Salary.sg Forums - Reply to Topic
Salary.sg Forums  

Go Back   Salary.sg Forums > The Salary.sg Discussion Forums: > Income and Jobs > Lawyer Salary

Income and Jobs Discuss jobs, career options and of course salaries




Salary.sg Forums

Thread: Lawyer Salary Reply to Thread
Your Username: Click here to log in
Human Verification To prove you are a human and not a computer program that spams, please check the box below and answer any further questions if prompted.

Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Yesterday 04:20 PM
Unregistered I think it's beneficial for us to know whether the recruiters who approach us just need warm bodies or are able to view things from our perspective. We are the clients after all. To this end, it would be great to able to differentiate the good from the bad. Here's my little contribution to the list.

I can corroborate OP's account of Dhvani Doshi - very elusive, opaque, and ghosts. Don't waste our time brah.

New to the list - Sophie Chen and her posse from Daode Search - extremely unprofessional in terms of approach and follow-up. Work on your grammar brah.

Last but certainly the worst I've come across so far - Elly Lailee from ANSA. Jezuz H Christ where to start? Starts digging / stirring **** about your firm / team on the first call, asks for your comp in hard numbers, and has no leads for you. Absolute shocker. Be very wary - comes across as the kind to throw you under the bus. You can sense the toxicity from this one. Anyone with similar experiences? Would be great to hear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Agreed about Dhvani Doshi from Hays - Rude, entitled and impatient. Randomly calls you up for roles then never updates you and ghosts entirely. RUDE.

Emily Tan from Formative Search - This woman will literally harass you lmao. If you turn down a role, she will keep asking you WHY WHY WHY and ask if you can intro any friends who might be interested. Sometimes she even pretends as if she had mandate from the firm/company to act and search for a candidate. Anyhow max.

Sophie de Blauwe from Taylor Root - Will chat you up and get you hyped for a role, then ghost you. I heard her strategy is she lines up several candidates and sends the weaker ones in first to suss out the interviewers/what kind of questions would they ask/etc to prep her stronger ones later.

Melvin Ling from Hudson - I only learnt about this guy because he randomly cold called me on my office phone without even reaching out to me on LinkedIn first. Spoke to him for 5 mins and felt damn tired, clearly doesn't even know what he's doing or what the legal industry is about.

Awaiz Iqbal from Interlink Recruitment - OMG AVOID THIS GUY. Just like Emily, he anyhow pretend he has mandates and will randomly splice together random partner profiles to cobble up a JD for you. He once asked my friend whether she was interested in a role with XYZ department in my firm, which didn't even exist so I asked to see the JD - lo and behold, he just anyhow threw a few partners (from entirely different depts) and claimed they were hiring for that specific dept lol.

Lucy Kennerley from Leap29 - She will be very nice to you if she needs your profile/cv but when you try to ask her about roles she's posted, she'll be damn cold to you and say they not hiring for your profile lol.

Eng Chang from Space Exec - Talk a lot but clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, has a throw **** until it sticks method i.e. he will spam you with roles or talk you up about them when you're clearly unsuitable.
Yesterday 01:16 PM
Unregistered Just a random question, but if your part B results are confidential only to you, how would your firm know if you passed all of them at first try (or were required to resit in March)?
25-11-2020 05:34 PM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Fully agree with Point 1. Folks, please always keep friends you have met in your law degree courses at arm's length and take their words with a pinch of salt. You all could be chummy in university, because there is nothing to compete for back then. But once you step into the working world, even your bestest friend you made in your course could turn competitive and sabotage you behind your back.

It is nothing personal. The legal industry is cut-throat and many are fighting for an ever-shrinking pie.
I found it the other way round surprisingly. People in university were intensively competitive because everyone was fighting for the same few opportunities (moots, training contracts, subject prizes) but once qualifying, people were much less pressured as the competition becomes bounded by your department. A litigation associate isn’t fighting in the same market as a finance associate. Of course I could have got very unlucky in school and very lucky in work but remember that school is truly competitive (akin to a sports contest) where everyone roughly sits the same exams, but in the real world everyone is working on different cases and deals!
25-11-2020 04:18 PM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
It was my oversight (I'm qualified so obviously I don't track law fair dates), but it is a good reminder that:

(1) there are these law fairs, graduate recruitment teas, and many other opportunities out there for you to find out more about firms first-hand, instead of relying on second-hand gossip from your batchmates (who may be competitive and withhold information - or worse, don't know what they are talking about resulting in the blind leading the blind).

