Who sets salaries in big law - why the discrepancy between markets?

[CleanHands]

39 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Boutiques I would probably think lean more towards less training on the scale. And it comes down to time and resources. The larger the organization, the more capacity for training. This is true in most walks of life.

Yes, I had a supervising lawyer at a clinic that articled at an extremely reputable boutique known for hiring JD gold medalists and SCC clerks, and when I remarked upon the fact that I found this impressive he told me that he regretted articling there because they didn't have the time or resources for mentorship nor did they want a student working on the high level stuff they were doing, so he got grunt work and didn't learn much. Grass isn't always greener I guess.

[123]

2 hours ago, ZukoJD said:

Aren’t law firms notoriously awful at training their students and juniors? Is it not trial by fire for the most part?

2 hours ago, ZukoJD said:

It's nice to hear this, because this runs contrary to pretty much everything I've heard about big law training. 

I've never worked in big law, so I don't know and it doesn't really matter to me. But I'm curious, so I'm asking. What have you heard about big law training?

I've not heard my big law friends describe something like "trial by fire" in the training process. I've heard students at Crown offices talk about getting tossed into court pretty well right away. I've heard that from criminal defence articling students, and from firms that churn-out work like factories. But I don't recall hearing students at major firms complain that they're not being instructed and supervised on their files. The complaints I've heard are usually about supervisor personalities, assigning work late, hours, etc. If anything, a lot of those are related to the opposite problem. They're being quite closely managed, and quirks with partner and associate time management or disposition are grating on them. Again, I have no real idea what I'm talking about, so I'm happy to be corrected and am curious, which is why I asked.

Edited August 25, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Rashabon]

Students get extensive training. They come in and get trained on various systems and then spend their entire rotations doing work that could be done faster by literally everyone else, partly in order to gain experience and learn. I train every student I work with and give them detailed background on what they are doing and why, and how it fits in. I do better than most, but I am not a huge outlier.

I've literally heard and seen the exact opposite vis a vis big law training - it is one of the perks of starting your practice in big law.

[Grey]

On 8/24/2022 at 12:24 PM, Swami said:

Was wondering who sets the salaries? Why is there such a huge discrepancy between markets?

Using Fasken as an example, below are the salaries (articling, 1st year) for each market:

Vancouver: 65k, 115k

Calgary: 80k, 95k

Toronto: 98.8k, 130k

Data taken from NALP.

I understand market factors can have an effect on salary, but it doesn't make sense to me. The COL in Vancouver is arguably higher than in Toronto, yet there is quite a big difference between salaries? 65k doesn't go far in Vancouver, and from what I understand, this number has remained unchanged for at least 5 years. Also, don't associates at national firms all do similar work at the same high caliber? Maybe I'm missing something and not seeing the full picture? Hoping someone can shed some light. 

The market sets the salaries. BigLaw firms in Toronto on average have bigger clients, and more of them, that can sustain higher billable rates compared to firms in Vancouver (how many blue chip clients are based out of Vancouver?) or Calgary (outside of the energy space, the industry base is pretty sparse). I practice in the US now and it's the same here - most firms only pay the Cravath scale (i.e., top-of-market comp) in NYC, SF, and a couple other tier 1 cities that can sustain hundreds/thousands of lawyers billing NYC rates day in and day out. That said, there are some firms in the US that pay Cravath in smaller markets too as a way to break into a new market, poach talent, maintain a firm's branding / image, etc. The firms that do so are likely less profitable in that office but have judged it to be beneficial for other reasons. Maybe if Davies wanted to build out a Vancouver office from scratch they'd do the same thing and blow local firms out of the water to poach the best talent (similar to how, e.g. Kirkland pays NYC comp in their new Salt Lake City office), but they'd be doing so knowing that they're getting lower margins in the process. 

[Pantalaimon]

I agree with @Rashabon- being a big law student seems like as close to being treated with kid gloves as possible. We get a ton of training, have several layers of safety nets, and the firms have the resources to write off our time if we're being slow or don't have work. I've heard from many colleagues at regionals whose articling was a lot more hours-focused, whereas I don't think anyone ever looks at my dockets other than making sure that I'm not sitting on my hands.

[Rashabon]

1 minute ago, Pantalaimon said:

I agree with @Rashabon- being a big law student seems like as close to being treated with kid gloves as possible. We get a ton of training, have several layers of safety nets, and the firms have the resources to write off our time if we're being slow or don't have work. I've heard from many colleagues at regionals whose articling was a lot more hours-focused, whereas I don't think anyone ever looks at my dockets other than making sure that I'm not sitting on my hands.

Yeah, I tell every student I work with their time doesn't matter. If I think it's reasonable, I bill it. If not, I write it off without a second thought. We're not penalized for writing off student time.

