLVs** (Withers Khattarwong, Pinsent Masons MPillay) work but I suppose this is a perfect opportunity to ask them.

**CC and Baker McKenzie are JLVs with their Singapore subsidiaries so they’re basically having their cake and eating it.

Reply With Quote
  #9712 (permalink)  
Old 18-11-2020, 03:04 AM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
FYI for all the law students out there interested in training at Singapore offices of international firms* - Legalcheek Singapore virtual law fair on 17 November.

s://.legalcheek.com/the-legal-cheek-singapore-virtual-law-fair/

Well, query how the TC of the JLVs** (Withers Khattarwong, Pinsent Masons MPillay) work but I suppose this is a perfect opportunity to ask them.

**CC and Baker McKenzie are JLVs with their Singapore subsidiaries so they’re basically having their cake and eating it.
Also a good chance to ask CC, A&O and Latham how English-style TCs work - rather than complain about Singapore firms lowballing trainees why not see what else is out there?

Free advice from a senior who’s been there - take care but there are more opportunities out there than you’d think!

Reply With Quote
  #9713 (permalink)  
Old 18-11-2020, 03:16 AM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Also a good chance to ask CC, A&O and Latham how English-style TCs work - rather than complain about Singapore firms lowballing trainees why not see what else is out there?

Free advice from a senior who’s been there - take care but there are more opportunities out there than you’d think!
You got to be kidding already finished lah lmao

Reply With Quote
  #9714 (permalink)  
Old 20-11-2020, 04:46 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Which Claire? There are many Claires there.
got ms teochew pageant finalist also
Reply With Quote
  #9715 (permalink)  
Old 23-11-2020, 10:28 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

why is this forum so quiet recently? everyone studying for finals?
Reply With Quote
  #9716 (permalink)  
Old 23-11-2020, 10:29 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
FYI for all the law students out there interested in training at Singapore offices of international firms* - Legalcheek Singapore virtual law fair on 17 November.

s://.legalcheek.com/the-legal-cheek-singapore-virtual-law-fair/

Well, query how the TC of the JLVs** (Withers Khattarwong, Pinsent Masons MPillay) work but I suppose this is a perfect opportunity to ask them.

**CC and Baker McKenzie are JLVs with their Singapore subsidiaries so they’re basically having their cake and eating it.
law fair on 17 nov you post on 18 really damn snake
Reply With Quote

  #9717 (permalink)  
Old 24-11-2020, 03:29 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anyone game enough to discuss the findings of the case?

s://.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/lee-suet-fern-suspended-15-months-misconduct-lee-kuan-yew-will-13600946
Reply With Quote
  #9718 (permalink)  
Old 24-11-2020, 04:20 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've been asked to write something about the Lee Suet Fern case, so I've done a quick summary of the judgment, and added my brief views on the matter. This is a politically explosive matter concerning high profile people in my industry, so don't expect any spicy takes from me! (Not publicly on Facebook at least.)

LACK OF DILIGENCE
At [149](a)-(b): LSF had made material representations to LKY in the execution process that she had no basis to make, which is, at best, irresponsible. Namely, she told him that the version of the Will he was signing was identical to the one he executed several versions ago (ie this was simply a reversion to a Will he had executed previously). In reliance of this, LKY then went ahead to sign the Will. As it turns out, there actually existed several material differences from the version he previously signed. Crucially, LSF had not seen the executed previous version, so she was in no position to assure him that it was the same. As such, she failed to ascertain that the Will truly reflected the testator's (LKY's) intentions, which is a cardinal sin for Will drafting.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[149](c)-(d), (h): By playing such a central role in the execution of LKY's last Will while being the wife of a major beneficiary as set out above, LSF was in a position of conflict of interest as a lawyer. As such, she should have advised LKY to seek independent legal advice. She did not. Had she been in a solicitor-client relationship, this would have been a grave breach. Nonetheless, she had divided loyalties, being married to LHY, a beneficiary, and also servicing LKY as she would a client.

OTHER QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS
[149](e)-(g): LSF allowed LKY to execute the Will despite knowledge of the above, and left KKL out of most of the material correspondence. She then failed to fully inform her what happened even after the fact. She did not clarify with LKY who drafted the last Will, and if it was indeed identical to an earlier Will he had executed.

The court also found that she had been less than honest in trying to minimise her involvement to the court, although they also found that she did not act dishonestly in getting the Will executed.

WHY NOT STRUCK OFF?
LSF got off lightly, all things considered, because she was found not to be in a lawyer-client relationship with LKY. As such, her transgressions were only poor form for a lawyer, but did not breach the lawyer-client relationship, which is far more serious. All lawyers owe duties to their clients, and failure to advance one's client's best interests, acting in conflict of interest are serious breaches of a lawyer's duties.

