¹ To me, at least.

² Which is also a fairly apt way to describe the journey I've been on this year.

³ With some amendments, to ensure that what I share is up-to-date.

⁴ The team is presently working on several litigation and arbitration briefs involving multi-million dollar quantums, and involving (in no particular order) cryptocurrency, derivatives, trusts and equity, illegality, and issues of foreign law.

⁵ This role is ideal for young lawyers who prefer not to commit to a specific specialist disputes area just yet, but wish to handle a wider breadth of matters. This also means that apart from working on more intense disputes, the successful candidate should also open to handling, for example, non-contentious probate matters, employment advisory, tenancy disputes, or even simple claims for debt.

⁶ Anecdotally, I understand that most associates in big firms are resigned to only being given proper oral advocacy opportunities (such as interlocutory applications) from the 5- or 6-PQE mark onwards. And let's not even talk about being in an international firm and not having the right of audience in Court. This is a topic that we can dive deeper into another day, but for now, it suffices to say that my colleagues will get their chance to be on their feet much earlier than that.

⁷ Look, I know a lot of firms and senior practitioners say this, but end up only paying lip service to it. And I don't expect you, dear reader, to simply take my word for it. So feel free to ask around the legal community and form your own conclusions.

But for what it's worth:
(a) here are some musings on why I see value in the mentorship process: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/khelvin-xu_mentorship-legalpractice-nuslaw-activity-7110841657670991872-8AiE/; and
(b) I've served on NUS Faculty of Law's Law Alumni Mentor Programme for 8 years, as a Part B advocacy trainer for 9 years, and now serve on the Law Society Mentorship Scheme, so hopefully that demonstrates some walking of the talk.

⁸ That's not to say that it's a 9 to 5 job. There will be late nights and burnt weekends. The difference is that this should ideally be the exception and not the norm, I don't take it for granted when my colleagues put in the hard yards, I make it a point to look apologetic when I tell my colleagues that we need to burn the midnight oil, and I'm in the trenches alongside my colleagues.

⁹ Because we do a disservice to our clients, the Courts / tribunals, and ourselves if we simply phone it in.

¹⁰ Candidates should not expect that they will simply be told what to do, upon which they will just blindly and mechanically execute. I suggest that the ability to think independently and deliver desired outcomes is a muscle to be trained by doing and not just by watching.

Also, candidates should have an eye for detail. Today's easter egg is this. Candidates who mention the deadweight loss of Christmas¹² when they apply, and can express a view on whether they agree or disagree with the concept, will have an advantage.

¹¹ For folks whose present goal is to work as many hours as possible to earn as much money as possible in the short term - and that's a perfectly legitimate aim - there are other firms out there who would likely be a better fit. Candidates can, however, expect the annual remuneration package to be proportionate to the expected workload and intensity. In simple terms, more work means more bonus.

Also, the firm conducts regular salary reviews, to ensure that we keep pace with the market.

¹² What does this have to do with lawyering? Well, absolutely nothing. But I like to work with well-read folks with inquisitive minds. Hopefully that's not too much of an ask.

¹³ Holy smokes, Batman, 4 separate comments' worth of footnotes! Probably a new record.