Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Baker disputes is a joke

it's easier to be a manager at macdonalds than les amis

Why some people say baker disputes joke, some say good?

Can those who say it’s a joke pls elaborate, would like to know more

thoughts on Pk Wong?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Keep telling urself that there’s a reason why big4 pays peanuts to even your 2PQE, even with your alleged “big difference”.

Money talks. If difference in monetary remuneration is so small (peanuts to peanuts), then that’s telling

What a naive position to take. Fair compensation is an ideal that rarely finds footing in the real world. Let alone an employer-favoured market such as Singapore. I highly even doubt US market, the definition of a free market, can view themselves as a fair pay master.

If a person is of the opinion that there is no difference between a NQ/1PQE and a 2PQE, the person’s opinion is not worth taking to begin with. Either that, or I have some breaking news for you; the firm you are at ain’t it.

Very naive some posters here.
With internationalization, in future, you can hire a NQ lawyer in low cost regions, that can do the grunt work. The partners then need to check the work to ensure it is correct and send it out.

Why need to hire expensive associates?
It has happened to manufacturing, other service industries…
Even for doctor, those virtual consultations will eventually be replaced with AI.
The grunt work will be at risk of being replaced.
Unless you can do something so different.
If your skill is to read a contract and identify issues, take in comments, you’re at risk of being eliminated.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Very naive some posters here.
With internationalization, in future, you can hire a NQ lawyer in low cost regions, that can do the grunt work. The partners then need to check the work to ensure it is correct and send it out.

Why need to hire expensive associates?
It has happened to manufacturing, other service industries…
Even for doctor, those virtual consultations will eventually be replaced with AI.
The grunt work will be at risk of being replaced.
Unless you can do something so different.
If your skill is to read a contract and identify issues, take in comments, you’re at risk of being eliminated.

Can tell you're 100% not in law, or you're in a small law firm.

This is not a new thing, tech advances/hiring foreign assocs has been occurring for nigh on 10-20 years, especially at low-level grunt tier. Firms that market themselves as cost-leaders are particularly guilty of these actions.

The thing is, past a certain contract sum, hiring companies plain out do not trust tech, they are willing to pay for multiple rounds hand-reviews (for peace of mind and scanning for errors). Law firm adoption of tech does not depend on the law firm, contrary to what non-lawyers might believe, but instead depends on the client's trust in such systems. No self-respecting client is going to pay for a machine unlearned in the law do to Big Data review of their contract. Even if they allow it, they would want multiple human reviews.

Of course, there are incentives towards keeping the use of tech low (i.e. billables), but I can tell you that the human-heavy workloads are not going to change anytime soon, and not only because of pushback from law firms. It would require enormous mindset shifts from a whole ton of Fortune 500, or large scale companies, who would need individually to push the firms to invest in and adopt such tech.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Very naive some posters here.
With internationalization, in future, you can hire a NQ lawyer in low cost regions, that can do the grunt work. The partners then need to check the work to ensure it is correct and send it out.

Why need to hire expensive associates?
It has happened to manufacturing, other service industries…
Even for doctor, those virtual consultations will eventually be replaced with AI.
The grunt work will be at risk of being replaced.
Unless you can do something so different.
If your skill is to read a contract and identify issues, take in comments, you’re at risk of being eliminated.

I can tell by your first para that you're not a lawyer. We are practising lawyers, so we understand this:

Law is highly contextual. Every bot and low cost paralegal can do research, but very few can translate legal advice to the cultural, business & regulatory environment in the jurisdiction that the client operates in.

Clients don't want to hear the law. They want to hear you speak their language, assure them that u understand what the regulators think and what their industry needs. THey want u to leverage on your knowledge of the environment in which their business operates.

This rubbish about being replaced by cheap CECA lawyers has been said for years, but it will never happen. The associate may be fungible but the partner is not. And the associates of each batch will move up as a class to form the next partner class. Clients dont want to speak to CECA lawyers.

You want proof? Look at the EU which has free movement of lawyers among member states; free movement being one of the tenets of EU. Low cost Hungarian lawyers aren't moving in to replace expensive German lawyers. Even if we equalize for language & legal system, you won't see low cost Irish lawyers flooding the English market and stealing English solicitors' jobs. Conversely, it is the other way round.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Very naive some posters here.
With internationalization, in future, you can hire a NQ lawyer in low cost regions, that can do the grunt work. The partners then need to check the work to ensure it is correct and send it out.

Why need to hire expensive associates?
It has happened to manufacturing, other service industries…
Even for doctor, those virtual consultations will eventually be replaced with AI.
The grunt work will be at risk of being replaced.
Unless you can do something so different.
If your skill is to read a contract and identify issues, take in comments, you’re at risk of being eliminated.

you just mad you had to pay $5k to have your sh*tty handwritten "contract" laughed at

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I can tell by your first para that you're not a lawyer. We are practising lawyers, so we understand this:

Law is highly contextual. Every bot and low cost paralegal can do research, but very few can translate legal advice to the cultural, business & regulatory environment in the jurisdiction that the client operates in.

Clients don't want to hear the law. They want to hear you speak their language, assure them that u understand what the regulators think and what their industry needs. THey want u to leverage on your knowledge of the environment in which their business operates.

This rubbish about being replaced by cheap CECA lawyers has been said for years, but it will never happen. The associate may be fungible but the partner is not. And the associates of each batch will move up as a class to form the next partner class. Clients dont want to speak to CECA lawyers.

You want proof? Look at the EU which has free movement of lawyers among member states; free movement being one of the tenets of EU. Low cost Hungarian lawyers aren't moving in to replace expensive German lawyers. Even if we equalize for language & legal system, you won't see low cost Irish lawyers flooding the English market and stealing English solicitors' jobs. Conversely, it is the other way round.

Whatever. This is sophistry at its finest. Nokia had complete monopoly over the mobile phone market by the early 2000. No one saw the competition from Apple and the iPhone.
Say all you want…

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Whatever. This is sophistry at its finest. Nokia had complete monopoly over the mobile phone market by the early 2000. No one saw the competition from Apple and the iPhone.
Say all you want…

Guys ignore this troll he’s prolly salty he couldn’t get into law school

Originally Posted by Unregistered

1. "In other words, there is no way that you, as a SG qualified lawyer, are getting into a MC firm before you hit 2 PQE, and after that you will be paid on the UK NQ scale."

false, cc offers sg qualification training contracts to local students. their trainees join the firm's singapore office straight from law school and they are paid on the international scale from day one. source: s://careers.cliffordchance.com/apac/locations/singapore.html

2.

(a) "The SG training period is 6 months." false, the batch of students who just signed their tcs this month will have to train for a year. this change was announced in 2018. keep up with industry please

(b) cc trainees get a bonus in their second year of training too. if you want to count bonus, the correct calculation is:

baker's pay for initial 2 years: 2.5k x 12 (training period period to get qualified) + 8.5k x 14 (including 2 months bonus) = 149k (average of 6.2k per month)

cc's pay for initial 2 years: 6k x 12 (training period period to get qualified) + at least 7.5k x 14 (including 2 months bonus)= at least 177k (average of at least 7.3k per month)

"You can see that the [cc] lawyer usually makes significantly more up to this point."

And i would just add here that pay amongst all the MC is different. Some may be noticeably lower than the rest. iykyk