Whether there exists a lawyer-client relationship will depend on the facts. Even if no contract was signed, if BOTH parties understood there to be one and acted in that manner, such a relationship can arise (judgment at [61]).

In this case, the court found that a lawyer-client relationship did not exist (judgment at [133]) because while LSF viewed herself as acting as LKY's lawyer (judgment at [127]), LKY did not view LSF as being his lawyer (judgment at [130]), as he thought Kwa had a hand in drafting the final Will.

MY VIEWS
This is a very ugly and public spat. I hope it's over.

As a lawyer, it should have been clear to LSF that the situation was one where she was in a position of conflict. As such, she ought to have gone out of her way to ensure that there wasn't even the slightest appearance of impropriety. She could have safeguarded herself by waiting for KKL to get get back, and/or at least keeping KKL copied in ALL correspondence. Whether inadvertently (LHY was the first to omit KKL from the chain, if she hit "reply all" thereafter, she may not have realised KKL was no longer looped in) or otherwise, she did not.

While the speed with which the Will was signed may well have been on LKY's instructions, again, given how sensitive this all was, every effort should have been made to keep KKL or her staff in the loop to avoid future allegations of impropriety.

Personally, though, I think the final Will, with the demolition clause reinstated, is more consistent with the public stance LKY has had regarding his house all these years.

I am grateful that 38 Oxley will not be demolished, because I feel it is a part of our national heritage. But LKY of all people should have known that the demolition clause cannot override the State: he pushed through reforms in land law that gave the State ultimate power over property here. Many property owners have been displaced over the years, sometimes with inadequate compensation, to make way for development. But would we have had such progress if proprietary rights were recognised? The URA would've spent years litigating against stubborn landowners, or a fortune to buy them out. If PM Lee or the government of the day were so minded, an act of Parliament could have been passed to preserve 38 Oxley, notwithstanding what the Will said.

Still, I think this whole matter is actually a proxy fight, and the underlying issues remain unaddressed. This kind of family thing often no right no wrong one, and those of us who are not privy to what's going on can only speculate.

But hopefully this brings the whole unhappy episode to a close. I think the public is getting quite tired of seeing the Lee family dirty laundry being aired in public, and expensive legal cases being brought to settle private family affairs.


SL of LVM
Reply With Quote
  #9719 (permalink)  
Old 24-11-2020, 07:05 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
I've been asked to write something about the Lee Suet Fern case, so I've done a quick summary of the judgment, and added my brief views on the matter. This is a politically explosive matter concerning high profile people in my industry, so don't expect any spicy takes from me! (Not publicly on Facebook at least.)

LACK OF DILIGENCE
At [149](a)-(b): LSF had made material representations to LKY in the execution process that she had no basis to make, which is, at best, irresponsible. Namely, she told him that the version of the Will he was signing was identical to the one he executed several versions ago (ie this was simply a reversion to a Will he had executed previously). In reliance of this, LKY then went ahead to sign the Will. As it turns out, there actually existed several material differences from the version he previously signed. Crucially, LSF had not seen the executed previous version, so she was in no position to assure him that it was the same. As such, she failed to ascertain that the Will truly reflected the testator's (LKY's) intentions, which is a cardinal sin for Will drafting.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[149](c)-(d), (h): By playing such a central role in the execution of LKY's last Will while being the wife of a major beneficiary as set out above, LSF was in a position of conflict of interest as a lawyer. As such, she should have advised LKY to seek independent legal advice. She did not. Had she been in a solicitor-client relationship, this would have been a grave breach. Nonetheless, she had divided loyalties, being married to LHY, a beneficiary, and also servicing LKY as she would a client.

OTHER QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS
[149](e)-(g): LSF allowed LKY to execute the Will despite knowledge of the above, and left KKL out of most of the material correspondence. She then failed to fully inform her what happened even after the fact. She did not clarify with LKY who drafted the last Will, and if it was indeed identical to an earlier Will he had executed.

The court also found that she had been less than honest in trying to minimise her involvement to the court, although they also found that she did not act dishonestly in getting the Will executed.

WHY NOT STRUCK OFF?
LSF got off lightly, all things considered, because she was found not to be in a lawyer-client relationship with LKY. As such, her transgressions were only poor form for a lawyer, but did not breach the lawyer-client relationship, which is far more serious. All lawyers owe duties to their clients, and failure to advance one's client's best interests, acting in conflict of interest are serious breaches of a lawyer's duties.

