Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Are you going to apply for JLC? Since you are FCH
Have a friend who’s caught in a bind too - he wants to do corp, but he’s also thinking of JLC
But some say why apply for JLC if going corp

Thanks all again for the insightful responses. Nope I don’t see myself becoming a JLC given that (1) I’ll be lucky to even get FCH (as I said I’m on the fringe) and (2) I don’t really have anything else that is impressive on my

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thanks all again for the insightful responses. Nope I don’t see myself becoming a JLC given that (1) I’ll be lucky to even get FCH (as I said I’m on the fringe) and (2) I don’t really have anything else that is impressive on my

If you are still on track for FCH by graduation, it's worthwhile to give JLC a shot. It helps for disputes credentials. Haven't they also significantly expanded the no. of JLC positions recently?

If you decide to switch to corp, you can try parlaying your FCH for a corp position in a better B4 team or one of the internationals.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you are still on track for FCH by graduation, it's worthwhile to give JLC a shot. It helps for disputes credentials. Haven't they also significantly expanded the no. of JLC positions recently?

If you decide to switch to corp, you can try parlaying your FCH for a corp position in a better B4 team or one of the internationals.

I think if he's leaning towards Corp, JLC is gonna do ****-all for him lol. Much better getting corp experience in a firm doing transactions

Can't imagine being interested in Corp, and having to do research and draft judgments for two whole years lolll (basically law school 2.0 on steroids). I'd be mad as hell

And once you finish your JLC, your "prospects" is being employed as a (perhaps top/accelerated tier) disputes lawyer or AR- but can't see how it would really be worthwhile for Corp

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think if he's leaning towards Corp, JLC is gonna do ****-all for him lol. Much better getting corp experience in a firm doing transactions

Can't imagine being interested in Corp, and having to do research and draft judgments for two whole years lolll (basically law school 2.0 on steroids). I'd be mad as hell

And once you finish your JLC, your "prospects" is being employed as a (perhaps top/accelerated tier) disputes lawyer or AR- but can't see how it would really be worthwhile for Corp

What is an accelerated tier disputes lawyer? Are JLCs immediately given some accelerated path to equity partnership? In that case, if im not a JLC, should I still bother with disputes?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What is an accelerated tier disputes lawyer? Are JLCs immediately given some accelerated path to equity partnership? In that case, if im not a JLC, should I still bother with disputes?

I think everyone can be competent and good at what they do, JLC or not- for disputes or otherwise.

But there is a reason why some firms hire only former JLCs- Duxton Hill Chambers, some boutiques, etc. I mean they literally wrote the judgments for the judges- so they know what arguments/points of law are the most convincing in court. Apart from that, there is obviously their connection to the various judges (there being 40 JLCs at any one time, consisting of 2 batches) where the judges may unintentionally/inherently be prejudiced to bring in their favour.

That being said, I wouldn't say there's "no point being in disputes if you're not a JLC". Only 20 ppl from a year's batch (including overseas unis, notably oxbridge) are disputes at any time. The rest of the cohort aren't, and it doesn't necessarily mean you won't succeed.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think everyone can be competent and good at what they do, JLC or not- for disputes or otherwise.

But there is a reason why some firms hire only former JLCs- Duxton Hill Chambers, some boutiques, etc. I mean they literally wrote the judgments for the judges- so they know what arguments/points of law are the most convincing in court. Apart from that, there is obviously their connection to the various judges (there being 40 JLCs at any one time, consisting of 2 batches) where the judges may unintentionally/inherently be prejudiced to bring in their favour.

That being said, I wouldn't say there's "no point being in disputes if you're not a JLC". Only 20 ppl from a year's batch (including overseas unis, notably oxbridge) are disputes at any time. The rest of the cohort aren't, and it doesn't necessarily mean you won't succeed.

sorry ignore my typos, autocorrect lol

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think everyone can be competent and good at what they do, JLC or not- for disputes or otherwise.

