September 2022 - Big Law Salaries?

[LMP]

13 minutes ago, Naj said:

Can someone clarify what these exit options generally look like? Based on this thread, I understand that an associate in this context is stuck in some limbo of being good but not good enough to make partner, an otherwise necessary part of the big law, long-term, organizational mechanism at work.

So are these associates being moved to other big law firms? Wouldn’t the issue persist, just under someone else’s roof?

You can go in-house at a corporation, you can move to a botique or smaller firm. You can go to another big firm that has more of a need for you (maybe your practice area is in demand, maybe they have a different threshold for partnership). 

[Rashabon]

15 minutes ago, Naj said:

Can someone clarify what these exit options generally look like? Based on this thread, I understand that an associate in this context is stuck in some limbo of being good but not good enough to make partner, an otherwise necessary part of the big law, long-term, organizational mechanism at work.

So are these associates being moved to other big law firms? Wouldn’t the issue persist, just under someone else’s roof?

They move to other firms where maybe they'll find a better fit, they move to in-house, they move to alternative firms, they move to regulatory bodies, they move to other career paths. There's plenty of exit opportunities for big law lawyers.

[StoneMason]

46 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

What I find peculiar is 1) hiring X number of Associates knowing full well that there’s a pending expiry because there’s only Y number of positions to move up to;

Why is this peculiar? In almost any professional field there isn't a guarantee to make it to the top in your chosen field. From being a staff engineer at Facebook to an MD in banking, there isn't a promise for everyone who joins an organization to make it to the top. And why are you choosing to stop at partner? Why not take your logic and go until managing partner? Is it "peculiar" that not all partners will make managing partner one day? 

[Apple]

18 minutes ago, Naj said:

Can someone clarify what these exit options generally look like? Based on this thread, I understand that an associate in this context is stuck in some limbo of being good but not good enough to make partner, an otherwise necessary part of the big law, long-term, organizational mechanism at work.

So are these associates being moved to other big law firms? Wouldn’t the issue persist, just under someone else’s roof?

You can probably fairly easily lateral into an in-house counsel position or join up and make partnership at a smaller firm. 

[Bob Jones]

12 minutes ago, StoneMason said:

Why is this peculiar? In almost any professional field there isn't a guarantee to make it to the top in your chosen field. From being a staff engineer at Facebook to an MD in banking, there isn't a promise for everyone who joins an organization to make it to the top. And why are you choosing to stop at partner? Why not take your logic and go until managing partner? Is it "peculiar" that not all partners will make managing partner one day? 

Because in any other field as I’m sure know, if you’re fired, you’re fired. There’s no ambiguous wishy washy scheme. 
 

I actually raised that in my previous comments as well. 

15 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

This is idiotic at this point

1) What is peculiar about hiring a bunch of untrained, know-nothing junior associates to try and train them on the job and see which ones have what it takes and which don't? We also know that associates leave of their own volition all the time - should we somehow restrict that so we can perfectly match open positions to associates, 7-10 years out? This is rank stupidity and honestly the dumbest complaint I've seen about the job market in some time.

2) Because that's not the job. Why pay someone to do the work that someone can also do while doing more? We do make Counsel, when it makes sense. We're not running charities though. All else being equal I'll take the person that can do 1700 efficient hours and also bring in work over the person that can do 1700 efficient hours and nothing else.

3) You're not being honest, you're being an idiot. I've made my point and you refuse to engage with it.

 

“You’re being an idiot” still the same aggressive bully as in the previous thread. I think everyone can clearly see there’s a double standard here of the “don’t be a jerk rule”… 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Bob Jones

[theycancallyouhoju]

1 hour ago, Bob Jones said:

I don’t believe I ever accused Associate salaries as being anything other than “cushy” and I repeatedly noted that our salaries vastly exceed Median incomes in Canada. But I do appreciate the misquote and the call to “get a grip.”

 

Rather, my observation is there is an odd scheme (and yes, it is very much a scheme) of artificially pushing Associates out the door to make room for the bottom, but without formally firing them, in the hopes they quickly secure new employment and don’t much care to challenge their exit. 
 

My other observation is that the quasi-wage fixing arrangement does not do Associates any favours. 
 

That’s it. That’s the observation. 
 