(2) firms actively seek out the best talent from all over the world (not just Singaporeans) to work in Singapore, BUT that Singaporeans have opportunities to work all over the world (particularly in the UK, where all you need is a GDL / SQE to be on exactly the same playing field as any UK grad and many firms like A&O are even willing to pay for your GDL). HK and Dubai are open too.

(3) you can go to law fairs virtually - e.g. there is a general UK fair on 3 December (s://.legalcheek.com/uk-virtual-law-fair-series/) - and I'm definitely posting this one before the deadline.

Happy hunting people! Won't out myself here but I fully expect to talk to some Singaporeans through the various mentoring programmes I help out with.
Fully agree with Point 1. Folks, please always keep friends you have met in your law degree courses at arm's length and take their words with a pinch of salt. You all could be chummy in university, because there is nothing to compete for back then. But once you step into the working world, even your bestest friend you made in your course could turn competitive and sabotage you behind your back.

It is nothing personal. The legal industry is cut-throat and many are fighting for an ever-shrinking pie.
25-11-2020 01:28 PM
Unregistered Non lawyer spotted.
25-11-2020 09:52 AM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
I've been asked to write something about the Lee Suet Fern case, so I've done a quick summary of the judgment, and added my brief views on the matter. This is a politically explosive matter concerning high profile people in my industry, so don't expect any spicy takes from me! (Not publicly on Facebook at least.)

LACK OF DILIGENCE
At [149](a)-(b): LSF had made material representations to LKY in the execution process that she had no basis to make, which is, at best, irresponsible. Namely, she told him that the version of the Will he was signing was identical to the one he executed several versions ago (ie this was simply a reversion to a Will he had executed previously). In reliance of this, LKY then went ahead to sign the Will. As it turns out, there actually existed several material differences from the version he previously signed. Crucially, LSF had not seen the executed previous version, so she was in no position to assure him that it was the same. As such, she failed to ascertain that the Will truly reflected the testator's (LKY's) intentions, which is a cardinal sin for Will drafting.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[149](c)-(d), (h): By playing such a central role in the execution of LKY's last Will while being the wife of a major beneficiary as set out above, LSF was in a position of conflict of interest as a lawyer. As such, she should have advised LKY to seek independent legal advice. She did not. Had she been in a solicitor-client relationship, this would have been a grave breach. Nonetheless, she had divided loyalties, being married to LHY, a beneficiary, and also servicing LKY as she would a client.

OTHER QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS
[149](e)-(g): LSF allowed LKY to execute the Will despite knowledge of the above, and left KKL out of most of the material correspondence. She then failed to fully inform her what happened even after the fact. She did not clarify with LKY who drafted the last Will, and if it was indeed identical to an earlier Will he had executed.

The court also found that she had been less than honest in trying to minimise her involvement to the court, although they also found that she did not act dishonestly in getting the Will executed.

WHY NOT STRUCK OFF?
LSF got off lightly, all things considered, because she was found not to be in a lawyer-client relationship with LKY. As such, her transgressions were only poor form for a lawyer, but did not breach the lawyer-client relationship, which is far more serious. All lawyers owe duties to their clients, and failure to advance one's client's best interests, acting in conflict of interest are serious breaches of a lawyer's duties.

Whether there exists a lawyer-client relationship will depend on the facts. Even if no contract was signed, if BOTH parties understood there to be one and acted in that manner, such a relationship can arise (judgment at [61]).

In this case, the court found that a lawyer-client relationship did not exist (judgment at [133]) because while LSF viewed herself as acting as LKY's lawyer (judgment at [127]), LKY did not view LSF as being his lawyer (judgment at [130]), as he thought Kwa had a hand in drafting the final Will.

