Jump to content

Toronto Corporate In-House Salaries


Recommended Posts

cerberus
  • Lawyer
Posted

I'm aware of the ZSA guide but those figures were posted a few years ago now so I have doubts about how current they are.

I'm looking to know how many years of post-call experience would be needed to attain a salary of at least $175K in a Toronto in-house corporate job. Would three years be enough?

WhoKnows
  • Lawyer
Posted

I'm seeing that kind of money posted as the upper range of the 3-5 year experience jobs posted. It's also fairly industry specific. Large blue chip institution with bonus and gold-plated pension? Probably a bit lower. High growth tech where you may be out of a job in a year? Higher and with equity incentives. Mid-market company that's dedicated 9-5 schedule and never does much interesting? Less. 

  • Like 2
  • 3 weeks later...
Bob Jones
  • Lawyer
Posted
On 1/21/2024 at 8:14 PM, cerberus said:

I'm aware of the ZSA guide but those figures were posted a few years ago now so I have doubts about how current they are.

I'm looking to know how many years of post-call experience would be needed to attain a salary of at least $175K in a Toronto in-house corporate job. Would three years be enough?

Not even close, sadly. Most in house roles are quite stingy and it’s hard to move up both financially and career-wise. 
 

The comp that you are seeking may be possible by years 6-8, depending upon the institution but no guarantees. 
 

  • Like 1
Misfit
  • Lawyer
Posted

Bob’s post has been my experience as well - currently in-house trying to lateral to other in-house roles as a mid-level

  • Like 1
Posted

The big companies pay more than $175K when you get into that experience range. It's more like $225K for 10+ years, but you are mostly capped at around that unless you move into managing other lawyers. Smaller companies tend to pay less, though you introduce a lot more variability.

  • Like 2
Bob Jones
  • Lawyer
Posted
23 hours ago, Jaggers said:

The big companies pay more than $175K when you get into that experience range. It's more like $225K for 10+ years, but you are mostly capped at around that unless you move into managing other lawyers. Smaller companies tend to pay less, though you introduce a lot more variability.

I can’t speak for other companies, but I work at fairly large company anyone on this sub would recognize, and except for the GC I don’t believe anyone is above 200k, including 20+ year calls. 
 

Hopefully other employers are more generous. 

  • 4 weeks later...
feduplawyer
  • Lawyer
Posted

I'm new to the forum but wondering how others think about other aspects of compensation like employer pension contributions, share matching and RSUs when comparing in house jobs to big law compensation that is more straight forward. Do you value these other types of compensation equal to cash? 

Also curious of others' experience with bonuses at in house jobs - is the target bonus generally what you'll receive or does it flex up and down year-to-year? 

Posted

In house compensation can vary wildly, but is fairly standard if you're talking about the biggest companies. For most, you're looking at 5+ percent RRSP contribution/DC pension matching, and 3% share purchase matching. Making your target bonus is pretty much expected, subject to the corporate results multiplier (ie if your performance is fine, you could get 90-110% of the target total depending on corporate results. Some companies have a higher multiplier so your bonus varies more year to year. Some have a higher performance multiplier. At my last job, target was 30% of salary, at my current it's 17%. The total is pretty much the same if you hit target, but as you can imagine, my compensation varied more at the last job.

RSUs or other equity plans vary by employer. Some offer them, some don't. 

carlill
  • Lawyer
Posted

This is really helpful as always. You refer achieving to 17% and 30% of salary to meet target. How is the target described? For example, as we know, in a firm target is specified by billable hours worked or collections received on fees - what is the benchmark in house. Forgive my ignorance!

Posted

It's your performance. Typically some scale such as (every company has their own corporate speak).

  1. Developing
  2. Needs improvement 
  3. Satisfactory / Meets expectations
  4. Exceeds expectations
  5. Top performer

Each one will come with a multiplier, so if you get a three, you get 100% on that component. If you get a 5, maybe you get 150% or 200%. Only the worst people would get the bottom, it means you're about to be fired. Your manager has some discretion to set the final percentage, and they usually do that when they know how much total bonus money they can allocate (ie there's some application of a curve to the results over a bigger team).

Then you take that and multiply it by the corporate performance factor to get the final number. The process varies everywhere, but it is usually based on those components. The companies I've worked for have never used hours worked/docketed as a metric, though there are probably some who do.

  • Like 1
carlill
  • Lawyer
Posted

Fantastic. Thank you. This thread pretty much answers the corporate in-house salary Qs that regularly come up on here.

Bob Jones
  • Lawyer
Posted
On 3/8/2024 at 1:16 PM, carlill said:

Fantastic. Thank you. This thread pretty much answers the corporate in-house salary Qs that regularly come up on here.

