Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I’m afraid you have missed my point entirely - so it would do you well to skip out answering this question altogether; hope that others can continue to chime in with more useful anecdotes

This is my point exactly. For those who are smart and high earners, that’s great. But what I meant was, if some are so smart, why aren’t they earning that much? One of the above posters shared that this could be because some partners are good at technical skills but poor at bookmarking - thanks for that great answer

Grades are also an imperfect reflection of one's intelligence - it rewards the hard workers who do well in an established structure. These people also make the best junior associates given that all that is required of junior associates is the ability to execute to the letter in accordance with the partner's/senior associate's instructions. Once a lawyer gains more experience, the expectation is for said lawyer to be able to exercise critical thinking to capture the issues at hand and to define the structure for execution - this is an entirely separate skill which law school does not teach (well). Usually, this is a capability that can only be detected by partners in their associates when these associates have been with the firm for a while (at least a year).

In other words, the abilities expected of partners are different from that of a junior associate. But partners usually hire the best that they have access to anyway, since it is a roll of the dice as to whether an associate possesses partner-level potential and it is impossible to tell at the interview stage.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Grades are also an imperfect reflection of one's intelligence - it rewards the hard workers who do well in an established structure. These people also make the best junior associates given that all that is required of junior associates is the ability to execute to the letter in accordance with the partner's/senior associate's instructions. Once a lawyer gains more experience, the expectation is for said lawyer to be able to exercise critical thinking to capture the issues at hand and to define the structure for execution - this is an entirely separate skill which law school does not teach (well). Usually, this is a capability that can only be detected by partners in their associates when these associates have been with the firm for a while (at least a year).

In other words, the abilities expected of partners are different from that of a junior associate. But partners usually hire the best that they have access to anyway, since it is a roll of the dice as to whether an associate possesses partner-level potential and it is impossible to tell at the interview stage.

can confirm, I got fch/summa at uni and did my tc (in corp) this year

for what it's worth, I felt stupid af and didn't know **** until 3 months in

DLA piper NQ pay now 100k GBP (171k SGD) in london. even for a macdonalds law firm

why big 4 NQ pay still peanuts in Sinkiepore?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

DLA piper NQ pay now 100k GBP (171k SGD) in london. even for a macdonalds law firm

why big 4 NQ pay still peanuts in Sinkiepore?

Big 4 pay is peanuts because they can afford to pay peanuts. 90% of law graduates are not good enough to get into international firms, so they have no choice but to go to local firms if they want to practise law.

Should i do a JD?
Is it a must to do the bar exam.. what happen if one doesnt.

Engineer looking for a switch.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

DLA piper NQ pay now 100k GBP (171k SGD) in london. even for a macdonalds law firm

why big 4 NQ pay still peanuts in Sinkiepore?

Legal services demand is still rather weak in Singapore. We're not a major deals hub like NY or London or HK.

Its the same reason why the so-called top law firms in other less advanced jurisdictions like Malaysia are paying an order of magnitude lower than in Singapore.

We're just one tier lower compared to London. Similarly, legal sector pay in the rest of England outside of London (i.e. regional) is also far lower than in London.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Big 4 pay is peanuts because they can afford to pay peanuts. 90% of law graduates are not good enough to get into international firms, so they have no choice but to go to local firms if they want to practise law.

I feel like most people keep comparing SG and UK salary are not factoring the tax and property rent costs into account. In many areas, SG is much more favourable than the UK. And when one reaches partnership, the tax implications (20% difference) have a much more significant role - and you may actually earn more as a senior lawyer in SG than in the UK (maybe that's why so many of them come here, aside that they get comp-ed in housing and schooling for kids, etc).

In the UK, NQ salary is subject to 40% tax (until £125k) and a max tax rate of 45% after that

Compare that with SG's NQ salary being subject to 11% tax (assuming <S$80k a year, based on $6.5k a month) and a max tax rate at 24%

Aside from this, most Singaporeans can stay with their parents to save money, or perhaps get loans for HDB (which while expensive can be paid over the rest of the next 20-35 years at a low cost).

In comparison, in London, most people would have to rent an apartment (which can be quite pricey).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I feel like most people keep comparing SG and UK salary are not factoring the tax and property rent costs into account. In many areas, SG is much more favourable than the UK. And when one reaches partnership, the tax implications (20% difference) have a much more significant role - and you may actually earn more as a senior lawyer in SG than in the UK (maybe that's why so many of them come here, aside that they get comp-ed in housing and schooling for kids, etc).

In the UK, NQ salary is subject to 40% tax (until £125k) and a max tax rate of 45% after that

Compare that with SG's NQ salary being subject to 11% tax (assuming <S$80k a year, based on $6.5k a month) and a max tax rate at 24%

Aside from this, most Singaporeans can stay with their parents to save money, or perhaps get loans for HDB (which while expensive can be paid over the rest of the next 20-35 years at a low cost).

In comparison, in London, most people would have to rent an apartment (which can be quite pricey).

The tax differential is true, but that does not change the fact that the Singapore offices of international firms still pay much more than local firms. The poster above was probably quoting London salaries because the salaries of international firms in Singapore are less transparent and not easily available online.

Last year 11 people kenna caught for cheating on the Bar exams. Anyone knows what they're doing now? Are they all working as paralegals or are they doing something else?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The tax differential is true, but that does not change the fact that the Singapore offices of international firms still pay much more than local firms. The poster above was probably quoting London salaries because the salaries of international firms in Singapore are less transparent and not easily available online.

Well, I think there's a tradeoff.

The int'l firms are older, more established and survived within their own home territories. This is tough considering these territories are much more competitive than in Singapore. Just because you are a UK firm or a New York/Chicago/Texas firm (which we reductively term as "international firms") doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to succeed as an "international firm".

Additionally, they firms took on a risk to expand, set up and build a new (perhaps serving enough of their existing) client base in Singapore - which would take substantial costs to do so. The fact, and the reason why Minlaw lets them enter the market, is that when they come to Singapore, they employ a substantial number of Singapore lawyers (1/3 to 2/3rds of the firm, depending on their structure, excluding pure satellite offices that are FLPs).

The reason why the salary for these firms are not well-known (at least at trainee/nq level) is because they recruit so few trainees (e.g. 2 to 6) compared to the Big Four (which recruit >40 each year). For NQ and 1-3/later salaries, the reason why there seems to be so much inconsistency in the pay salary is because later salaries are driven by last drawns, individual performance, practice area, and market demand, not to mention the cut in PQE/salary for SG-qualified lawyers or those changing practice. That's why it's difficult for us to know, however, at the very least- it theoretically would be possible to know more about the trainee/NQ salaries from trainees who trained at the firm (if the firm doesn't publish their salaries like CC, Simmons, etc).

Now, I'm all for having more transparency in the market to help bridge the information asymmetry for employees/prospective employees. What I'm against is whining Singaporeans who complain all the time, without thinking about why the position is the way it is. Use your brain.

The fact is that the reason why the Big Four can't increase salaries to the level of int'l firms is because they take so many warm bodies in every year (so those who apply to go there have a higher/easier chance, than applying for FLA/JLV firms).

If you want them to increase salaries to match those of the UK/US firms, they either have to cut the recruitment of warm bodies down (but that would be detrimental, because these warm bodies are so profitable for such little pay). More likely, the equivalent would be them taking a risk and successfully gaining a foothold in the UK/US (and outbidding for mandates against firms in that market and outperforming in terms of their client services- which often requires them to have an international foothold to be a "global one stop shop"), which is very unlikely to be the case.