Lawyer Salary

What is the starting salary at duane morris selvam?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

What is the starting salary at duane morris selvam?

Like all local Sg firms, it's between 4-5.6k

Originally Posted by Unregistered

This is not true. I am not a first and am an incoming trainee at Bakers. I got my TC before interning there. I have a friend who is similarly not a first and is an incoming trainee at CC. I have TONS of friends that are going to the big 4 and are not firsts and haven't interned at their firms. There are a number who aren't even 2nd uppers (without connections).

Ha ha everyone calls them rodyk no matter what they want to be called...same for stamford

Errr since you are going to be a lawyer i hope you will be more careful in addressing claims. The claim is first, the 7 firms mentioned draws largely from former interns and FCHs, not both criteria. The claim is followed by another one that says WP and Dentons are exceptions to the proposition.

So your reply has addressed neither claims sufficiently. As a student of law you will know that exception to a general rule does not invalidate the general rule per se. So citing you and your friend doesn't really address the claims as well. Sorry this is not a mathematicians wanna be forum page. Haha

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Errr since you are going to be a lawyer i hope you will be more careful in addressing claims. The claim is first, the 7 firms mentioned draws largely from former interns and FCHs, not both criteria. The claim is followed by another one that says WP and Dentons are exceptions to the proposition.

So your reply has addressed neither claims sufficiently. As a student of law you will know that exception to a general rule does not invalidate the general rule per se. So citing you and your friend doesn't really address the claims as well. Sorry this is not a mathematicians wanna be forum page. Haha

I would be more careful with reading if I were you. The statement made previously was not couched as a general rule. It was, rather, put across as an absolute that ALL the 5 firms (minus WP and rodyk) take in ONLY fch OR former interns. Thus any instance to the contrary disproves the entire statement.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

These firms are only looking to offer TCs to former interns or FCHs. I understand that WP and Dentons are willing to looking beyond former interns and FCHs. To get their internship you must have so quality in your resume in Y2 that at least attracted the HR team.

I was not a former intern neither was I an expected FCH when I received my TC offer. This exception thus disproves the rule.

If you wish to dilute your stand to that of a general rule, that can be discredited as well. Lets take a sampling from Bakers - my department has 4 incoming trainees. 2 (myself included) are not FCH and have not interned there prior to getting our TCs. F&P also has 2 (out of 3 or 4) who are not FCH and have not interned there prior to getting TCs.

It is also a known fact that firms offer students for reasons outside of grades or internships - for example from moots (e.g. wongp is known for giving TCs to the finalists of a local moot) and from classes (a number of students here got offers from a big4 for their performance in a course conducted by firm partners).

While we don't have the actual numbers, its clear that the number of incoming big4/baker/cc trainees who are neither FCH nor former interns is a significant one.

Its noted that while I've given examples, you have provided nothing other than your assertions. If you piece together the information I have provided, you can track down which school I go to and who I am to verify if what I am saying is indeed correct.

I'll also note that the big4 take in so many interns that they aren't really discerning with who they take in. One of the big4 for example takes in 14-16 interns per batch. At 2 weeks per batch, there are around 10 batches every summer, plus 2 every winter, which is close to 200 interns. That's almost a third of the incoming Part B batch.

LOL WTH look at all the wan kers above quarrelling.

general rule, "per se", exceptions to the proposition, "any instance to the contrary". Are you even listening to how retarded y'all sound?? Wtf normal people don't talk like that. and you wonder why they find law students insufferable.

all this circle jerking about which firm is the most prestigious is just LMAO

why don't you guys actually start working first and check back here in one year's time? I wonder how many of you will actually still be around, whether from attrition or retention. I can assure you definitely not if you go around talking to people like that.

sounds right, only A&G/CC are more particular about applicants being past interns. the rest of the big 4, rodyk, and baker dont seem as particular. also correct that the big 4 is that selective about interns, only CC/Baker/AGC are. as a side ntoe, AGC is probably as hard to get in now as baker and the like given that they are currently very full and take in only a handful of new recruits a year.

at least for local grads, to get R&T/Drew/Rodyk (for corp) or Rodyk/non-elite departments in the big 4 (for disputes), the typical profile is a decent second-upper (60-80 percentile) or a borderline second lower with good moots/interview skills/rapport with the partners etc.

someone asked about the mid-sized firms, here's a very rough approximation -

most desirable:
shook lin
TRC
TSMP
Bird & Bird (for IP folks)

desirable:
harry elias
lee & lee
TKQP

less desirable:
straits
Khattarwong

Most ideal job is JLC/ AGC.
Followed by law academic at NUS/SMU
Followed by legal counsel in civil service
Then offshore law firms.
Then getting posted to Hong Kong as a lawyer

Subsequently, it's working in FLVs/JLVs
Then big four
And mid-size meaning at least 40 fee earners but below 110 fee earners.
Then In-house legal counsel
And then smaller firms below 40 fee earners.
Then less than 8 fee earners to sole prop.

I always heard that Baker always don't end up with the smartest bunch of trainees. So it is true. Hey, baker trainee to be, give the natsayer some credit, he was quite right in saying your first reply didn't disprove the claim. Your second reply did.

Absolute or general statement is a matter of interpretation.

Appreciate you sharing some evidence. But this place you just make your claim and everyone assess evidence and believe what they believe in. End of story.

And yar some of the posters here assume they are talking to fellow lawyers so of course technical abit

I kind of agree.... maybe there is not most desirable law firm, only most desirable bosses and colleagues. Some firms just offer more pay than other. But people do earn more and yet are more miserable. Hahaha.

Legal Service is a very top heavy place i heard. Too many senior statesmen who are taking positions and not retiring yet.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I kind of agree.... maybe there is not most desirable law firm, only most desirable bosses and colleagues. Some firms just offer more pay than other. But people do earn more and yet are more miserable. Hahaha.

Legal Service is a very top heavy place i heard. Too many senior statesmen who are taking positions and not retiring yet.

I feel you. Life in law is tough.