I’m sorry if airing out firm practices offends you and BQ, but that’s the fact of the matter. So respectfully “get a grip.”

Yeah but it’s a wrong observation and you’ve been told why - with some snark by some posters and no snark by others. 
 

1. There’s nothing “artificial” about it. People who the firm judges unable to meet the expectations of a to-be-partner are encouraged to exit because they can’t meet expectations.

2. This isn’t to avoid them “challenging their exit”. First of all, some do respond by arguing for their case. Second, if they prefer to receive severance, they have the option of just not accepting a new job in the interim and waiting to be fired instead. Firms do it for the much more obvious reason - they want to give someone a chance to find a job without saying they were fired, as that improves their job chances, and firms benefit when alumni get good jobs.

Further, as Rash said, I too have seen a material chunk of associates who actually had serious performance issues kept on for far longer than they would survive at other jobs. We’ve kept on bad associates well past the point I’d hope we lose them. We’ve also had junior/midlevel associates with serious performance issues that very much warranted firing who instead were given the “go ahead and find a job in the next three months” treatment. Firms are actually pretty hard to get fired from. 

[StoneMason]

18 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Because in any other field as I’m sure know, if you’re fired, you’re fired. There’s no ambiguous wishy washy scheme. 

Allowing associates to work for a few months while helping them find a new job and keep good relations with the firm is a wishy washy scheme? Not to mention this leaves the door open for future business as well as saves face for the associate. For an 8th year associate, maintaining their reputation in the market while keeping on good terms with the firm is far more valuable than an extra $50K of severance. Anyone with even the slightest idea of how the business side of law works would know that.

I'm not sure if you've ever worked in another field but let me assure you this is much better than any other industry. The fact that you're choosing to die on this hill is, quite frankly, baffling. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by StoneMason

[JurisPrudent]

12 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Because in any other field as I’m sure know, if you’re fired, you’re fired. There’s no ambiguous wishy washy scheme.

Stonemason beat me to it - but to re-iterate what they said - You keep on referring to there being a "scheme".

In your view, what scenario sounds preferable (from the associate's standpoint):

(a) the associate is brought into a scheduled meeting where they are told that there isn't a long term future for them at the firm, but the firm is happy to give them a few months to find their next job and will take active steps to help them find their landing spot (for the reasons that mentioned above - i.e. that it is extremely valuable for firms if their alumni land good jobs at clients or potential clients); or

(b) they are pulled into a surprise meeting on a Friday afternoon where they are handed their walking papers, a full severance check and then immediately pushed out the door.

There's no "scheme" here. Every Biglaw associate understands the business model and both firms and associates benefit from finding associates who aren't part of a firm's long-terms plans a nice cushy job at a client. 

[StoneMason]

4 minutes ago, JurisPrudent said:

Stonemason beat me to it - but to re-iterate what they said - You keep on referring to there being a "scheme".

I'm convinced he's either trolling us at this point or under the impression these associates are entitled to millions in severance.

Edited December 4, 2023 by StoneMason

[Rashabon]

27 minutes ago, Bob Jones said:

Because in any other field as I’m sure know, if you’re fired, you’re fired. There’s no ambiguous wishy washy scheme. 
 

I actually raised that in my previous comments as well. 

“You’re being an idiot” still the same aggressive bully as in the previous thread. I think everyone can clearly see there’s a double standard here of the “don’t be a jerk rule”… 

I think if you keep whining the mods might pay attention to the fact that you refuse to engage and just keep repeating previously and comprehensively refuted points. Some might call that trolling.

[theycancallyouhoju]

1 hour ago, Bob Jones said:

What I find peculiar is 1) hiring X number of Associates knowing full well that there’s a pending expiry because there’s only Y number of positions to move up to; 2) that Associates can’t stay on if they’re not going to make partner (if they’re happy to, the firm is happy, there’s enough work etc, as Counsel) and 3) Associates are quasi-terminated by being encouraged to clear their stuff and get out within X number of days (usually 60-90 days) but given false assurances that they’re not being terminated but they also can’t stay. If you’re going to fire someone, then fire them (whether with working notice or not), but this wishy washy game is essentially a scheme to get out of paying severance if we’re being honest. 
 

It’s tough to figure out what you’re unable to follow here, to be honest. But I’ll take a stab.