Whether there exists a lawyer-client relationship will depend on the facts. Even if no contract was signed, if BOTH parties understood there to be one and acted in that manner, such a relationship can arise (judgment at [61]).

In this case, the court found that a lawyer-client relationship did not exist (judgment at [133]) because while LSF viewed herself as acting as LKY's lawyer (judgment at [127]), LKY did not view LSF as being his lawyer (judgment at [130]), as he thought Kwa had a hand in drafting the final Will.

MY VIEWS
This is a very ugly and public spat. I hope it's over.

As a lawyer, it should have been clear to LSF that the situation was one where she was in a position of conflict. As such, she ought to have gone out of her way to ensure that there wasn't even the slightest appearance of impropriety. She could have safeguarded herself by waiting for KKL to get get back, and/or at least keeping KKL copied in ALL correspondence. Whether inadvertently (LHY was the first to omit KKL from the chain, if she hit "reply all" thereafter, she may not have realised KKL was no longer looped in) or otherwise, she did not.

While the speed with which the Will was signed may well have been on LKY's instructions, again, given how sensitive this all was, every effort should have been made to keep KKL or her staff in the loop to avoid future allegations of impropriety.

Personally, though, I think the final Will, with the demolition clause reinstated, is more consistent with the public stance LKY has had regarding his house all these years.

I am grateful that 38 Oxley will not be demolished, because I feel it is a part of our national heritage. But LKY of all people should have known that the demolition clause cannot override the State: he pushed through reforms in land law that gave the State ultimate power over property here. Many property owners have been displaced over the years, sometimes with inadequate compensation, to make way for development. But would we have had such progress if proprietary rights were recognised? The URA would've spent years litigating against stubborn landowners, or a fortune to buy them out. If PM Lee or the government of the day were so minded, an act of Parliament could have been passed to preserve 38 Oxley, notwithstanding what the Will said.

Still, I think this whole matter is actually a proxy fight, and the underlying issues remain unaddressed. This kind of family thing often no right no wrong one, and those of us who are not privy to what's going on can only speculate.

But hopefully this brings the whole unhappy episode to a close. I think the public is getting quite tired of seeing the Lee family dirty laundry being aired in public, and expensive legal cases being brought to settle private family affairs.


SL of LVM
Who’s the writer of this? Any issue with this post?
Reply With Quote
  #9720 (permalink)  
Old 24-11-2020, 09:49 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
I've been asked to write something about the Lee Suet Fern case, so I've done a quick summary of the judgment, and added my brief views on the matter. This is a politically explosive matter concerning high profile people in my industry, so don't expect any spicy takes from me! (Not publicly on Facebook at least.)

LACK OF DILIGENCE
At [149](a)-(b): LSF had made material representations to LKY in the execution process that she had no basis to make, which is, at best, irresponsible. Namely, she told him that the version of the Will he was signing was identical to the one he executed several versions ago (ie this was simply a reversion to a Will he had executed previously). In reliance of this, LKY then went ahead to sign the Will. As it turns out, there actually existed several material differences from the version he previously signed. Crucially, LSF had not seen the executed previous version, so she was in no position to assure him that it was the same. As such, she failed to ascertain that the Will truly reflected the testator's (LKY's) intentions, which is a cardinal sin for Will drafting.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[149](c)-(d), (h): By playing such a central role in the execution of LKY's last Will while being the wife of a major beneficiary as set out above, LSF was in a position of conflict of interest as a lawyer. As such, she should have advised LKY to seek independent legal advice. She did not. Had she been in a solicitor-client relationship, this would have been a grave breach. Nonetheless, she had divided loyalties, being married to LHY, a beneficiary, and also servicing LKY as she would a client.

OTHER QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS
[149](e)-(g): LSF allowed LKY to execute the Will despite knowledge of the above, and left KKL out of most of the material correspondence. She then failed to fully inform her what happened even after the fact. She did not clarify with LKY who drafted the last Will, and if it was indeed identical to an earlier Will he had executed.

The court also found that she had been less than honest in trying to minimise her involvement to the court, although they also found that she did not act dishonestly in getting the Will executed.

WHY NOT STRUCK OFF?
LSF got off lightly, all things considered, because she was found not to be in a lawyer-client relationship with LKY. As such, her transgressions were only poor form for a lawyer, but did not breach the lawyer-client relationship, which is far more serious. All lawyers owe duties to their clients, and failure to advance one's client's best interests, acting in conflict of interest are serious breaches of a lawyer's duties.

Whether there exists a lawyer-client relationship will depend on the facts. Even if no contract was signed, if BOTH parties understood there to be one and acted in that manner, such a relationship can arise (judgment at [61]).

