Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why culling? Financial issues?

Imo RHT always gave off the air of being run like an ultra local SME type environment, full of Chinese towkay pattern partners.

Also with the try too hard vibe with all their side business lines and corp services companies.

Not my cup of tea personally. If I had to join a mid tier, would rather grind somewhere else like Harry Elias or CNP, which are approximately around the same tier.

Not sure, but some ppl said after they were dumped by their int partner (due to bad financials plus difference in management), they had to start a mass culling because they lost a lot of support (and trickle down work) from the int side.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Can we split them up by: Cravath, Mid Atlantic, MC Scale, and below?

What’s MC scale now anyway? Is it still ~180k UK NQ?

There was a list a few hundred pages back when this forum was still slightly more useful.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What’s MC scale now anyway? Is it still ~180k UK NQ?

There was a list a few hundred pages back when this forum was still slightly more useful.

MC scale in SG is pretty much pegged to their UK scale. Can just google to find out. Very straightforward.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yeah but alot of local firms do it too. I can just say that after careful consideration.. pre-selected candidate was the best candidate.

In fact, in mycareersfuture, some firms don't even bother to download your CV once you apply, since they're just going through the motions.

But who will complain against them?

Now you know how anti-locals the next-gen PAP government is. Sooner or later the legal industry will be "liberalised" to recognised ft law degrees.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

s://.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/young-lawyers-find-fulfilment-balance-as-they-strike-out-on-their-own

Anyone care to share thoughts on the recent BT article about young lawyers striking out on their own to get “fulfillment”. I don’t know their individual situations or who they are and their accounts may very well be true. However, I’m always a bit skeptical of articles which are crafted to be so positive as to almost become an advert. It’s like according to this article every one of them had been a star in a big firm bound for stardom in the firm, without any confirmation from any of those firms, but decided to strike out because they can provide more fulfilling work at cheaper rates. Having worked in a big firm, I can honestly say I don’t know one person whose primary motivation was “fulfillment” and their decision to start a new firm was inevitably frustration about some career matter. But maybe it is because I hang out with a different and much more jaded and career oriented crowd. Would love your thoughts.

I do hope what they say is true though because if that’s the case then it augurs well for the profession that young lawyers are conscious of the need for representation of the masses.

Breakpoint just added KC Lye.

Doubt he would have joined if he didn't like where the firm was going.

The problem with high salary, shortage of lawyers, excessive demand etc is eventually that there will an economic slowdown.
High salaries, low supply and excessive demand usually comes before a major economic crisis. If you trace back history, those that still continue to have their jobs in a crisis are those that earn a sustainable amount of money ($5k).
Yes, a $20k salary in a big name international is nice to have, but in a crisis you’ll be first to go.
So with eyes wide open, it’s hard to understand why people are complaining if they are retrenched eventually after a period of drawing $20-30k a month and forced to drive grab.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The problem with high salary, shortage of lawyers, excessive demand etc is eventually that there will an economic slowdown.
High salaries, low supply and excessive demand usually comes before a major economic crisis. If you trace back history, those that still continue to have their jobs in a crisis are those that earn a sustainable amount of money ($5k).
Yes, a $20k salary in a big name international is nice to have, but in a crisis you’ll be first to go.
So with eyes wide open, it’s hard to understand why people are complaining if they are retrenched eventually after a period of drawing $20-30k a month and forced to drive grab.

Sorry but I fail to see how partners will be the first to go during a recession, more like NQ/PQE 1-4. Plus as fairly compensated juniors we pay more than our fair share of taxes. The moment you buy a car, your monthly income that goes to gov becomes similar to that of European cites. Plus, over there, give gov money, they use to take care of people. Here give gov money, they use to fund a useless SAF, pay themselves, build overly expensive infrastructure... Just think, 100 billion in covid spending is 40K per citizen, I got 1.2k, where the other 38.8k go? No one knows.

