Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I can't speak for most of this post but it also seems that corp has higher barriers to entry in being a partner. Correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think it's possible to get big corporate clients at a senior level easily, unless you're from a brand name firm. Harder to survive as a partner doing transactional work.

Seems like a lot of them move inhouse.

Whereas for litigation there is a constant flow of work.

Can someone elaborate? I am not sure which area is better

Inhouse / international firm opportunities are higher in corp?

But it seems to me that in the long run, you'll have more trouble getting corp clients on a regular basis than liti ones unless you are very well connected. Will this be a problem a few years down the road?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Inhouse / international firm opportunities are higher in corp?

But it seems to me that in the long run, you'll have more trouble getting corp clients on a regular basis than liti ones unless you are very well connected. Will this be a problem a few years down the road?

Definitely. For liti, you can still make friends with your maid and benefit from their connections to other maids. When your boi boi grow up, study law and become a trainee at your firm, he can also chill with your maid too. Same purchasing power.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I can't speak for most of this post but it also seems that corp has higher barriers to entry in being a partner. Correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think it's possible to get big corporate clients at a senior level easily, unless you're from a brand name firm. Harder to survive as a partner doing transactional work.

Seems like a lot of them move inhouse.

Whereas for litigation there is a constant flow of work.

Can someone elaborate? I am not sure which area is better

At a senior level, litigation is very person-focused, people are far more likely to follow the person to their new firm (or hire good litigators who set up their own small/mid-size firms). This makes sense, as litigation is more "let's find the best guy to fight the case". If you're a good litigator, you should have a consistent flow of work. Unlike corp, where the law firm's branding is more important, litigation depends on the person.

On the other hand, you won't have large firms using small firms to perform corporate work. This is for two reasons, 1. alot of corporate work is spread between all the biglaw firms just to make sure they are conflicted from (or refuse to) pursuing litigation against the firm, that's why banks essentially hire all the big4 and most international firms in SG. 2. Firms generally prefer to have biglaw corp firms to do their admin/corp work because they know that corporate work is generally quite stale/similar to prior work, so biglaw firms are seen as having more precedents to draw from. To be honest, there isn't much difference between the top corporate lawyers and the middling lawyers.

So honestly, unless you are from a brand name firm and worked for large corporate clients for many years, you're likely not to have people cold-calling you for your amazing corp skills. You have to draw on previously made connections.

However, it is not that corporate lawyers move inhouse because they cannot get clients or cannot cut it in smaller firms. In fact, corp work is usually easier to bill than litigation. Big firms who want an M&A agreement done "right" are far more willing to pay than disputing parties who suddenly start wondering why 30% of the disputed sum has already gone to fees.

Instead, it's just that its harder to move inhouse as a litigation lawyer, because your skillset is primarily disputes, which is not what companies do day to day. For a corp lawyer, you can do contract reviews etc for the firm or just give general corporate advice. For a liti lawyer, unless you're in maybe construction or industries like shipping (where litigation is essentially the bread and butter duty for the lawyer), you can't really move inhouse.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Should I train at CC L&DR? Any upside to doing 1.5 years of corporate work during the 2-year training stint?

If you realise you end up disliking litigation work (which many do), it's easier to choose to qualify into a corporate practice at the end of the 26 month training contract.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you realise you end up disliking litigation work (which many do), it's easier to choose to qualify into a corporate practice at the end of the 26 month training contract.

Liti can consider transiting to politics, moderate risk high reward for a iron rice bowl high paying job if you can take the spotlight (arguably favourable anyway with SPH being the government mouthpiece).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

At a senior level, litigation is very person-focused, people are far more likely to follow the person to their new firm (or hire good litigators who set up their own small/mid-size firms). This makes sense, as litigation is more "let's find the best guy to fight the case". If you're a good litigator, you should have a consistent flow of work. Unlike corp, where the law firm's branding is more important, litigation depends on the person.

