Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not likely the previous trainees will get scrutinised.

The judge stated in [18] of his judgment that "Who these practice trainess are, and how many more there were is a matter that should be swiftly and vigorously pursued by the Supervising Authorities"

Even if the statement is obiter, there will be pressure on the authorities to do something about it, just like what happened in Parti Liyani's case. I share the same sentiments as you that the previous trainees should not be scrutinised as they are entitled to believe their SS is qualified.

But the statutory provision clearly provides that a legal practitioner can only be qualified as a SS if he/she holds a PC in force of at least 5 years out of 7 years. If there is inaction, it may send the wrong signal that it can be ignored. The authorities are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Guess Choo J judgment is a reminder to SS out there not to anyhow sabotage their trainees’ career.
As the famous adage goes, justice is blind.
Kudos to Luo Ling Ling for taking on the case.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Guess Choo J judgment is a reminder to SS out there not to anyhow sabotage their trainees’ career.
As the famous adage goes, justice is blind.
Kudos to Luo Ling Ling for taking on the case.

They will keep doing it. Trainees are really treated like fodder everywhere

Originally Posted by Unregistered

They will keep doing it. Trainees are really treated like fodder everywhere

In fact juniors are just all dispensable

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The judge stated in [18] of his judgment that "Who these practice trainess are, and how many more there were is a matter that should be swiftly and vigorously pursued by the Supervising Authorities"

Even if the statement is obiter, there will be pressure on the authorities to do something about it, just like what happened in Parti Liyani's case. I share the same sentiments as you that the previous trainees should not be scrutinised as they are entitled to believe their SS is qualified.

But the statutory provision clearly provides that a legal practitioner can only be qualified as a SS if he/she holds a PC in force of at least 5 years out of 7 years. If there is inaction, it may send the wrong signal that it can be ignored. The authorities are caught between a rock and a hard place.

I doubt those trainees (now lawyers) will be punished. They might be asked to jump through additional hoops by Law Soc or AGC before being able to carry on practice, but ultimately in this case they bear no fault. The most likely explanation here is that the SS was careless or intentionally ignored the LPA requirements, in either case he will be the one getting ****. There's no way the trainees could have verified his PC history.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I doubt those trainees (now lawyers) will be punished. They might be asked to jump through additional hoops by Law Soc or AGC before being able to carry on practice, but ultimately in this case they bear no fault. The most likely explanation here is that the SS was careless or intentionally ignored the LPA requirements, in either case he will be the one getting ****. There's no way the trainees could have verified his PC history.

Actually the onus is on the trainee to check whether their SS qualifies to be a SS in the first place. My batch mates and I made it a point to check.
Granted the SS is at fault too if he/she doesn’t meet the requirements.
But you just don’t find any sub par lawyer to be your SS.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Actually the onus is on the trainee to check whether their SS qualifies to be a SS in the first place. My batch mates and I made it a point to check.
Granted the SS is at fault too if he/she doesn’t meet the requirements.
But you just don’t find any sub par lawyer to be your SS.

The world needs heroes like Luo Ling Ling.

Ling Ling, if you are reading this, I appreciate people like you who stand up for others.

i'm going to grad with a law degree from a local uni soon and while i have a TC lined up and didn't hate law school, i kinda want to move abroad in the medium to long term. i was born here but family has left.

obviously if i move overseas i won't be able to be a lawyer and i won't make a lot of money (and that's fine as long as i can pay rent+food) but i just wanted to know what sectors would not look down upon a law degree since it's so specialised?

is it super unrealistic to transition from being an associate to working as an entry level employee in the consulting industry for example? should i just learn to code or sth? don't rly see myself in tech tho

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The world needs heroes like Luo Ling Ling.

Ling Ling, if you are reading this, I appreciate people like you who stand up for others.

Hear hear. That’s what access to justice is all about

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hear hear. That’s what access to justice is all about

I was bullied as a trainee. So I don't bully my trainees. Please make the legal profession better for all of us, one instance at a time. All the seniors reading this - please create a good work environment.