Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Agreed with the PQE 6 lawyer, not sure where you are getting your information from but your last statement is patently false and simply a broad, general assertion (in fact, your entire post is one large, sweeping statement).

I personally know managing partners in MC who would put any decent UK institution (including KCL) above NUS Law or SMU Law any day. I'm sorry that the local universities do not have their pick of the creme de la creme and that you feel the need to react this way but please don't jeopardise someone's entire future to soothe your ego.

I really doubt he is a 6 PQE lawyer. He would have better things to do than muck around in these forums discussing whose balls are bigger.

Oh wow, many MC managing partners! That's kewl. Do you have breakfast with the Queen too??

Anyway I said local law firms, not foreign firms. Local law firms don't give a hoot about the "prestige" of London unis, since they know entry to NUS and SMU law is more competitive. UK firms will of course default to their most familiar names.

Peace out bro. No one's future is being jeopardised and no one's ego is being bruised. For the record, I find many local law graduates are too uptight for their own good. In fact, there are too many uptight lawyers and wannabe lawyers with sticks up their a rses running about - as is clearly evident in this forum. Must be an occupational hazard. A little bit of chill pill will work wonders.

Last but not least, KCL more prestigious?? Are you bonkers? KCL as in Strand Poly??? You could've used some other example like Warwick or the like but you went for the most ROFLMAO example...

Hi, would any Legal Service Officers be able to shed some light on the Legal Service? What are the entry requirements, how does it differ from law firms and are you expected to take on both disputes and non-contentious work? Thanks very much in advance!

There is no need to put down any person or any university. This thread is for mature grown ups who have actually seen and experienced the real world. For the record, I know at least two KCL graduates working for UK law firms in Singapore (I am not from KCL myself).

Guys, don't feed the troll.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I really doubt he is a 6 PQE lawyer. He would have better things to do than muck around in these forums discussing whose balls are bigger.

Oh wow, many MC managing partners! That's kewl. Do you have breakfast with the Queen too??

Anyway I said local law firms, not foreign firms. Local law firms don't give a hoot about the "prestige" of London unis, since they know entry to NUS and SMU law is more competitive. UK firms will of course default to their most familiar names.

Peace out bro. No one's future is being jeopardised and no one's ego is being bruised. For the record, I find many local law graduates are too uptight for their own good. In fact, there are too many uptight lawyers and wannabe lawyers with sticks up their a rses running about - as is clearly evident in this forum. Must be an occupational hazard. A little bit of chill pill will work wonders.

Last but not least, KCL more prestigious?? Are you bonkers? KCL as in Strand Poly??? You could've used some other example like Warwick or the like but you went for the most ROFLMAO example...

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Anyway I said local law firms, not foreign firms. Local law firms don't give a hoot about the "prestige" of London unis, since they know entry to NUS and SMU law is more competitive. UK firms will of course default to their most familiar names.

I am the poster from #1422, which is my sole previous post on this thread for the avoidance of confusion. I also have no vested interest in any of the schools mentioned since I am not even in the legal field so I speak from a sufficiently independent standpoint.

I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken with your perception of NUS Law and SMU Law. You do realise that what you adamantly assert as false is conversely true? Specifically, all who would have secured entry into LSE or UCL would have easily secured entry into NUS or SMU Law, and would have chosen doubtless the London universities over the local universities were the costs of attending the same.

Counterfactually and suppose for a split second that what you say is true, your post is again logically flawed and distinctly full of assertions. You seem to be conflating prestige with selectivity of admission. NUS and SMU Law can be 'selective' (note that again, this is patently untrue and that UCL and LSE have fractions of admissions rates that of the local schools and take in applications from across Europe vs solely the Singapore population) because they might be the only de facto law schools in Singapore, demand AAA/A and because those who wish to study under local government subsidies have no other choice. Yet few would argue against that quality of faculty, historical pedigree, research citations and access to industry as well as all other materially significant contributors to educational prestige are far superior at UCL and LSE and to a smaller extent KCL and Warwick.

Again, I am sorry that you had to resort to ad hominem attacks in an failed attempt to put a point across, but I do believe you are so emotionally attached to your alma mater that you fail to objectively see the situation for what it is - that your school is simply not good enough to compete in the global stage.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I am the poster from #1422, which is my sole previous post on this thread for the avoidance of confusion. I also have no vested interest in any of the schools mentioned since I am not even in the legal field so I speak from a sufficiently independent standpoint.

I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken with your perception of NUS Law and SMU Law. You do realise that what you adamantly assert as false is conversely true? Specifically, all who would have secured entry into LSE or UCL would have easily secured entry into NUS or SMU Law, and would have chosen doubtless the London universities over the local universities were the costs of attending the same.

Counterfactually and suppose for a split second that what you say is true, your post is again logically flawed and distinctly full of assertions. You seem to be conflating prestige with selectivity of admission. NUS and SMU Law can be 'selective' (note that again, this is patently untrue and that UCL and LSE have fractions of admissions rates that of the local schools and take in applications from across Europe vs solely the Singapore population) because they might be the only de facto law schools in Singapore, demand AAA/A and because those who wish to study under local government subsidies have no other choice. Yet few would argue against that quality of faculty, historical pedigree, research citations and access to industry as well as all other materially significant contributors to educational prestige are far superior at UCL and LSE and to a smaller extent KCL and Warwick.