On the other hand, you won't have large firms using small firms to perform corporate work. This is for two reasons, 1. alot of corporate work is spread between all the biglaw firms just to make sure they are conflicted from (or refuse to) pursuing litigation against the firm, that's why banks essentially hire all the big4 and most international firms in SG. 2. Firms generally prefer to have biglaw corp firms to do their admin/corp work because they know that corporate work is generally quite stale/similar to prior work, so biglaw firms are seen as having more precedents to draw from. To be honest, there isn't much difference between the top corporate lawyers and the middling lawyers.

So honestly, unless you are from a brand name firm and worked for large corporate clients for many years, you're likely not to have people cold-calling you for your amazing corp skills. You have to draw on previously made connections.

However, it is not that corporate lawyers move inhouse because they cannot get clients or cannot cut it in smaller firms. In fact, corp work is usually easier to bill than litigation. Big firms who want an M&A agreement done "right" are far more willing to pay than disputing parties who suddenly start wondering why 30% of the disputed sum has already gone to fees.

Instead, it's just that its harder to move inhouse as a litigation lawyer, because your skillset is primarily disputes, which is not what companies do day to day. For a corp lawyer, you can do contract reviews etc for the firm or just give general corporate advice. For a liti lawyer, unless you're in maybe construction or industries like shipping (where litigation is essentially the bread and butter duty for the lawyer), you can't really move inhouse.

For a liti lawyer, if you're in maybe construction, you may out of a sudden find your maid's boyfriend on the opposing side. You may kick yourself for not finding out earlier, after slogging hard in the office.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For a liti lawyer, if you're in maybe construction, you may out of a sudden find your maid's boyfriend on the opposing side. You may kick yourself for not finding out earlier, after slogging hard in the office.

dun have goalie where got fun

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For a liti lawyer, if you're in maybe construction, you may out of a sudden find your maid's boyfriend on the opposing side. You may kick yourself for not finding out earlier, after slogging hard in the office.

LOL nice troll.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LOL nice troll.

Sama sama. This whole qna thing is probably pre-written by a professor-troll with too much time on his hands. When someone doesn't answer his questions with his train of thought, he replies with even longer answers to explain.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

At a senior level, litigation is very person-focused, people are far more likely to follow the person to their new firm (or hire good litigators who set up their own small/mid-size firms). This makes sense, as litigation is more "let's find the best guy to fight the case". If you're a good litigator, you should have a consistent flow of work. Unlike corp, where the law firm's branding is more important, litigation depends on the person.

On the other hand, you won't have large firms using small firms to perform corporate work. This is for two reasons, 1. alot of corporate work is spread between all the biglaw firms just to make sure they are conflicted from (or refuse to) pursuing litigation against the firm, that's why banks essentially hire all the big4 and most international firms in SG. 2. Firms generally prefer to have biglaw corp firms to do their admin/corp work because they know that corporate work is generally quite stale/similar to prior work, so biglaw firms are seen as having more precedents to draw from. To be honest, there isn't much difference between the top corporate lawyers and the middling lawyers.

So honestly, unless you are from a brand name firm and worked for large corporate clients for many years, you're likely not to have people cold-calling you for your amazing corp skills. You have to draw on previously made connections.

However, it is not that corporate lawyers move inhouse because they cannot get clients or cannot cut it in smaller firms. In fact, corp work is usually easier to bill than litigation. Big firms who want an M&A agreement done "right" are far more willing to pay than disputing parties who suddenly start wondering why 30% of the disputed sum has already gone to fees.

Instead, it's just that its harder to move inhouse as a litigation lawyer, because your skillset is primarily disputes, which is not what companies do day to day. For a corp lawyer, you can do contract reviews etc for the firm or just give general corporate advice. For a liti lawyer, unless you're in maybe construction or industries like shipping (where litigation is essentially the bread and butter duty for the lawyer), you can't really move inhouse.

Thanks, this is helpful