Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What I do not understand is why clients would even be interested in knowing the point of law? Don’t they have to pay extra fees to brining the action to court again even though they have already reached an agreement?

read the judgment and it'll be clear why the clients - who are prominent players in the insolvency and restructuring space - have an interest in resolving what has become an "academic" question of the law

it is most certainly not out of a love or passion for the law or jurisprudential development though

Anyone here has done a PhD at Oxford or Cambridge?
How much did it cost (in total) in Singapore dollars?
Need to self-fund after working 5 years in a law firm.

Hi all! Does anyone know what is the market rate honorarium for law internships now? I am guessing that due to covid19, it would be quite low. Or is it acceptable for firms to not pay at all? (a small firm told me they do not pay interns...and I want to ask another firm if they provide honorarium)

Thank u!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi all! Does anyone know what is the market rate honorarium for law internships now? I am guessing that due to covid19, it would be quite low. Or is it acceptable for firms to not pay at all? (a small firm told me they do not pay interns...and I want to ask another firm if they provide honorarium)

Thank u!

In Fervent we pays 2k for internship. Come applies.

My heart goes out to the juniors who had their careers ruined. Everyone knows that this profession is highly regimental. Major calls on files are almost always taken by senior lawyers.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

My heart goes out to the juniors who had their careers ruined. Everyone knows that this profession is highly regimental. Major calls on files are almost always taken by senior lawyers.

Haha R&T juniors

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I see. So in practice, if my superior is conducting a matter and I strongly disagree with how the matter is being conducted (of course I would be able to back this up with good reasons in this hypothetical) I should make that clear to my superior, preferably in writing? Can I just refuse to work on a file then, if something like this happens and my superior goes 'I have way more experience than you and you're being dramatic/wrong'?

Do junior lawyers often disagree with their bosses in reality? Doesn't the power imbalance at play here mean that few people would be courageous enough to do so? Disagreeing with someone who may have a say over your prospects of promotion seems unwise. I suppose in reality people just leave the firm if they really don't like the culture there? Or is it the case that by the time you are actually counsel on a matter you have quite a few years of experience and the partners would actually be inclined to listen to you?

if one is going to be a junior assoc in a big firm (or any firm really), how does 'choosing your boss carefully' even work? surely no one will listen to you when you say sth like 'I've heard very good things about Boss B and would like the opportunity to work under B', aren't you just expected to do the work you are assigned?

-
The lawyers here are from reputable firms tho so it's quite surprising sth like this even happened. Hopefully it's an anomaly

You can voice your concerns, but given how big the egoes of lawyers are in Singapore, it's unlikely that your concerns will be met with a warm response. You need to decide if your reputation/future is worth taking a bet on by continuing with that "brand name lawyer".

I chose to leave after noting some really unsavoury practices that were going on, taking a significant pau cut and drawing a lot of drivel from my ex-boss in the process. Nver slept better since.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I see. So in practice, if my superior is conducting a matter and I strongly disagree with how the matter is being conducted (of course I would be able to back this up with good reasons in this hypothetical) I should make that clear to my superior, preferably in writing? Can I just refuse to work on a file then, if something like this happens and my superior goes 'I have way more experience than you and you're being dramatic/wrong'?

Do junior lawyers often disagree with their bosses in reality? Doesn't the power imbalance at play here mean that few people would be courageous enough to do so? Disagreeing with someone who may have a say over your prospects of promotion seems unwise. I suppose in reality people just leave the firm if they really don't like the culture there? Or is it the case that by the time you are actually counsel on a matter you have quite a few years of experience and the partners would actually be inclined to listen to you?

if one is going to be a junior assoc in a big firm (or any firm really), how does 'choosing your boss carefully' even work? surely no one will listen to you when you say sth like 'I've heard very good things about Boss B and would like the opportunity to work under B', aren't you just expected to do the work you are assigned?

-
The lawyers here are from reputable firms tho so it's quite surprising sth like this even happened. Hopefully it's an anomaly

Despite the bad press, there are ethical and principled partners out there (at least in litigation).

I really didn't understand the CA's comment about them being lawyers from "reputable firms" though.

Firms are reputable because they do high profile or sophisticated work, rake in good profits, which leads to a virtuous cycle of attracting and retaining the best talent who in turn attract more sophisticated clients

There is no correlation between ethics and whether the firm is top tier one or not.

McKinsey is a reputable management consulting firm. It doesn't make them naturally more ethical (as their conduct recent years has shown)

There may be bad eggs in high powered law firms just as there are in small one-man shops. It can't be implied that lawyers from non-top tier firms are assumed to be less ethical or more prone to misleading the Court

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I really didn't understand the CA's comment about them being lawyers from "reputable firms" though.

Firms are reputable because they do high profile or sophisticated work, rake in good profits, which leads to a virtuous cycle of attracting and retaining the best talent who in turn attract more sophisticated clients

There is no correlation between ethics and whether the firm is top tier one or not.

McKinsey is a reputable management consulting firm. It doesn't make them naturally more ethical (as their conduct recent years has shown)

There may be bad eggs in high powered law firms just as there are in small one-man shops. It can't be implied that lawyers from non-top tier firms are assumed to be less ethical or more prone to misleading the Court

agree.

unfortunately, it's just like how sg ppl like to judge what school and uni you went to.

i rmbr a hearing where one party was represented by Firm A, who had taken over from Firm B (a supposedly 'reputable firm'). Firm B didn't do some work properly or it appeared that they didn't advise accurately, something like that. IIRC the judge basically said something to the effect of he's sure Firm B wouldn't have done such a thing.