Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The issue is with the history of the profession and the way it views itself, which is at odds with modern times

The earliest lawyers were basically sons of rich nobles who practised law as a hobby, their fees were honorariums

Now the profession opened up on the basis of merit (somewhat) and an LLB (Hons) is not as exclusive in terms of money or birthright as it was 700 years ago and you have all these commoners entering the profession to ask for higher pay/fees and work-life balance etc

Tbh in this day and age being a lawyer should be viewed as a comfortable means of paying the bills, this self-perception of it being noble or gentlemanly is seriously outdated and should be reformed in a lot of aspects

It's just a job like any other and the job title only intimidates laypeople who in the year 2023 still subscribe to lazy stereotypes re: education and SES

95% of the people who kena for speeding, maintenance summonses, divorce, etc. are actually competent enough to represent themselves, they are just paying a lawyer to take care of the time and trouble for them

i'm curious - when you mean they can represent themselves, you mean in the small claims tribunal?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

i'm curious - when you mean they can represent themselves, you mean in the small claims tribunal?

Minimally MC and FJC my friend

You never seen/heard of litigant in person before ?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

It's just a job like any other and the job title only intimidates laypeople who in the year 2023 still subscribe to lazy stereotypes re: education and SES

95% of the people who kena for speeding, maintenance summonses, divorce, etc. are actually competent enough to represent themselves, they are just paying a lawyer to take care of the time and trouble for them

Sorry but this is just plain bollocks. I have been up against many litigants in person and they (the LiPs) have all been disasters in some way. The average layman is wildly incompetent in court process and procedure. It's not their fault. Court process is byzantine and inaccessible by its very nature.

There's a world of difference between reading up on the legal principles of negligence or division of matri assets (on singaporelegaladvice.com or even spending substantial time self-studying these topics), versus actually knowing Steps A, B, C, D, E...Z in terms of the civil procedure and evidential rules that's necessary to get a case up from scratch all the way to trial.

Litigants outsource their case to lawyers to deal with Steps A to Z, and the infinite mundanity of legal process and procedure, not merely because their lawyer knows the principles of negligence. (Anybody with a competent grasp of English can learn about negligence). But because court procedure is extremely tedious.

You also alluded to paying lawyers to take care of the time and trouble, but you vastly downplay this fact.

The litigants who can afford to spend the time and trouble to DIY their own cases, have literally nothing better to do in their lives. Usually, their legal case consumes their entire free time/waking moments. They are either retirees, or people with a vendetta or axe to grind, or an obsession with some cause or perceived personal injustice. People like Jeanne-Marie Ten come to mind.

The vast majority of laymen never come into contact with the Court system. Among those who do, those litigants who self-represent and who interact with the court system for extended periods, usually come away from the process traumatized and scarred in some way. Life-changing, in not a good way.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sorry but this is just plain bollocks. I have been up against many litigants in person and they (the LiPs) have all been disasters in some way. The average layman is wildly incompetent in court process and procedure. It's not their fault. Court process is byzantine and inaccessible by its very nature.

There's a world of difference between reading up on the legal principles of negligence or division of matri assets (on singaporelegaladvice.com or even spending substantial time self-studying these topics), versus actually knowing Steps A, B, C, D, E...Z in terms of the civil procedure and evidential rules that's necessary to get a case up from scratch all the way to trial.

Litigants outsource their case to lawyers to deal with Steps A to Z, and the infinite mundanity of legal process and procedure, not merely because their lawyer knows the principles of negligence. (Anybody with a competent grasp of English can learn about negligence). But because court procedure is extremely tedious.

You also alluded to paying lawyers to take care of the time and trouble, but you vastly downplay this fact.

The litigants who can afford to spend the time and trouble to DIY their own cases, have literally nothing better to do in their lives. Usually, their legal case consumes their entire free time/waking moments. They are either retirees, or people with a vendetta or axe to grind, or an obsession with some cause or perceived personal injustice. People like Jeanne-Marie Ten come to mind.

The vast majority of laymen never come into contact with the Court system. Among those who do, those litigants who self-represent and who interact with the court system for extended periods, usually come away from the process traumatized and scarred in some way. Life-changing, in not a good way.

Wtf are you on about? To sum up, essentially you are saying anyone can take on such cases just that it’s damn tedious. literally, not even paraphrasing much - you just said that anyone with a competent grasp of English can learn about negligence but court procedure is completely tedious.

Isn’t that the literal point of the OP? That any layman can take on their case without hiring counsel, just that they do so to save on the time and effort?

If anything, I’d say laymen would be paying counsel for their ability to fact find, pick and analyse the case. Not the bull crap court procedure being tedious that you’re pulling. Any Tom dick and harry can understand tort of negligence but to pick out facts and to mitigate convincingly? Doubtful.

Separately as an observation, from what you’re going on about, your predominant skill as a litigator is to follow a set of procedural rules? Knn…

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Minimally MC and FJC my friend

You never seen/heard of litigant in person before ?

I mean I have heard of litigant in person for sure. But I always had the impression that everyone prefers to get represented by the counsel.

For those with issues with regards to means, they can approach all the different schemes we have, or find the low bono firms.

And those with huge value disputes, they’ll approach counsel too.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Wtf are you on about? To sum up, essentially you are saying anyone can take on such cases just that it’s damn tedious. literally, not even paraphrasing much - you just said that anyone with a competent grasp of English can learn about negligence but court procedure is completely tedious.

Isn’t that the literal point of the OP? That any layman can take on their case without hiring counsel, just that they do so to save on the time and effort?