MY VIEWS
This is a very ugly and public spat. I hope it's over.

As a lawyer, it should have been clear to LSF that the situation was one where she was in a position of conflict. As such, she ought to have gone out of her way to ensure that there wasn't even the slightest appearance of impropriety. She could have safeguarded herself by waiting for KKL to get get back, and/or at least keeping KKL copied in ALL correspondence. Whether inadvertently (LHY was the first to omit KKL from the chain, if she hit "reply all" thereafter, she may not have realised KKL was no longer looped in) or otherwise, she did not.

While the speed with which the Will was signed may well have been on LKY's instructions, again, given how sensitive this all was, every effort should have been made to keep KKL or her staff in the loop to avoid future allegations of impropriety.

Personally, though, I think the final Will, with the demolition clause reinstated, is more consistent with the public stance LKY has had regarding his house all these years.

I am grateful that 38 Oxley will not be demolished, because I feel it is a part of our national heritage. But LKY of all people should have known that the demolition clause cannot override the State: he pushed through reforms in land law that gave the State ultimate power over property here. Many property owners have been displaced over the years, sometimes with inadequate compensation, to make way for development. But would we have had such progress if proprietary rights were recognised? The URA would've spent years litigating against stubborn landowners, or a fortune to buy them out. If PM Lee or the government of the day were so minded, an act of Parliament could have been passed to preserve 38 Oxley, notwithstanding what the Will said.

Still, I think this whole matter is actually a proxy fight, and the underlying issues remain unaddressed. This kind of family thing often no right no wrong one, and those of us who are not privy to what's going on can only speculate.

But hopefully this brings the whole unhappy episode to a close. I think the public is getting quite tired of seeing the Lee family dirty laundry being aired in public, and expensive legal cases being brought to settle private family affairs.


SL of LVM
Good summary, although a pro-establishment bias is noted. Any ideas if LSF can appeal the verdict?
25-11-2020 12:15 AM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
law fair on 17 nov you post on 18 really damn snake
It was my oversight (I'm qualified so obviously I don't track law fair dates), but it is a good reminder that:

(1) there are these law fairs, graduate recruitment teas, and many other opportunities out there for you to find out more about firms first-hand, instead of relying on second-hand gossip from your batchmates (who may be competitive and withhold information - or worse, don't know what they are talking about resulting in the blind leading the blind).

(2) firms actively seek out the best talent from all over the world (not just Singaporeans) to work in Singapore, BUT that Singaporeans have opportunities to work all over the world (particularly in the UK, where all you need is a GDL / SQE to be on exactly the same playing field as any UK grad and many firms like A&O are even willing to pay for your GDL). HK and Dubai are open too.

(3) you can go to law fairs virtually - e.g. there is a general UK fair on 3 December (s://.legalcheek.com/uk-virtual-law-fair-series/) - and I'm definitely posting this one before the deadline.

Happy hunting people! Won't out myself here but I fully expect to talk to some Singaporeans through the various mentoring programmes I help out with.
24-11-2020 09:49 PM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
I've been asked to write something about the Lee Suet Fern case, so I've done a quick summary of the judgment, and added my brief views on the matter. This is a politically explosive matter concerning high profile people in my industry, so don't expect any spicy takes from me! (Not publicly on Facebook at least.)

LACK OF DILIGENCE
At [149](a)-(b): LSF had made material representations to LKY in the execution process that she had no basis to make, which is, at best, irresponsible. Namely, she told him that the version of the Will he was signing was identical to the one he executed several versions ago (ie this was simply a reversion to a Will he had executed previously). In reliance of this, LKY then went ahead to sign the Will. As it turns out, there actually existed several material differences from the version he previously signed. Crucially, LSF had not seen the executed previous version, so she was in no position to assure him that it was the same. As such, she failed to ascertain that the Will truly reflected the testator's (LKY's) intentions, which is a cardinal sin for Will drafting.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[149](c)-(d), (h): By playing such a central role in the execution of LKY's last Will while being the wife of a major beneficiary as set out above, LSF was in a position of conflict of interest as a lawyer. As such, she should have advised LKY to seek independent legal advice. She did not. Had she been in a solicitor-client relationship, this would have been a grave breach. Nonetheless, she had divided loyalties, being married to LHY, a beneficiary, and also servicing LKY as she would a client.