But there is a reason why some firms hire only former JLCs- Duxton Hill Chambers, some boutiques, etc. I mean they literally wrote the judgments for the judges- so they know what arguments/points of law are the most convincing in court. Apart from that, there is obviously their connection to the various judges (there being 40 JLCs at any one time, consisting of 2 batches) where the judges may unintentionally/inherently be prejudiced to bring in their favour.

That being said, I wouldn't say there's "no point being in disputes if you're not a JLC". Only 20 ppl from a year's batch (including overseas unis, notably oxbridge) are disputes at any time. The rest of the cohort aren't, and it doesn't necessarily mean you won't succeed.

(1) Duxton Hill Chambers isnt a law firm - the lawyers there are all independent and practise out of either a sole proprietorship or under a small firm of 1/2 of them.

(2) Which boutique only hires JLCs? Pls advise.

(3) The point on judges being unintentionally/inherently prejudiced to favour JLCs (I'm assuming when the JLCs are in practice) seems to be bothering on contempt.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think everyone can be competent and good at what they do, JLC or not- for disputes or otherwise.

But there is a reason why some firms hire only former JLCs- Duxton Hill Chambers, some boutiques, etc. I mean they literally wrote the judgments for the judges- so they know what arguments/points of law are the most convincing in court. Apart from that, there is obviously their connection to the various judges (there being 40 JLCs at any one time, consisting of 2 batches) where the judges may unintentionally/inherently be prejudiced to bring in their favour.

That being said, I wouldn't say there's "no point being in disputes if you're not a JLC". Only 20 ppl from a year's batch (including overseas unis, notably oxbridge) are disputes at any time. The rest of the cohort aren't, and it doesn't necessarily mean you won't succeed.

(1) Duxton Hill Chambers isnt a law firm - the lawyers there are all independent and practise out of either a sole proprietorship or under a small firm of 1/2 of them.

(2) Which boutique only hires JLCs? Pls advise.

(3) The point on judges being unintentionally/inherently prejudiced to favour JLCs (I'm assuming when the JLCs are in practice) seems to be bothering on contempt.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think everyone can be competent and good at what they do, JLC or not- for disputes or otherwise.

But there is a reason why some firms hire only former JLCs- Duxton Hill Chambers, some boutiques, etc. I mean they literally wrote the judgments for the judges- so they know what arguments/points of law are the most convincing in court. Apart from that, there is obviously their connection to the various judges (there being 40 JLCs at any one time, consisting of 2 batches) where the judges may unintentionally/inherently be prejudiced to bring in their favour.

That being said, I wouldn't say there's "no point being in disputes if you're not a JLC". Only 20 ppl from a year's batch (including overseas unis, notably oxbridge) are disputes at any time. The rest of the cohort aren't, and it doesn't necessarily mean you won't succeed.

(1) Duxton Hill Chambers isnt a law firm - the lawyers there are all independent and practise out of either a sole proprietorship or under a small firm of 1/2 of them. (2) Which boutique only hires JLCs? Pls advise. (3) The point on judges being unintentionally/inherently prejudiced to favour JLCs (I'm assuming when the JLCs are in practice) seems to be bothering on contempt.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think everyone can be competent and good at what they do, JLC or not- for disputes or otherwise.

But there is a reason why some firms hire only former JLCs- Duxton Hill Chambers, some boutiques, etc. I mean they literally wrote the judgments for the judges- so they know what arguments/points of law are the most convincing in court. Apart from that, there is obviously their connection to the various judges (there being 40 JLCs at any one time, consisting of 2 batches) where the judges may unintentionally/inherently be prejudiced to bring in their favour.

That being said, I wouldn't say there's "no point being in disputes if you're not a JLC". Only 20 ppl from a year's batch (including overseas unis, notably oxbridge) are disputes at any time. The rest of the cohort aren't, and it doesn't necessarily mean you won't succeed.

(1) Duxton Hill Chambers isnt a law firm - the lawyers there are all independent and practise out of either a sole proprietorship or under a small firm of 1/2 of them.

(2) Which boutique only hires JLCs?

(3) The point on judges being unintentionally/inherently prejudiced to favour JLCs (I'm assuming when the JLCs are in practice) seems to be bothering on contempt.