1. I cannot think of any profession for which every entry level hire has a corresponding senior role. Literally every employment I’m aware of has more entry level positions than top management positions. Maybe you can think of a counter-example, but it’s going to be the exception. Law is wholly normal in this respect.

2. See my other post as well as Rash’s. We need x number of senior associate-level executors. Some seniors bring more to the table, and they are retained and move up. Others don’t, and get replaced by people who the firm believes might bring more to the table, who then get their shot. This isn’t a “scheme” in some nefarious sense. It’s how talent development works.

3. It’s not “false assurances”. It’s an opportunity to go on the job market *without* being fired. Eventually, if they choose not to take that opportunity, they will be fired. 

[CleanHands]

42 minutes ago, StoneMason said:

I'm convinced he's either trolling us at this point or under the impression these associates are entitled to millions in severance.

He's sincere. On this board and the last he's been very consistent in both his opinions and the quality of his reasoning, for years.

[CleanHands]

5 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

My brain is reading all of your posts in Paulie Walnuts’ voice. It’s providing me with quite a bit of amusement. 

This forum is full of Satanic black magic. Sick shit!

[C_Terror]

Trying to bring this clown show of a thread back to the original point: sometimes it feels like Canadian big law associates are more "docile", and more risk averse when it comes to demanding compensation, or threatening to hop firms for better pay. In the States, it feels like v50 firms HAVE to match or else their associates would just all lateral. 

In Toronto, there are multiple scales with different bonus structures and Canadian associates are just...fine with it. I.e. You have Davies in one scale, BJ with another, and newcomer Mintz Levin joining the fray paying top dollar. Then you have the traditional big law lock step by years. (and some mid levels aren't even lock step). Bonuses are another can of worms that I'm not even going to bother. 

Add on to that, even the mentality of Canadian big law associates seem less aggressive when it comes to compensation. Take this thread as an example. Of the actual lawyers in Big Law, there seems to be only a small minority who seem passionate about their compensation (me being one of them). Most seems to be content, or sometimes there's a "well we're being paid well above the median Canadian, so we're doing pretty well" mentality. 

[JackoMcSnacko]

49 minutes ago, theycancallyouhoju said:

They obviously conflict. The public scale lets every associate in the top 50+ firms know what their market value is. Which lets them be pissed off and threaten to walk if they’re not paid that market value. Which leads to all the firms paying the same base salary. 

I thought he was trying to get firms to disclose their payscales but not move, so people can worship Davies and BJs for some reason.

[theycancallyouhoju]

20 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Trying to bring this clown show of a thread back to the original point: sometimes it feels like Canadian big law associates are more "docile", and more risk averse when it comes to demanding compensation, or threatening to hop firms for better pay. In the States, it feels like v50 firms HAVE to match or else their associates would just all lateral. 

In Toronto, there are multiple scales with different bonus structures and Canadian associates are just...fine with it. I.e. You have Davies in one scale, BJ with another, and newcomer Mintz Levin joining the fray paying top dollar. Then you have the traditional big law lock step by years. (and some mid levels aren't even lock step). Bonuses are another can of worms that I'm not even going to bother. 

Add on to that, even the mentality of Canadian big law associates seem less aggressive when it comes to compensation. Take this thread as an example. Of the actual lawyers in Big Law, there seems to be only a small minority who seem passionate about their compensation (me being one of them). Most seems to be content, or sometimes there's a "well we're being paid well above the median Canadian, so we're doing pretty well" mentality. 

What is it you suggest they do?

I still think Rash/inherited wisdom is right and Canadian associates who are passionate about their money are less likely to jump shops because they’re more likely to have partnership aspirations and view that as their big pay day. The odds of making it up in a V10/V20 whatever are much lower than they are on Bay. Which means far more of our associates are in it just for the short term, which in turn means they view their pay day as now. If most of my peers thought they had a perfectly good chance of making partner, they wouldn’t give two shits about an extra $20k next year. I’m actually an example of that - I am senior enough that I could argue for a higher salary next year (and could get it on the open market), but I’m also up for promotion next year, and I’d much rather avoid being confrontational at the moment.

I’m not sure this one really comes down to national personality type rather than market forces and promotion dynamics. Canadian associates who want to make big money don’t switch firms twice in six years because they want to and probably can make partner as long as they establish roots long enough somewhere. American associates who want big money probably can’t make partner anyway so switching firms is a way to get signing bonuses, etc. 