Also some clients won't pay for student time so the time doesn't even get docketed to that client to avoid a fight down the road.

At big law firms, students are an investment in the future and on occasion, a useful resource for juniors to free them up. So they get lots of training since that's really what they are there for.

[ZukoJD]

1 hour ago, realpseudonym said:

I've never worked in big law, so I don't know and it doesn't really matter to me. But I'm curious, so I'm asking. What have you heard about big law training?

I've not heard my big law friends describe something like "trial by fire" in the training process. I've heard students at Crown offices talk about getting tossed into court pretty well right away. I've heard that from criminal defence articling students, and from firms that churn-out work like factories. But I don't recall hearing students at major firms complain that they're not being instructed and supervised on their files. The complaints I've heard are usually about supervisor personalities, assigning work late, hours, etc. If anything, a lot of those are related to the opposite problem. They're being quite closely managed, and quirks with partner and associate time management or disposition are grating on them. Again, I have no real idea what I'm talking about, so I'm happy to be corrected and am curious, which is why I asked.

There is at least one company I can think of (in Canada) which is now providing external training to big law students and junior associates. Many of the spots in their classes are being taken by big law firms, presumably because they recognize shortfalls with current training standards. 

I'm glad there's pushback on this. It's just that I've heard poor feedback from former big law associates regarding training. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by ZukoJD
Wording

[CleanHands]

4 minutes ago, ZukoJD said:

There is at least one company I can think of (in Canada) which is now providing external training to big law students and junior associates. Many of the spots in their classes are being taken by big law firms, presumably because they recognize shortfalls with current training standards. 

So...your belief that BigLaw provides poor training is based on knowledge of them providing training?

[ZukoJD]

6 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

So...your belief that BigLaw provides poor training is based on knowledge of them providing training?

No. The resource was created to address gaps in training. It's the company's mantra. Why offload training to a third party if things were working great?

You love to deliberately misconstrue peoples' comments in a way that allows you to get your little quips in. Pathetic. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by ZukoJD

[BlockedQuebecois]

2 minutes ago, ZukoJD said:

Why offload training to a third party if things were working great?

Cost. Duh. 

[ZukoJD]

Just now, BlockedQuebecois said:

Cost. Duh. 

Could just as well be effectiveness. Duh. 

[CleanHands]

Just now, ZukoJD said:

Could just as well be effectiveness. Duh. 

So they are making efforts to provide effective training to students then?

[ZukoJD]

4 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

So they are making efforts to provide effective training to students then?

Yes. Most likely after realizing that what they were doing was inadequate. 

Edit: ***and in many cases are still doing. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by ZukoJD

[SlytherinLLP]

Having just recently completed articles, this was my experience as well. Extensive training on all fronts ie. the firm's systems, the role of staff (law clerks, assistants, librarians), docketing etc. On each and every file I received a detailed background from the supervising lawyer and was invited to ask questions and discuss.

As for offloading training, there are many topics that HAVE to be offloaded because the lawyers themselves aren't the experts (and they may even participate in the training): document review services, closing folders, document management etc. 

[123]

6 minutes ago, ZukoJD said:

Could just as well be effectiveness. Duh. 

4 minutes ago, ZukoJD said:

Yes. Most likely after realizing that what they were doing was inadequate. 

The original comment was that law firms are notoriously awful at training students. Your support for that is that some firms have outsourced some or all of their training to a third-party, possibly with some comments from former big law associates.

I outsource stuff to third parties all the time -- it's smart business practice for any number of reasons. It doesn't mean that I'm not "notoriously awful" at the thing I'm outsourcing, even if the reason is that they do it better than I do. I wasn't trying to get into an argument here. But I genuinely take issue with your reasoning.

 

[BlockedQuebecois]

The absolute worst thing about this forum are people who come in with zero experience about something and then argue with a bunch of people who have recent and exactly on point personal experience.

You worked one summer at a municipality, and you’re arguing with people who have years of experience at the relevant firms. Maybe it’s worth listening and questioning your own assumptions, rather than arguing and dismissing any explanation that doesn’t fit with the conclusion you’ve already drawn? 

[WhoKnows]

17 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

The original comment was that law firms are notoriously awful at training students. Your support for that is that some firms have outsourced some or all of their training to a third-party, possibly with some comments from former big law associates.

I outsource stuff to third parties all the time -- it's smart business practice for any number of reasons. It doesn't mean that I'm not "notoriously awful" at the thing I'm outsourcing, even if the reason is that they do it better than I do. I wasn't trying to get into an argument here. But I genuinely take issue with your reasoning.