OTHER QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS
[149](e)-(g): LSF allowed LKY to execute the Will despite knowledge of the above, and left KKL out of most of the material correspondence. She then failed to fully inform her what happened even after the fact. She did not clarify with LKY who drafted the last Will, and if it was indeed identical to an earlier Will he had executed.

The court also found that she had been less than honest in trying to minimise her involvement to the court, although they also found that she did not act dishonestly in getting the Will executed.

WHY NOT STRUCK OFF?
LSF got off lightly, all things considered, because she was found not to be in a lawyer-client relationship with LKY. As such, her transgressions were only poor form for a lawyer, but did not breach the lawyer-client relationship, which is far more serious. All lawyers owe duties to their clients, and failure to advance one's client's best interests, acting in conflict of interest are serious breaches of a lawyer's duties.

Whether there exists a lawyer-client relationship will depend on the facts. Even if no contract was signed, if BOTH parties understood there to be one and acted in that manner, such a relationship can arise (judgment at [61]).

In this case, the court found that a lawyer-client relationship did not exist (judgment at [133]) because while LSF viewed herself as acting as LKY's lawyer (judgment at [127]), LKY did not view LSF as being his lawyer (judgment at [130]), as he thought Kwa had a hand in drafting the final Will.

MY VIEWS
This is a very ugly and public spat. I hope it's over.

As a lawyer, it should have been clear to LSF that the situation was one where she was in a position of conflict. As such, she ought to have gone out of her way to ensure that there wasn't even the slightest appearance of impropriety. She could have safeguarded herself by waiting for KKL to get get back, and/or at least keeping KKL copied in ALL correspondence. Whether inadvertently (LHY was the first to omit KKL from the chain, if she hit "reply all" thereafter, she may not have realised KKL was no longer looped in) or otherwise, she did not.

While the speed with which the Will was signed may well have been on LKY's instructions, again, given how sensitive this all was, every effort should have been made to keep KKL or her staff in the loop to avoid future allegations of impropriety.

Personally, though, I think the final Will, with the demolition clause reinstated, is more consistent with the public stance LKY has had regarding his house all these years.

I am grateful that 38 Oxley will not be demolished, because I feel it is a part of our national heritage. But LKY of all people should have known that the demolition clause cannot override the State: he pushed through reforms in land law that gave the State ultimate power over property here. Many property owners have been displaced over the years, sometimes with inadequate compensation, to make way for development. But would we have had such progress if proprietary rights were recognised? The URA would've spent years litigating against stubborn landowners, or a fortune to buy them out. If PM Lee or the government of the day were so minded, an act of Parliament could have been passed to preserve 38 Oxley, notwithstanding what the Will said.

Still, I think this whole matter is actually a proxy fight, and the underlying issues remain unaddressed. This kind of family thing often no right no wrong one, and those of us who are not privy to what's going on can only speculate.

But hopefully this brings the whole unhappy episode to a close. I think the public is getting quite tired of seeing the Lee family dirty laundry being aired in public, and expensive legal cases being brought to settle private family affairs.


SL of LVM
How is this relevant to lawyers' salary? The troll infestation on this thread worsens by the day.

In any case, has the author consented to you reproducing his opinion on this forum? What is your intention behind hinting at the author's identity and law firm?
24-11-2020 07:05 PM
Unregistered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
I've been asked to write something about the Lee Suet Fern case, so I've done a quick summary of the judgment, and added my brief views on the matter. This is a politically explosive matter concerning high profile people in my industry, so don't expect any spicy takes from me! (Not publicly on Facebook at least.)