Your post reeks of peak boomer entitlement.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The problem with high salary, shortage of lawyers, excessive demand etc is eventually that there will an economic slowdown.
High salaries, low supply and excessive demand usually comes before a major economic crisis. If you trace back history, those that still continue to have their jobs in a crisis are those that earn a sustainable amount of money ($5k).
Yes, a $20k salary in a big name international is nice to have, but in a crisis you’ll be first to go.
So with eyes wide open, it’s hard to understand why people are complaining if they are retrenched eventually after a period of drawing $20-30k a month and forced to drive grab.

This is so idiotic I don't even know where to begin.

In an economic crisis, the lack of demand will impact all sectors of law from the highest tier down to the Chinatown lawyer lowest down in the value chain. Except perhaps for countercyclical practices like restructuring but that's another argument entirely.

You're saying I should forego a chance to get higher comp now, to make myself recession proof? Lunacy.

You can also apply ur logic to tell people to aspire to be phv drivers over SIA pilots, because pilots earn unsustainble amounts and will be out of a job in a pandemic compared to a Grab driver.

The obvious solution is not to over-extend or over-leverage yourself with debt regardless of whether you're earning $6k pm in a shi*ty mid tier firm or $26k pm in an int'l firm. If you can't moderate your lifestyle, that is a character flaw. It's also bold to assume that people will spend recklessly once they earn high salaries and not save/invest prudently. Not everybody acts like Jordan Belfort on Wolf of Wall St in the movies blowing money on hook ers and crack

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is so idiotic I don't even know where to begin.

In an economic crisis, the lack of demand will impact all sectors of law from the highest tier down to the Chinatown lawyer lowest down in the value chain. Except perhaps for countercyclical practices like restructuring but that's another argument entirely.

You're saying I should forego a chance to get higher comp now, to make myself recession proof? Lunacy.

You can also apply ur logic to tell people to aspire to be phv drivers over SIA pilots, because pilots earn unsustainble amounts and will be out of a job in a pandemic compared to a Grab driver.

The obvious solution is not to over-extend or over-leverage yourself with debt regardless of whether you're earning $6k pm in a shi*ty mid tier firm or $26k pm in an int'l firm. If you can't moderate your lifestyle, that is a character flaw. It's also bold to assume that people will spend recklessly once they earn high salaries and not save/invest prudently. Not everybody acts like Jordan Belfort on Wolf of Wall St in the movies blowing money on hook ers and crack

I don’t know what you were doing in 2008 global financial crisis. Still in primary school??
But A LOT of lawyers were retrenched at the peak of the financial crisis. MANY left to be school teachers, and other recession proof industries, your taxi drivers, etc.
Those who were lucky managed to return to the profession. Those not fortunate enough were not able to return. The mindset of posters here, young and immature are also what fueled the GFC in 2008. Reckless, pretentious confidence that everything was going well.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I don’t know what you were doing in 2008 global financial crisis. Still in primary school??
But A LOT of lawyers were retrenched at the peak of the financial crisis. MANY left to be school teachers, and other recession proof industries, your taxi drivers, etc.
Those who were lucky managed to return to the profession. Those not fortunate enough were not able to return. The mindset of posters here, young and immature are also what fueled the GFC in 2008. Reckless, pretentious confidence that everything was going well.

Assuming these anecdotes were true. And I'll be charitable and accept that they largely are.

Nothing you have said here or above supports your proposition, which is that a lawyer should forego a higher international salary now in favour of a lower mid tier firm salary in the interest of making himself recession proof.

An international firm lawyer who loses his job has the option of trying to get back to an equivalent tier firm, or a mid tier firm.

A mid tier firm lawyer who loses his job only has the option of trying to get back to a mid tier firm.

If the international lawyer can't even secure a fallback job in the mid tiers, I tend to think there's carnage at the mid tiers too. It is irrational to forego potential frontloading of income for a miniscule increase in chance of not being laid off at the mid tiers. As I said, an economic crisis will impact all levels.