Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Poor, but they're contributing to the glut in the first place.

All things being equal, we would of course wish 100% employment rates for everyone everywhere.

But one can't help feeling sorry for the local law graduates who are unable to obtain training places and feeling the effects of the squeeze. They put in a lot of effort in their degree. Law school in Singapore isn't a walk in the park by any measure.

Not that we should applaud MinLaw since their failure in oversight resulted in this problem in the first place, but Shanmugam is doing everybody a favour by speaking out now and warning everybody that a law degree isn't a path to certainty and career success like it was in the past.

Not the most encouraging to hear that.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Poor, but they're contributing to the glut in the first place.

All things being equal, we would of course wish 100% employment rates for everyone everywhere.

But one can't help feeling sorry for the local law graduates who are unable to obtain training places and feeling the effects of the squeeze. They put in a lot of effort in their degree. Law school in Singapore isn't a walk in the park by any measure.

Not that we should applaud MinLaw since their failure in oversight resulted in this problem in the first place, but Shanmugam is doing everybody a favour by speaking out now and warning everybody that a law degree isn't a path to certainty and career success like it was in the past.

And why lower the requirement to allow overseas grads with 2nd lower to practice? That probably contributed to the increase in no. of ppl who headed overseas. You can't control the no. of ppl going overseas but policies like this provided incentives for people to go.

Too many changes too soon methinks. Bad planning.

I remember just four years ago, law firms were fighting to secure pupils. I dropped my resume at each of the Big4s and Baker and got interview invites from all. I went for my first interview with A&G, and immediately got offered a TC on the spot. I even had to fret about drafting polite interview cancellation emails to the other 4 firms. LOL.

And I wasn't even a spectacular candidate. Just a decent 2:1 with no internships whatsoever. Life was so much easier for fresh grads then.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I remember just four years ago, law firms were fighting to secure pupils. I dropped my resume at each of the Big4s and Baker and got interview invites from all. I went for my first interview with A&G, and immediately got offered a TC on the spot. I even had to fret about drafting polite interview cancellation emails to the other 4 firms. LOL.

And I wasn't even a spectacular candidate. Just a decent 2:1 with no internships whatsoever. Life was so much easier for fresh grads then.

haha times have changed quickly & rather drastically.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

And why lower the requirement to allow overseas grads with 2nd lower to practice? That probably contributed to the increase in no. of ppl who headed overseas. You can't control the no. of ppl going overseas but policies like this provided incentives for people to go.

Too many changes too soon methinks. Bad planning.

MinLaw did that when there was a shortage of lawyers in Singapore. There has been a steady increase in supply since reducing the requirement to a 2nd lower yet they are still pushing for a new law faculty in SIM after predicting an oversupply of lawyers in the coming years.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

MinLaw did that when there was a shortage of lawyers in Singapore. There has been a steady increase in supply since reducing the requirement to a 2nd lower yet they are still pushing for a new law faculty in SIM after predicting an oversupply of lawyers in the coming years.

I think i read somewhere that UniSIM's law school will concentrate on making family law and criminal law-related graduates due to low supply in such specialized lawyers. I believe the oversupply belongs to lawyers doing corporate, finance and all those seemingly "attractive" specializations.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think i read somewhere that UniSIM's law school will concentrate on making family law and criminal law-related graduates due to low supply in such specialized lawyers. I believe the oversupply belongs to lawyers doing corporate, finance and all those seemingly "attractive" specializations.

But how do you ensure that these UniSIM grads won't be joining the "glitzy" specializations anyway? Unless you disqualify them from corporate practice via some form of restriction (which would be unfair discrimination), there's no control mechanism to ensure that they will in fact join the fields of practice which the government is hoping they'd join.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But how do you ensure that these UniSIM grads won't be joining the "glitzy" specializations anyway? Unless you disqualify them from corporate practice via some form of restriction (which would be unfair discrimination), there's no control mechanism to ensure that they will in fact join the fields of practice which the government is hoping they'd join.

Why is corporate/company law deemed glitzy in comparison to the apparently gritty and grimy criminal law? Also, why are criminal lawyers paid less compared to their corporate counterparts? Any answers would be appreciated.

[lifeistough]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why is corporate/company law deemed glitzy in comparison to the apparently gritty and grimy criminal law? Also, why are criminal lawyers paid less compared to their corporate counterparts? Any answers would be appreciated.

(I'm a law student) From my internship experience, criminal and family law pay the least because fees arent very high because cases tend to be very simple. For example, an uncontested divorce generally costs only $2-2.5k.

Criminal and family law practices thus tend to focus on volume rather than depth of work. There are, of course, exceptions to this (divorce ancillary proceedings can involve millions of dollars in dispute).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why is corporate/company law deemed glitzy in comparison to the apparently gritty and grimy criminal law? Also, why are criminal lawyers paid less compared to their corporate counterparts? Any answers would be appreciated.

Criminal law does not necessarily pay less, though it often does. Think about the fees which will be paid to the guys defending the CHC officers. Or the lawyers representing each PAP minister in the numerous defamation suits over the years. Or Susan Lim's lawyers. When the litigant employing a criminal lawyer has deep pockets, the fees will invariably reflect this.

However, in small practice criminal law - your client is either:

(1) a rioting Bangla worker
(2) a Filipino maid who has snapped and killed/attacker her employer
(3) a distraught housewife who has been abused by her alcoholic, unemployed husband

or some other variation of the above. A class of persons who deserve legal representation, but can't quite afford it. Who will pick up and foot your invoice at the end of the day? And even if they can and do pay, where is your next file/case coming from?

On the contrary, in corporate and finance work your clients are banks or powerful multinationals which have the budget to pay hefty legal fees. The workflow is continuous, repetitive and pretty much guaranteed once the relationship is there. Corporate and finance work is a far better money spinner.