LACK OF DILIGENCE
At [149](a)-(b): LSF had made material representations to LKY in the execution process that she had no basis to make, which is, at best, irresponsible. Namely, she told him that the version of the Will he was signing was identical to the one he executed several versions ago (ie this was simply a reversion to a Will he had executed previously). In reliance of this, LKY then went ahead to sign the Will. As it turns out, there actually existed several material differences from the version he previously signed. Crucially, LSF had not seen the executed previous version, so she was in no position to assure him that it was the same. As such, she failed to ascertain that the Will truly reflected the testator's (LKY's) intentions, which is a cardinal sin for Will drafting.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[149](c)-(d), (h): By playing such a central role in the execution of LKY's last Will while being the wife of a major beneficiary as set out above, LSF was in a position of conflict of interest as a lawyer. As such, she should have advised LKY to seek independent legal advice. She did not. Had she been in a solicitor-client relationship, this would have been a grave breach. Nonetheless, she had divided loyalties, being married to LHY, a beneficiary, and also servicing LKY as she would a client.

OTHER QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS
[149](e)-(g): LSF allowed LKY to execute the Will despite knowledge of the above, and left KKL out of most of the material correspondence. She then failed to fully inform her what happened even after the fact. She did not clarify with LKY who drafted the last Will, and if it was indeed identical to an earlier Will he had executed.

The court also found that she had been less than honest in trying to minimise her involvement to the court, although they also found that she did not act dishonestly in getting the Will executed.

WHY NOT STRUCK OFF?
LSF got off lightly, all things considered, because she was found not to be in a lawyer-client relationship with LKY. As such, her transgressions were only poor form for a lawyer, but did not breach the lawyer-client relationship, which is far more serious. All lawyers owe duties to their clients, and failure to advance one's client's best interests, acting in conflict of interest are serious breaches of a lawyer's duties.

Whether there exists a lawyer-client relationship will depend on the facts. Even if no contract was signed, if BOTH parties understood there to be one and acted in that manner, such a relationship can arise (judgment at [61]).

In this case, the court found that a lawyer-client relationship did not exist (judgment at [133]) because while LSF viewed herself as acting as LKY's lawyer (judgment at [127]), LKY did not view LSF as being his lawyer (judgment at [130]), as he thought Kwa had a hand in drafting the final Will.

MY VIEWS
This is a very ugly and public spat. I hope it's over.

As a lawyer, it should have been clear to LSF that the situation was one where she was in a position of conflict. As such, she ought to have gone out of her way to ensure that there wasn't even the slightest appearance of impropriety. She could have safeguarded herself by waiting for KKL to get get back, and/or at least keeping KKL copied in ALL correspondence. Whether inadvertently (LHY was the first to omit KKL from the chain, if she hit "reply all" thereafter, she may not have realised KKL was no longer looped in) or otherwise, she did not.

While the speed with which the Will was signed may well have been on LKY's instructions, again, given how sensitive this all was, every effort should have been made to keep KKL or her staff in the loop to avoid future allegations of impropriety.

Personally, though, I think the final Will, with the demolition clause reinstated, is more consistent with the public stance LKY has had regarding his house all these years.

I am grateful that 38 Oxley will not be demolished, because I feel it is a part of our national heritage. But LKY of all people should have known that the demolition clause cannot override the State: he pushed through reforms in land law that gave the State ultimate power over property here. Many property owners have been displaced over the years, sometimes with inadequate compensation, to make way for development. But would we have had such progress if proprietary rights were recognised? The URA would've spent years litigating against stubborn landowners, or a fortune to buy them out. If PM Lee or the government of the day were so minded, an act of Parliament could have been passed to preserve 38 Oxley, notwithstanding what the Will said.

Still, I think this whole matter is actually a proxy fight, and the underlying issues remain unaddressed. This kind of family thing often no right no wrong one, and those of us who are not privy to what's going on can only speculate.

But hopefully this brings the whole unhappy episode to a close. I think the public is getting quite tired of seeing the Lee family dirty laundry being aired in public, and expensive legal cases being brought to settle private family affairs.


SL of LVM
Who’s the writer of this? Any issue with this post?
24-11-2020 04:20 PM
Unregistered I've been asked to write something about the Lee Suet Fern case, so I've done a quick summary of the judgment, and added my brief views on the matter. This is a politically explosive matter concerning high profile people in my industry, so don't expect any spicy takes from me! (Not publicly on Facebook at least.)

