Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

UK based law student interested in advocacy and wondering if I should stay on and apply for pupillage at a barristers Chambers here or come back to Singapore to do litigation and arbitration.

As one who hopes to go far and willing to work hard, one question I have is where I can reach the highest levels. How does one make a comparison between QC appointments and SC appointments? Are they different in any way? Which would statistically be harder to get if I’m willing to work hard for decades and push myself as an advocate? As an Asian kid, would I be at a disadvantage if I want to be considered for QC in the UK?

I know I’m dreaming but as a law student doing relatively decently in a very good UK school, one should have ambitions and reach for the stars =]

Pupilage in the UK.

It is harder but times are changing.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Pupilage in the UK.

It is harder but times are changing.

OP here. Does that mean that becoming a QC is statistically easier than becoming SC? Or that it is more prestigious? Or both or something in between?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

OP here. Does that mean that becoming a QC is statistically easier than becoming SC? Or that it is more prestigious? Or both or something in between?

I can't speak to the matter of prestige or reputation but since you mentioned statistics, if this article - s://economictimes.indiatimes.com/barristers-not-keen-on-a-qc-tag-anymore/articleshow/1795916.cms?from=mdr - is correct, more than 10% of barristers in the UK are Queen's Counsels. I would have thought it would be a much lower percentage but there you go. It is a dated piece though so take from it what you will.




I don't know the number of litigators in Singapore and since it is a fused profession, no one probably knows. We have 90-odd Senior Counsels though at last count. Although I have to say statistics are not going to provide you any meaningful picture.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Random question out of curiosity - should one be a litigator (whether in private practice or in the government) to become a SC? I hardly see any corporate lawyers become SC

The title of SC is provided to parties who prove themselves in Litigation/Court Work, and a key requirement to be appointed SC is for you to have consistently performed well in big/complex cases at the higher levels (i.e. HC or COA) of the court hierarchy for at least 10 (but realistically 15-20) years.

It is not possible for Corporate Partners to have attained the rank of SC due to the stated requirements, unless they were previously litigators.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

UK based law student interested in advocacy and wondering if I should stay on and apply for pupillage at a barristers Chambers here or come back to Singapore to do litigation and arbitration.

As one who hopes to go far and willing to work hard, one question I have is where I can reach the highest levels. How does one make a comparison between QC appointments and SC appointments? Are they different in any way? Which would statistically be harder to get if I’m willing to work hard for decades and push myself as an advocate? As an Asian kid, would I be at a disadvantage if I want to be considered for QC in the UK?

I know I’m dreaming but as a law student doing relatively decently in a very good UK school, one should have ambitions and reach for the stars =]

You're not from Oxbridge. If you were, you would have said so instead of being mealy mouthed with "very good UK school". Not being from Oxbridge is strike one against you. Do your own research and look up barristers' profiles from various London chambers. Go and see how many are from Oxford, then see how many are from Cambridge.

The chambers not in London aren't worth joining, because if you're not white then don't expect to get much work thrown your way. Hard truths. But if you think you have the balls to represent council housing types in mags, go for it. Pro tip: they're nothing like HDB flats. Not even close.

Still, and on the off chance you're actually from Oxbridge, go ahead and try for it. Be sure to get first class honours AND a BCL after. Anything less and you can genuinely forget about getting pupillage, to say nothing of tenancy.

Please also do moots - and win them. You have to have something to support "interested in advocacy". A bare statement here, as on your CV, means nothing. And also note the emphasis on winning moots. "Participated in annual uni moot" copypasted for each year of your BA/LLB means nothing at all.

Get all that done and one foot in the door, then you can think of QC. It's hard enough as it is. While you're looking up barristers' profiles, do also see how many of them are Asian. Draw your own conclusions accordingly.

In any event, you probably won't make it because you asked for help here instead of doing your own research. All of this information is easily available from several hours' googling, which you wouldn't think twice about and more if you were genuinely "interested". This is really more for the what-could-have-been types lurking here.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

You're not from Oxbridge. If you were, you would have said so instead of being mealy mouthed with "very good UK school". Not being from Oxbridge is strike one against you. Do your own research and look up barristers' profiles from various London chambers. Go and see how many are from Oxford, then see how many are from Cambridge.

The chambers not in London aren't worth joining, because if you're not white then don't expect to get much work thrown your way. Hard truths. But if you think you have the balls to represent council housing types in mags, go for it. Pro tip: they're nothing like HDB flats. Not even close.

Still, and on the off chance you're actually from Oxbridge, go ahead and try for it. Be sure to get first class honours AND a BCL after. Anything less and you can genuinely forget about getting pupillage, to say nothing of tenancy.

Please also do moots - and win them. You have to have something to support "interested in advocacy". A bare statement here, as on your CV, means nothing. And also note the emphasis on winning moots. "Participated in annual uni moot" copypasted for each year of your BA/LLB means nothing at all.

Get all that done and one foot in the door, then you can think of QC. It's hard enough as it is. While you're looking up barristers' profiles, do also see how many of them are Asian. Draw your own conclusions accordingly.

In any event, you probably won't make it because you asked for help here instead of doing your own research. All of this information is easily available from several hours' googling, which you wouldn't think twice about and more if you were genuinely "interested". This is really more for the what-could-have-been types lurking here.

Not that it's impossible but the numbers are less. The demographics are like 60% Oxbridge undergraduates and 40% all other universities. Oxbridge masters though is like 80% of all pupils. 2016 statistics

The figures include non-law graduates doing GDL

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not that it's impossible but the numbers are less. The demographics are like 60% Oxbridge undergraduates and 40% all other universities. Oxbridge masters though is like 80% of all pupils. 2016 statistics

The figures include non-law graduates doing GDL

Top barrister’s set you need a Oxbridge degree or masters. Without those degrees and an Asian, you’re disadvantaged significantly, even if you had LSE first class.
But magic circle not necessary.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The title of SC is provided to parties who prove themselves in Litigation/Court Work, and a key requirement to be appointed SC is for you to have consistently performed well in big/complex cases at the higher levels (i.e. HC or COA) of the court hierarchy for at least 10 (but realistically 15-20) years.

It is not possible for Corporate Partners to have attained the rank of SC due to the stated requirements, unless they were previously litigators.

In respect of the second para, what about section 30(8) of the LPA?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

In respect of the second para, what about section 30(8) of the LPA?

I suppose you are saying that an AG (like the current one) who was a corporate lawyer could also become a SC?

While this is technically true, it is also completely missing the mark and irrelevant to the conversation.

this forum is full of one upping， insecure， sarcastic， halfwitted sinkie lawyas