In this case, the court found that a lawyer-client relationship did not exist (judgment at [133]) because while LSF viewed herself as acting as LKY's lawyer (judgment at [127]), LKY did not view LSF as being his lawyer (judgment at [130]), as he thought Kwa had a hand in drafting the final Will.

MY VIEWS
This is a very ugly and public spat. I hope it's over.

As a lawyer, it should have been clear to LSF that the situation was one where she was in a position of conflict. As such, she ought to have gone out of her way to ensure that there wasn't even the slightest appearance of impropriety. She could have safeguarded herself by waiting for KKL to get get back, and/or at least keeping KKL copied in ALL correspondence. Whether inadvertently (LHY was the first to omit KKL from the chain, if she hit "reply all" thereafter, she may not have realised KKL was no longer looped in) or otherwise, she did not.

While the speed with which the Will was signed may well have been on LKY's instructions, again, given how sensitive this all was, every effort should have been made to keep KKL or her staff in the loop to avoid future allegations of impropriety.

Personally, though, I think the final Will, with the demolition clause reinstated, is more consistent with the public stance LKY has had regarding his house all these years.

I am grateful that 38 Oxley will not be demolished, because I feel it is a part of our national heritage. But LKY of all people should have known that the demolition clause cannot override the State: he pushed through reforms in land law that gave the State ultimate power over property here. Many property owners have been displaced over the years, sometimes with inadequate compensation, to make way for development. But would we have had such progress if proprietary rights were recognised? The URA would've spent years litigating against stubborn landowners, or a fortune to buy them out. If PM Lee or the government of the day were so minded, an act of Parliament could have been passed to preserve 38 Oxley, notwithstanding what the Will said.

Still, I think this whole matter is actually a proxy fight, and the underlying issues remain unaddressed. This kind of family thing often no right no wrong one, and those of us who are not privy to what's going on can only speculate.

But hopefully this brings the whole unhappy episode to a close. I think the public is getting quite tired of seeing the Lee family dirty laundry being aired in public, and expensive legal cases being brought to settle private family affairs.


SL of LVM
How is this relevant to lawyers' salary? The troll infestation on this thread worsens by the day.

In any case, has the author consented to you reproducing his opinion on this forum? What is your intention behind hinting at the author's identity and law firm?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
advocate, law, lawyer, legal, solicitor

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
From Lawyer Insider: Life is Glamorous but Unsatisfying Salary.sg Income and Jobs 31 15-01-2018 12:40 PM

» 30 Recent Threads
Compare civil service salary ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
11,222 Replies, 6,260,951 Views
MINDEF DXO (All FAQ on it) ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
3,577 Replies, 2,128,667 Views
ST Electronics ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
1,334 Replies, 327,136 Views
How is life as a doctor in... ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
1,719 Replies, 1,064,977 Views
Q: Big4 - Yearly salary increment ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
1,152 Replies, 877,923 Views
Lawyer Salary ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
10,068 Replies, 3,379,516 Views
DBS Graduate Associate Program ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
776 Replies, 399,773 Views
SIM-UOL fresh grad starting pay ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
4,108 Replies, 1,412,866 Views
Where would you invest your money... ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
31 Replies, 17,686 Views
GIC career ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
268 Replies, 377,729 Views
UOB Management Associate Program ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
396 Replies, 211,871 Views
OCBC Graduate Talent Programme... ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
535 Replies, 155,785 Views
How much are you earning per annum? ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
12,145 Replies, 3,957,908 Views
JP Morgan ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
48 Replies, 27,666 Views
OCBC mortgage specialist
4 Replies, 3,442 Views
MOH Graduate Studies Scholarship ( 1 2)
16 Replies, 16,374 Views
GovTech career grade ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
188 Replies, 188,413 Views
Civil Svc/ Statboard - Typical... ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
2,874 Replies, 1,253,577 Views
Standard Chartered Bank Back Office ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
51 Replies, 99,596 Views
Starting pay for fresh uni grad... ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
147 Replies, 8,699 Views
Career as Teacher ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
3,034 Replies, 1,907,009 Views
Keppel Associate Programme 2018 ( 1 2)
16 Replies, 11,532 Views
Career as a quant... ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
43 Replies, 42,933 Views
DBS tech seed programme ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
245 Replies, 41,285 Views
Ex-MOE Teachers ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
117 Replies, 131,342 Views
Advice for SAF regular pls
9 Replies, 1,270 Views
Usually is it ok to HR recruiters...
5 Replies, 1,472 Views
High Finance Thread ( 1 2 3... Last Page)
156 Replies, 38,235 Views
just want to know ur opinion
0 Replies, 209 Views
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2



All times are GMT +8. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2