LACK OF DILIGENCE
At [149](a)-(b): LSF had made material representations to LKY in the execution process that she had no basis to make, which is, at best, irresponsible. Namely, she told him that the version of the Will he was signing was identical to the one he executed several versions ago (ie this was simply a reversion to a Will he had executed previously). In reliance of this, LKY then went ahead to sign the Will. As it turns out, there actually existed several material differences from the version he previously signed. Crucially, LSF had not seen the executed previous version, so she was in no position to assure him that it was the same. As such, she failed to ascertain that the Will truly reflected the testator's (LKY's) intentions, which is a cardinal sin for Will drafting.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
[149](c)-(d), (h): By playing such a central role in the execution of LKY's last Will while being the wife of a major beneficiary as set out above, LSF was in a position of conflict of interest as a lawyer. As such, she should have advised LKY to seek independent legal advice. She did not. Had she been in a solicitor-client relationship, this would have been a grave breach. Nonetheless, she had divided loyalties, being married to LHY, a beneficiary, and also servicing LKY as she would a client.

OTHER QUESTIONABLE ACTIONS
[149](e)-(g): LSF allowed LKY to execute the Will despite knowledge of the above, and left KKL out of most of the material correspondence. She then failed to fully inform her what happened even after the fact. She did not clarify with LKY who drafted the last Will, and if it was indeed identical to an earlier Will he had executed.

The court also found that she had been less than honest in trying to minimise her involvement to the court, although they also found that she did not act dishonestly in getting the Will executed.

WHY NOT STRUCK OFF?
LSF got off lightly, all things considered, because she was found not to be in a lawyer-client relationship with LKY. As such, her transgressions were only poor form for a lawyer, but did not breach the lawyer-client relationship, which is far more serious. All lawyers owe duties to their clients, and failure to advance one's client's best interests, acting in conflict of interest are serious breaches of a lawyer's duties.

Whether there exists a lawyer-client relationship will depend on the facts. Even if no contract was signed, if BOTH parties understood there to be one and acted in that manner, such a relationship can arise (judgment at [61]).

In this case, the court found that a lawyer-client relationship did not exist (judgment at [133]) because while LSF viewed herself as acting as LKY's lawyer (judgment at [127]), LKY did not view LSF as being his lawyer (judgment at [130]), as he thought Kwa had a hand in drafting the final Will.

MY VIEWS
This is a very ugly and public spat. I hope it's over.

As a lawyer, it should have been clear to LSF that the situation was one where she was in a position of conflict. As such, she ought to have gone out of her way to ensure that there wasn't even the slightest appearance of impropriety. She could have safeguarded herself by waiting for KKL to get get back, and/or at least keeping KKL copied in ALL correspondence. Whether inadvertently (LHY was the first to omit KKL from the chain, if she hit "reply all" thereafter, she may not have realised KKL was no longer looped in) or otherwise, she did not.

While the speed with which the Will was signed may well have been on LKY's instructions, again, given how sensitive this all was, every effort should have been made to keep KKL or her staff in the loop to avoid future allegations of impropriety.

Personally, though, I think the final Will, with the demolition clause reinstated, is more consistent with the public stance LKY has had regarding his house all these years.

I am grateful that 38 Oxley will not be demolished, because I feel it is a part of our national heritage. But LKY of all people should have known that the demolition clause cannot override the State: he pushed through reforms in land law that gave the State ultimate power over property here. Many property owners have been displaced over the years, sometimes with inadequate compensation, to make way for development. But would we have had such progress if proprietary rights were recognised? The URA would've spent years litigating against stubborn landowners, or a fortune to buy them out. If PM Lee or the government of the day were so minded, an act of Parliament could have been passed to preserve 38 Oxley, notwithstanding what the Will said.

Still, I think this whole matter is actually a proxy fight, and the underlying issues remain unaddressed. This kind of family thing often no right no wrong one, and those of us who are not privy to what's going on can only speculate.

But hopefully this brings the whole unhappy episode to a close. I think the public is getting quite tired of seeing the Lee family dirty laundry being aired in public, and expensive legal cases being brought to settle private family affairs.


SL of LVM
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT +8. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2