 

It's also smart business practice to have associates: 

a. all have a similar baseline of competence and training, regardless of work provider;

b. all have similar or the same approach to standard tasks so that they can swap in and out when vacations, sickness, leave, etc. happen; and 

c. all gain familiarity with new firm technology to increase efficiency in learning the new tech, and also lead uptake across the organization that simply wont happen at the partner level.

 

I'm hardly as high on biglaw training as some of the folks in here, but treating bringing a 3rd party in as admiting inadequacy is quite the jump. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by WhoKnows

[easttowest]

How did this get from salaries to training? I only care about one this on this forum and it’s disgusting.

Edited August 25, 2022 by easttowest

[Rashabon]

It's worth noting that of course, a company designed around the principle of selling you training at $1000 a course, is going to tell you that training at big law firms is bad.

It's also worth noting that the principal of 4L Academy made partner at A&B before quitting to do this and join another firm. He became a LinkedIn influencer pushing this stuff. It's his business model.

It also depends on what you mean by training. Learning how to read a random purchase and sale agreement is not really incredibly helpful. You need to practice regularly to learn things, and you need to be in a real situation to truly learn a document, in my opinion. It's cool to spend $1000 to learn how to do a closing. I think it's easier to just do a few under the supervision of some associates and a partner at a Bay Street firm.

But what do I know, I only knew fuck all before joining a firm and am now an expert in multiple areas.

[CleanHands]

24 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

The absolute worst thing about this forum are people who come in with zero experience about something and then argue with a bunch of people who have recent and exactly on point personal experience.

You worked one summer at a municipality, and you’re arguing with people who have years of experience at the relevant firms. Maybe it’s worth listening and questioning your own assumptions, rather than arguing and dismissing any explanation that doesn’t fit with the conclusion you’ve already drawn? 

Someone has to not know what they are talking about and get things very wrong for me to defend BigLaw. lol

Reminds me of when someone here asked if a trial Crown position was "fully remote" and I said that wouldn't be possible as trial Crowns appear in court multiple days per week, and someone else challenged me on that saying they know someone who knows someone who works remotely as a Crown (definitely confusing a hybrid model where WFH is an option for office days with a "fully remote" position, which are quite distinct).

[QueensDenning]

44 minutes ago, ZukoJD said:

Yes. Most likely after realizing that what they were doing was inadequate. 

Edit: ***and in many cases are still doing. 

The idea behind 4L is to train students for summer and articling, not to offload the training you should be getting during articling. The inadequacies being addressed (at least ideally, and I know the founder and have spoken to him personally about this) are the inadequacies of law school in terms of preparing students for articling and practice. That's the gap he's trying to fill. 

[ZukoJD]

Fair enough gang. Looks like I got this one wrong. I'm fine admitting that. 

I guess the people who told me what they did have experiences that aren't representative. 

[Swami]

18 minutes ago, easttowest said:

How did this get from salaries to training? I only care about one this on this forum and it’s disgusting.

🤣😅

1 hour ago, Grey said:

The market sets the salaries. BigLaw firms in Toronto on average have bigger clients, and more of them, that can sustain higher billable rates compared to firms in Vancouver (how many blue chip clients are based out of Vancouver?) or Calgary (outside of the energy space, the industry base is pretty sparse). I practice in the US now and it's the same here - most firms only pay the Cravath scale (i.e., top-of-market comp) in NYC, SF, and a couple other tier 1 cities that can sustain hundreds/thousands of lawyers billing NYC rates day in and day out. That said, there are some firms in the US that pay Cravath in smaller markets too as a way to break into a new market, poach talent, maintain a firm's branding / image, etc. The firms that do so are likely less profitable in that office but have judged it to be beneficial for other reasons. Maybe if Davies wanted to build out a Vancouver office from scratch they'd do the same thing and blow local firms out of the water to poach the best talent (similar to how, e.g. Kirkland pays NYC comp in their new Salt Lake City office), but they'd be doing so knowing that they're getting lower margins in the process. 

Thanks for this! Makes sense! So we will just have to wait for a Davies or Torys to come into Vancouver to force everyone to increase salaries haha.. 65k is so sad for an articling student

[QueensDenning]

3 minutes ago, Swami said:

🤣😅

Thanks for this! Makes sense! So we will just have to wait for a Davies or Torys to come into Vancouver to force everyone to increase salaries haha.. 65k is so sad for an articling student

Could be a lot worse. I know people at Toronto firms making 40K. And I'm talking decently reputable firms with 10+ lawyers, not just the predatory ones people are warned about. 

[easttowest]

I think it’s important to distinguish between training in the sense of teaching someone how to do something before they do it and training through iteration and feedback on their efforts. There’s simply not that much time to do the former in Biglaw but plenty of the latter, from my experience. I have had and continue to receive excellent training from taking a crack at something based on precedents in a low-stakes environment and then refining it through feedback. 
 

Edited August 25, 2022 by easttowest