If anything, I’d say laymen would be paying counsel for their ability to fact find, pick and analyse the case. Not the bull crap court procedure being tedious that you’re pulling. Any Tom dick and harry can understand tort of negligence but to pick out facts and to mitigate convincingly? Doubtful.

Separately as an observation, from what you’re going on about, your predominant skill as a litigator is to follow a set of procedural rules? Knn…

Yes. That is my point. Dealing with THE TEDIUM, TIME, EFFORT and COURT PROCEDURE is the MAIN SERVICE that lawyers provide to litigants-in-persons for small-time civil and crim court cases. Not their 'astounding' legal knowledge from Year 1 Torts or Year 3 Family Law elective. Unless you're too dense to read what I wrote (I'm the poster you're replying to).

We're talking specifically about the man-in-the-street type of cases which OP has mentioned, which is basic civil, crim, matri. Obviously not complex commercial or corporate liti.

Court process and evidential rules are the main pain points for LIPs for these cases. The law is settled in the lower courts - nothing groundbreaking happens there. As for weaving facts and docs into a coherent case, the LIP who is personally invested in his case is more intimately familiar with the facts than anyone else. The problem is putting these facts and docs into a coherent presentable case that can hold up to forensic scrutiny - which is a problem of procedure and process (i.e. my original point).

Don't overblow your legal education. I'm a lawyer too and I know whatever legal principles in the MC, some DC, and FJC cases can largely be understood by legally-untrained litigants with a lot of free time to do some reading. The service that lawyers provide is to remove the tedium of complying with processes.

In case your dense brain needs another example: - everyone with a brain can buy and sell houses by themselves (the concepts are not groundbreaking), but the majority still choose to do so through real estate agents because it removes all the various procedural pain points of doing so, such as putting the house to market, and arranging for viewings.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes. That is my point. Dealing with THE TEDIUM, TIME, EFFORT and COURT PROCEDURE is the MAIN SERVICE that lawyers provide to litigants-in-persons for small-time civil and crim court cases. Not their 'astounding' legal knowledge from Year 1 Torts or Year 3 Family Law elective. Unless you're too dense to read what I wrote (I'm the poster you're replying to).

We're talking specifically about the man-in-the-street type of cases which OP has mentioned, which is basic civil, crim, matri. Obviously not complex commercial or corporate liti.

Court process and evidential rules are the main pain points for LIPs for these cases. The law is settled in the lower courts - nothing groundbreaking happens there. As for weaving facts and docs into a coherent case, the LIP who is personally invested in his case is more intimately familiar with the facts than anyone else. The problem is putting these facts and docs into a coherent presentable case that can hold up to forensic scrutiny - which is a problem of procedure and process (i.e. my original point).

Don't overblow your legal education. I'm a lawyer too and I know whatever legal principles in the MC, some DC, and FJC cases can largely be understood by legally-untrained litigants with a lot of free time to do some reading. The service that lawyers provide is to remove the tedium of complying with processes.

In case your dense brain needs another example: - everyone with a brain can buy and sell houses by themselves (the concepts are not groundbreaking), but the majority still choose to do so through real estate agents because it removes all the various procedural pain points of doing so, such as putting the house to market, and arranging for viewings.

Then you kpkb what? Or in your words, what is plain bollocks? Lawyering nowadays is a job providing service to the simple laymen by taking on the time and effort in going to court?

Way to showcase how lawyers will argue for the sake of arguing

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Then you kpkb what? Or in your words, what is plain bollocks? Lawyering nowadays is a job providing service to the simple laymen by taking on the time and effort in going to court?

Way to showcase how lawyers will argue for the sake of arguing

Yes in the lower courts that is largely the case, you go MC and DC and even FJC that is really the main value add that lawyers bring - the other one is also that laymen simply intimidated by other side having lawyer

The default is laymen can do it themselves in the lower courts - now the year 2023 every other mother son got uni degree and can read/write basic English

The courts recognise this, hence the recent push to simplify procedure and statutes to make them more accessible

The problems for most laymen is (1) the time/trouble to attend court, like mentions and case conferences, it's during the working day and need to take leave and (2) compiling evidence necessary to make out their case

(1) also lagi worse if you got to drag bailor to attend together

Generally (1) the issue is not procedure, JO will usually tell you what happens next, like OK we go for mediation liao and also just fix date/time to do something like exchange docs

(1) for most laymen can solve by paying lawyer to attend so their own attendance dispensed with

(2) also most laymen can solve by paying lawyer to filter out their nonsense, anyone who has done community law can tell you what lay client tell you or forward to you is 99% irrelevant to the case and ask a lot of stupid questions that are also irrelevant to the case or just speculative

As a 1-2 PQE lawyer, how do I know if I am learning as much as my learned friends in the profession that has the same PQE as me?

I want to make sure that I am capable of handling my own cases in the future so I want to learn as much as possible while I am still young and prone to mistakes.

Also I come from a small firm who can punch above its own weight, pay is decent 5.5k+ after called but not that much work to do which is why I am afraid I am not learning as much while my peers in big 4 firms may be learning more than I am.

Any advice?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As a 1-2 PQE lawyer, how do I know if I am learning as much as my learned friends in the profession that has the same PQE as me?

I want to make sure that I am capable of handling my own cases in the future so I want to learn as much as possible while I am still young and prone to mistakes.

Also I come from a small firm who can punch above its own weight, pay is decent 5.5k+ after called but not that much work to do which is why I am afraid I am not learning as much while my peers in big 4 firms may be learning more than I am.

Any advice?

Pardon me for saying this - how small is your firm?

2 PQE drawing 5.5K seems rather low. You are quite a few K below your big 4 peers.