Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Skadden, Akin Gump, Sidley, Gibson Dunn should also be cravath scale right.
What about Shearman & Sterling, MoFo , W&C?

Some of these firms don’t even hire Singaporeans. Cravath for actual US qualified lawyers is almost a cert. it is whether they extend these to their Non-US qualified lawyers, and if they even bother hiring Sg lawyers.

My firm forcing me to take leave as cannot carry over. And then I am forced to work during leave. Can I complain to MOM pls advise.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

My firm forcing me to take leave as cannot carry over. And then I am forced to work during leave. Can I complain to MOM pls advise.

Just quit. Loser

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Just quit. Loser

Why am I a loser for raising injustice

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Some of these firms don’t even hire Singaporeans. Cravath for actual US qualified lawyers is almost a cert. it is whether they extend these to their Non-US qualified lawyers, and if they even bother hiring Sg lawyers.

Don’t they hire uk qualified lawyers as well?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi there, I am a Y3 student considering TC opportunities. Even after my internships, I feel like I still don't really know whether to choose a career in corp or liti. I felt like during the internships, I wasn't able to gain a complete understanding of what life in practice would be like. Perhaps it was my fault for not trying to observe harder and be more involved.

I just wanted to ask if you all have any opinions on corp (particularly m&a) vs liti, in terms of work-life balance, pay, career progression, level of difficulty, etc. From what I was told, corp tends to pay better, and the work can be more repetitive. On the other hand, the thrill of litigation work comes from the unique facts of each case and the opportunity to advocate.

Any corp to liti or vice versa switchers here? Also, would it affect much if I change after my training contract?

From an M&A perspective, the work tends to ebb and flow and there will be lull periods and busy periods accordingly. The level of difficulty will depend on what firm you are at - at certain firms, you may be doing purely due diligence for a long period of time (mind numbing), while at other firms you may be running the file fairly independently even when you are quite junior. It goes without saying that much will depend on your personal ability - if you can cut it, the complex and interesting work will definitely find its way to you.

I think the general consensus is that it is easier to switch from litigation to corporate, rather than the other way around, and I don't think it affects your career progression as much if you're choosing to change after your training contract, although you may have to take a PQE cut if you change specialisations when you are more senior.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

My firm forcing me to take leave as cannot carry over. And then I am forced to work during leave. Can I complain to MOM pls advise.

Are u referring to THAT firm LOL

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Are u referring to THAT firm LOL

Which firm

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Which firm

The one that the Managing Partner wield power put foot down and force ppl clear leave la then still work on leave cos you cant travel n nowhere to go... tsk thank God my firm allow me carry over loads. I'm from A biG 4

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi there, I am a Y3 student considering TC opportunities. Even after my internships, I feel like I still don't really know whether to choose a career in corp or liti. I felt like during the internships, I wasn't able to gain a complete understanding of what life in practice would be like. Perhaps it was my fault for not trying to observe harder and be more involved.

I just wanted to ask if you all have any opinions on corp (particularly m&a) vs liti, in terms of work-life balance, pay, career progression, level of difficulty, etc. From what I was told, corp tends to pay better, and the work can be more repetitive. On the other hand, the thrill of litigation work comes from the unique facts of each case and the opportunity to advocate.

Any corp to liti or vice versa switchers here? Also, would it affect much if I change after my training contract?

You want to be a lawyer in private practice then forget about work life balance especially in your early years. You may get a bit more of a life if you are with a smaller outfit but the nature of legal work whether corp or liti means that there will be times when you have to rush to meet deadlines, even at the expense of sleep at times.

You need to think what your end goal is and where you see yourself at in the far future. If you want to eventually move in house, a corp role would be much preferred. Most in-house will need corp experience, with a lot looking for M&A experience. Litigators do get in house roles but to be honest they rank below the preference list for in house employers.

Pay wise, first few years you will more or less get the same whether you are in corp or liti, unlikely to have huge difference. It also boils down to what type of corp work and what type of litigation work you do. On a very general level at risk of stereotyping, corp may pay better than liti but they both have their cycles. I think you should focus more on finding the work you prefer/enjoy doing because money shouldn't be your sole consideration.

Perhaps you can try squeezing in one more internship to see what it's like. Try smaller firms if you've not done so. Also, you're already Yr3, kinda late to still be cherry picking TCs in current market no? Might be better to just take what you can get first if you do want to stay in law for a career.