There's an updated in-house guide on Counselwell's website. Not sure how accurate it is. https://www.counselwell.ca/salary-report

Posted

I read through the survey. One thing that struck me is how much higher it says male in-house counsel are paid in Ontario vs female. I imagine some of that comes from more men occupying executive-level positions, but I wonder how much comes from more male respondents exaggerating their compensation? It's purely survey data as far as I know.

Bob Jones
  • Lawyer
Posted
On 3/14/2024 at 12:28 PM, Jaggers said:

I read through the survey. One thing that struck me is how much higher it says male in-house counsel are paid in Ontario vs female. I imagine some of that comes from more men occupying executive-level positions, but I wonder how much comes from more male respondents exaggerating their compensation? It's purely survey data as far as I know.

That would not surprise me. The data did feel somewhat inflated based upon what I know other in house lawyers are actually making.

happydude
  • Lawyer
Posted (edited)
On 2/8/2024 at 11:22 AM, Bob Jones said:

I can’t speak for other companies, but I work at fairly large company anyone on this sub would recognize, and except for the GC I don’t believe anyone is above 200k, including 20+ year calls. 
 

Hopefully other employers are more generous. 

I am also in-house at a big company, and we cap out at 210k, regardless of year of call, unless you get into non-standard lawyering roles (GC, AGC). Obviously, there are only so many of those to go around. And not everyone wants them. Our stock option and bonus compensation are both very good. Better than most other places, to the point our all-in compensation is actually a bit above market, IMO.... but perhaps I am wrong on that if most places are capping out $225K or more for standard counsel/senior counsel roles. For reference, I am a 2017 call, making 175k base salary. I had thought the base salary part of my compensation to be pretty average for larger companies of this size, but perhaps it is a bit below, if Jaggers' experience is more representative.

Edited by happydude
happydude
  • Lawyer
Posted (edited)
On 3/8/2024 at 1:13 PM, Jaggers said:

It's your performance. Typically some scale such as (every company has their own corporate speak).

  1. Developing
  2. Needs improvement 
  3. Satisfactory / Meets expectations
  4. Exceeds expectations
  5. Top performer

Each one will come with a multiplier, so if you get a three, you get 100% on that component. If you get a 5, maybe you get 150% or 200%. Only the worst people would get the bottom, it means you're about to be fired. Your manager has some discretion to set the final percentage, and they usually do that when they know how much total bonus money they can allocate (ie there's some application of a curve to the results over a bigger team).

Then you take that and multiply it by the corporate performance factor to get the final number. The process varies everywhere, but it is usually based on those components. The companies I've worked for have never used hours worked/docketed as a metric, though there are probably some who do.

Interesting. This part I did not have insight into, I'm not even aware of my company using this scale necessarily. Is it expected that most people would get 3s, in that it is expected most lawyers on staff/your median lawyer on staff will get "meets expectations" and a manager would have to justify giving more than a certain number of 4s/5s? Or is it generally expected that, after a learning curve of settling into a new role or being a new call etc., one would be getting 4 if not 5?

 

 

 

Edited by happydude
  • 10 months later...
Posted

24% of their respondents are GCs? I think they may have a problem with their data. Either they have a very weird response contour, or a lot of liars.

  • Like 1
canuckfanatic
  • Lawyer
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Jaggers said:

24% of their respondents are GCs? I think they may have a problem with their data. Either they have a very weird response contour, or a lot of liars.

I wonder if there's a lot of small-medium orgs with 1 in-house counsel who get the GC title by default

EDIT: My question seems unlikely now that I see that only 10% of respondents are in a team of 1

Edited by canuckfanatic
BHC1
  • Lawyer
Posted
43 minutes ago, canuckfanatic said:

I wonder if there's a lot of small-medium orgs with 1 in-house counsel who get the GC title by default

EDIT: My question seems unlikely now that I see that only 10% of respondents are in a team of 1

I think your initial intuition was right. Just under 40% of counsel said they were in departments of 4 or less people, including non-lawyer staff (paralegals, assistants, etc).

 

 

  • Like 1
Misfit
  • Lawyer
Posted

The average salaries per industry are unhelpful without knowing the pool size. Would also be nice to see median salaries for each bucket/category since outliers (or liars) can skew the average. Very hard to take this report seriously. 

Posted

It's marketing material. It's meant for people to read it, think they're underpaid, and call ZSA.

  • LOL 1
canuckfanatic
  • Lawyer
Posted

I'd hope (naively) that people apply some critical thinking to these numbers. I know I'd make more at a bigger organization in my industry, but I also know that my life would suck.

GoatDuck
  • Law Student
Posted
8 minutes ago, canuckfanatic said:

I'd hope (naively) that people apply some critical thinking to these numbers. I know I'd make more at a bigger organization in my industry, but I also know that my life would suck.

Would you mind expanding on this? Are the numbers too high? 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By accessing this website, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use. YOU EXPRESSLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOU WILL NOT CONSTRUE ANY POST ON THIS WEBSITE AS PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE EVEN IF SUCH POST IS MADE BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A LAWYER. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.