Singapore’s young lawyers are not leaving law, simply choosing new paths

“I wouldn’t call it lower ambition – ambition is being defined differently,” says Seet. “For previous generations, partnership was the obvious marker of success, and business development was part of that bargain. Many younger lawyers are equally ambitious, but their goal may be to become a GC, business leader or strategic adviser rather than build a book of clients. Burnout can accelerate the decision, but it’s not the whole story.”

Just as important is the desire to be closer to the business. “Proximity to the business is another major driver — they want to understand why decisions are being made, follow matters from start to finish, build commercial judgement and own outcomes. Growth, regional exposure and alignment with an industry they find interesting also matter,” adds Seet.

This shift in priorities is also changing timing. Historically, lawyers moved in-house only after cementing their technical credentials in private practice, but now, Seet observes, many are deliberately starting that chapter much earlier.

“Moving early can be an excellent decision, but the quality of the role matters enormously,” Seet cautions, pointing out that the biggest risk could be leaving a good training environment too early to learn enough of the technical basics, and then ending up on a small legal team that doesn’t have the time or people to mentor them properly.

“Those gaps can become harder to correct later and may also make returning to top-tier private practice more difficult,” warns Seet. “There’s no magic PQE threshold; the platform and manager matter more.”

This evolution is also visible further up the seniority chain. Companies are increasingly open to hiring lawyers with 10 to 15 years of experience for GC-track roles, but Seet is careful not to overstate the pattern.

“I’d caution against reading this as a blanket shift, as much depends on the company and what the GC role entails,” she says. “In the searches I run, clients increasingly want candidates who can work closely with the business and speak its language, not just legal. With leaner teams, every lawyer needs to contribute beyond technical advice. That’s often better evidenced by meaningful in-house tenure than seniority alone.” 

Seet also points out that the GC role itself has grown broader, now covering areas like regulation, governance, risk, technology and strategy, meaning what a candidate can actually do matters just as much as how long they’ve been practising. 

Add to that the fact that business leadership teams are skewing younger, and years of experience alone carry less weight than they used to.

All things considered, and with AI disrupting the legal industry and the young talent pipeline, Seet believes the tried-and-tested career path for lawyers is becoming less linear.

“It will no longer be assumed that a lawyer spends five to seven years in private practice before moving in-house, particularly if AI reduces the number of junior roles firms require. That could make earlier or even direct entry into sophisticated in-house teams more accepted,” she says.

This, she suggests, raises deeper questions about how young lawyers will develop commercial judgement in the future, which may eventually reach back into legal education itself.

“Universities may need to embed greater business exposure into legal education, whether through multidisciplinary study, double degrees or experiential learning,” adds Seet.