27 minutes ago, JackoMcSnacko said:

I thought he was trying to get firms to disclose their payscales but not move, so people can worship Davies and BJs for some reason.

I think the thrust of his position is that he wants firms to be transparent, not match each other, and also pay more altogether. But the first two of those certainly conflict. 

[Diplock]

So, to conclude. If you say a dumb thing and enough people respond by calling it dumb, that's proof you've "struck a nerve" and revealed an ugly truth everyone else wishes to keep hidden. There is another possibility available, when just about everyone other than you thinks the claim you've just made is nonsense. I'll wait...you know, a very long time...while you consider what that alternative possibility might be.

[Bob Jones]

5 hours ago, Diplock said:

So, to conclude. If you say a dumb thing and enough people respond by calling it dumb, that's proof you've "struck a nerve" and revealed an ugly truth everyone else wishes to keep hidden. There is another possibility available, when just about everyone other than you thinks the claim you've just made is nonsense. I'll wait...you know, a very long time...while you consider what that alternative possibility might be.

You’re welcome to keep waiting, I don’t much care to debate people who hide behind their keyboards to make aggressive and “stupid fucking comments.” 
 

I shared an observation, that’s it. It was never my intention to get into an argument or debate, although I gather that’s impossible in an online forum composed of lawyers/trolls. 
 

My concern here is that the people on this forum are too easy to become aggressive, rude, and uncivilized jerks when they hear a comment they don’t like, and are unable to have any reasonable discussion, resulting in this forum turning into an echo chamber. It’s also unfortunate there’s a very clear double standard with the Mods. 
 

Whether you agree with my observation or not does not bother me and nor do I care, I simply wanted to share what was going on, and what is very rotten about some firm practices. 

Edited December 4, 2023 by Bob Jones

[Jaggers]

It is ... um ... extremely common in all industries to at some point tell someone fairly senior/highly-paid that it might be in their best interest to find another job and that they have a few months to do so. This is good for the individual, who can look for a job while still employed (looks better on linkedin and your resume) and likely can be more selective in their job search because of that security.

This is also good for the employer, who keeps the employee mostly happy, allowing them to productively wind down and transfer their work. In law it's particularly good as the employee often goes in-house (good potential source of business if you maintain a good relationship).

[ZineZ]

Hi. 

I've gone ahead and removed a large amount of the conversation from the last two days which devolved rapidly. There's still more that I/other mods need to look at for pruning (it's the pre-Christmas rush for everyone) but for now, let's please try to keep things to a dull roar.  This conversation is becoming unproductive and I will be instituting a timeout if needed.

I've kept up Diplock and Bob's last two comments as I think they're fair concerns from both ends and are a fine way to summarize the frustrations from the two camps. But let's not re-hash it any further.  

TLDR please settle down.

[Ryn]

I also want to add, for what it's worth, that we didn't get a single report about this thread. So for all the complaints about the mods letting certain people get away with being mean or whatever, I think it bears mentioning that we didn't get any notice about it. We try to monitor the activity across the forums regularly, but there are hundreds of posts per day and we can't be everywhere. So if anyone has any concerns about a thread, please do use the report feature rather than complain about lack of moderation in a post, because that's not going to help.

[carlill]

This thread has over 22,000 views. I am one of the masses just checking every new comment on here repeatedly in order to see if somebody somewhere is raising Big Law salaries.

[Jaggers]

There was thirteen years between the last set of raises. Don't hold your breath.

[C_Terror]

43 minutes ago, Jaggers said:

There was thirteen years between the last set of raises. Don't hold your breath.

Just hope there's another hiring spree in the States (unlikely) forcing Canadian firms to finally react.  

[Mountebank]

On 12/4/2023 at 1:48 PM, Ryn said:

I also want to add, for what it's worth, that we didn't get a single report about this thread. So for all the complaints about the mods letting certain people get away with being mean or whatever, I think it bears mentioning that we didn't get any notice about it. We try to monitor the activity across the forums regularly, but there are hundreds of posts per day and we can't be everywhere. So if anyone has any concerns about a thread, please do use the report feature rather than complain about lack of moderation in a post, because that's not going to help.

I've reported this post. Mods have NO PLACE in this thread.