Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

lmao its a local firm through and through. actually they've remained small, quite partner/top heavy, and don't seem to have expanded at all in years. Headcount expansion is a sign of healthy firm business growth.

If you look at their lawyer profiles, quite a fair number are transplants from k&l gates' foreign offices. which means local lawyer headcount is actually even lower than lower mid tier firms like CNP.

As regards pay, KLG is slightly better than local mid-tier but still shy of b4. Make of that what you will.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As regards pay, KLG is slightly better than local mid-tier but still shy of b4. Make of that what you will.

Don't call it KLG, it is obv Straits

Its gonna be real embarrassing for the firm to call it by its tieup name such as KLG dentons taylor wessing. When yknow it can be snipped away at any time by the int'l side. See RHT. End up just as a divorced woman having to explain to others why you should stop calling her Mrs Z from now on.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As regards pay, KLG is slightly better than local mid-tier but still shy of b4. Make of that what you will.

I guess on the bright side they have fancy website profiles for everyone

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't call it KLG, it is obv Straits

How about withers khattar wong. Whats the pay there like folks. Is it more khattar or more withers

How abt virtus law / Stephenson Harwood? Whats the pay there like. I saw the corporate team hired 2 girls from non big 4 mid size / boutique firms. Does it mean I stand a good chance going there from a big 4?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As regards pay, KLG is slightly better than local mid-tier but still shy of b4. Make of that what you will.

Oh that explains why all the legacy k&l gates singapore peeps hsd to leave prior merger - realised no need to pay semi intl rates when the local side can do it for cheaper than big 4 rates and wages

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Its gonna be real embarrassing for the firm to call it by its tieup name such as KLG dentons taylor wessing. When yknow it can be snipped away at any time by the int'l side. See RHT. End up just as a divorced woman having to explain to others why you should stop calling her Mrs Z from now on.

it depends on how strong the FLA merger structure is. i understand tt in some FLAs like Morgan Lewis Stamford and Withers KW, the Singapore EPs are also EPs of the global firm, and they have to be made global EPs on their own merit & business case. This makes a divorce less likely because they are pretty welded at the hip and integrated financially. Altho they must remain separate entities due to regulatory requirements including rules on non-SG lawyer ownership. I believe Stamford pioneered this structure.

for other looser FLAs or JLVs, probably by intention, e.g. Eversheds HarryE and RHT Taylor Wessing, there's probably arrangements allowing parties to review and walkaway after X years. Their financials aren't integrated, and local partners aren't necessarily partners of the international side. Since Dentons is a verein and separate profit pools in each of their local offices, there may be a chance that Dentons and Rodyk divorce in the future too.

If you're in the know, you'd know that for many of these true combinations, the international side is very ruthless about profitability and ask many non-performing local partners to go if they aren't delivering the required P&L metrics.

The sad fact is, many local partners are just not as productive, or have that good books of biz, or are of the same calibre as their international peers.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

it depends on how strong the FLA merger structure is. i understand tt in some FLAs like Morgan Lewis Stamford and Withers KW, the Singapore EPs are also EPs of the global firm, and they have to be made global EPs on their own merit & business case. This makes a divorce less likely because they are pretty welded at the hip and integrated financially. Altho they must remain separate entities due to regulatory requirements including rules on non-SG lawyer ownership. I believe Stamford pioneered this structure.

for other looser FLAs or JLVs, probably by intention, e.g. Eversheds HarryE and RHT Taylor Wessing, there's probably arrangements allowing parties to review and walkaway after X years. Their financials aren't integrated, and local partners aren't necessarily partners of the international side. Since Dentons is a verein and separate profit pools in each of their local offices, there may be a chance that Dentons and Rodyk divorce in the future too.

If you're in the know, you'd know that for many of these true combinations, the international side is very ruthless about profitability and ask many non-performing local partners to go if they aren't delivering the required P&L metrics.

The sad fact is, many local partners are just not as productive, or have that good books of biz, or are of the same calibre as their international peers.

There was indeed a review clause for EHE at the three year mark which we know how that went. Gerald Singham is the Global Vice Chair and ASEAN CEO of what is now the largest law firm in the world - due in no small part to the franchise structure. But it is also this verein structure that places less pressure on local partners to perform - they keep what they earn and there's no profit sharing anw.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sorry, noob here. What is wrong with Baker disputes. I was under the impression that it is on the up.

Where did u get the impression from lol