Again, I am sorry that you had to resort to ad hominem attacks in an failed attempt to put a point across, but I do believe you are so emotionally attached to your alma mater that you fail to objectively see the situation for what it is - that your school is simply not good enough to compete in the global stage.

bla bla bla...so much drivel.

Sufficiently independent standpoint? Yeah right. you sound like one of those tryhard 1st year law students writing his first moot submission and learning how to use big words for the first time, ie insufferable. "Counterfactually"...LOLL. Anybody who starts a sentence with that ought to be shot for pure douchiness.

We can agree to disagree.

Anyway to put this back on track and value add for the poster if the person is still listening, please go to LSE to study. 1. Less work, more fun, easier chance for Firsts. 2. Better travel options. 3. Less uptight peers (debatable). 4. Cheaper alcohol. 5. Independence (also debatable) 6. Hotter schoolmates.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

bla bla bla...so much drivel.

Sufficiently independent standpoint? Yeah right. you sound like one of those tryhard 1st year law students writing his first moot submission and learning how to use big words for the first time, ie insufferable. "Counterfactually"...LOLL. Anybody who starts a sentence with that ought to be shot for pure douchiness.

We can agree to disagree.

Anyway to put this back on track and value add for the poster if the person is still listening, please go to LSE to study. 1. Less work, more fun, easier chance for Firsts. 2. Better travel options. 3. Less uptight peers (debatable). 4. Cheaper alcohol. 5. Independence (also debatable) 6. Hotter schoolmates.

Dude, just GTFO this thread, your advice is not worth the kilobytes of data stored on the servers

What a pathetic attempt at salvaging face after getting owned by the guy above and still failing to be sarcastic with your advice hahahaha

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Dude, just GTFO this thread, your advice is not worth the kilobytes of data stored on the servers

What a pathetic attempt at salvaging face after getting owned by the guy above and still failing to be sarcastic with your advice hahahaha

His reasons for choosing LSE are accurate though:

1. Easier time / less competition because of less uptight peers, shorter school year and lack of continuous/class participation assessment
2. Possible access to UK job market
3. Easier to get FCH (although gap has narrowed with NUS's 10% policy) / 2.1 (virtually guaranteed in UK)
4. Travel opportunities
5. Independence / cheaper alcohol / better-looking girls & guys etc

Have also heard that the teaching in UK schools outside of Oxbridge isn't great in that the profs don't really care about undergrads and there is very limited contact time. The local schools probably do better in this regard.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

His reasons for choosing LSE are accurate though:

1. Easier time / less competition because of less uptight peers, shorter school year and lack of continuous/class participation assessment
2. Possible access to UK job market
3. Easier to get FCH (although gap has narrowed with NUS's 10% policy) / 2.1 (virtually guaranteed in UK)
4. Travel opportunities
5. Independence / cheaper alcohol / better-looking girls & guys etc

Have also heard that the teaching in UK schools outside of Oxbridge isn't great in that the profs don't really care about undergrads and there is very limited contact time. The local schools probably do better in this regard.

Dude, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? HAHAHAHA

It's drop dead obvious from your writing style HAHAHHAA. What a loser hahahah troll also can't do properly, "uptight peers" REALLY? HAHAHHAA first time I've ever seen this used to refer to students in ANY school

10 bucks to anyone reading that the next reply will be from his 'original guy' persona HAHAHAHA (which would be even MORE likely if I had not added in this last line)

wahhahaha what a hilarious joker please see a doctor for your split personality or bipolar disorder it can be kept under control given recent advancements in medical tech and if you keep to your medicinal routine

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi, would any Legal Service Officers be able to shed some light on the Legal Service? What are the entry requirements, how does it differ from law firms and are you expected to take on both disputes and non-contentious work? Thanks very much in advance!

The entry requirements in recent times are similar to that of any top tier law firm in Singapore. There is a preference for good academic grades (good 2nd upper and above) but at the same time, it is possible for students with less than stellar academic grades to get in if they do well in the interview.

Work wise, legal service does try to accommodate individual preferences. Generally, many officers get what they ask for. But since the needs of the organisation come first. If they need manpower in one division and there isn't anyone else who is willing to go there, then it is possible that they will post you there against your preferences.

The substantive legal skills you require/learn in your work are no different from the skills that you require/learn in any private law firm. The difference is that you are advancing a different interest (public interest vs. commercial interest).

The work-life balance is decent and the pay for the first few years is not too far behind the top tier local firms. It is probably more than most of the mid-sized/mid-tier firms. The pay difference between legal service and private law diverges around the 5th to 7th year and beyond, where the private law SAs move into the partner ranks.

Hi guys, thank you all so much for your kind replies! I will take into consideration all of your opinions when choosing between the two, but ultimately I understand that this is my future and I should think more thoroughly about it before committing. Once again thank you all!