Big Law Salary Increase

[C_Terror]

 

46 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Weird. It's almost like there's actual differences between the firms and some sort of ranking of them into to tiers could be possible. 

Starting my own rankings calling it the Band of Brothers. Accepting all submissions.

[smokedsalmonisgreat]

@Ramesses if you don’t mind me asking is this confirmed? And is this consensus among all firms or just select ones?

 

[Ass-ociate]

2 hours ago, frankconners said:

My understanding is that this is true of the bonus structure for a number of sister adjacent firms (think Fasken, BLG, McMillan etc.)

As an anecdote, I’m an associate at one of the “sister adjacent firms”. When whipping out our bonuses this past year and comparing sizes with friends at other big firms, mine was largest.  This included a couple of sister associates. 
 

My hours were highest too though. Not a scientific poll at all, but I think you can expect your bonus to be sufficiently proportional to your suffering at these firms too. 

[Jaggers]

I was at a "sister-adjacent" firm and never got a bonus. But I also never billed more than 1700-1750 hours in a year.

This year my bonus was $40K while working significantly less than I ever did on Bay St. Doesn't matter that much, though, since the government takes most of it. Anyways, if you're looking to move in house, we're hiring.

[frankconners]

Thanks.

Is there also any truth to suggestions that the soft targets for these firms is also lower? I've heard that there's less of an expectation for 2000+ hours.

[NorwegianWood]

4 minutes ago, frankconners said:

Thanks.

Is there also any truth to suggestions that the soft targets for these firms is also lower? I've heard that there's less of an expectation for 2000+ hours.

My partner is at a sister adjacent firm and has a 2000+ hour target for bonus. Her bonus last year was more than our friends at sister firms, but her firm had a very good year.

[washeduplawgrad]

2 hours ago, Ass-ociate said:

As an anecdote, I’m an associate at one of the “sister adjacent firms”. When whipping out our bonuses this past year and comparing sizes with friends at other big firms, mine was largest.  This included a couple of sister associates. 
 

My hours were highest too though. Not a scientific poll at all, but I think you can expect your bonus to be sufficiently proportional to your suffering at these firms too. 

Since your post is vague enough to not know where you’re at can you tell us your normal bonus range? Bonuses are highly guarded. 
 

To be fair I’ll share my 7s firm’s:

1750 - 10%
1850 - 20%

2000 - 30%

with discretion obviously if you don’t hit exactly those targets and for above 2000. Would really love to know what other firm’s bonus structures are!!

[Orz]

Does anyone know if this is carrying over to the Vancouver pay scales? If Calgary is bumping I would assume Van will to some extent as well?

[KOMODO]

4 hours ago, frankconners said:

Thanks.

Is there also any truth to suggestions that the soft targets for these firms is also lower? I've heard that there's less of an expectation for 2000+ hours.

I do not think there are many firms, if any, in the Toronto market that expect associates to bill 2000+ hours to get a bonus. Most large full service / bay street / biglaw or whatever firms are giving some sort of bonus to associates who hit target, which tends to be in the range of 1700-1800 hours. The quantum of those bonuses vary, but I think a Toronto firm would struggle to retain associates if they never bonused unless you hit 2000 hours.

[C_Terror]

4 hours ago, frankconners said:

Thanks.

Is there also any truth to suggestions that the soft targets for these firms is also lower? I've heard that there's less of an expectation for 2000+ hours.

It's kinda messed up that the common thought is that the expectation is now 2000+ billables a year, which is NY levels. 

1700-1800 was the number that was communicated to me and my peers at other firms to hit bonus. How much depends on the firm. 

[disgruntledpelican]

Some of these firms that are “no target” are probably the ones that more realistically have a soft 2,000+ target. I do hear at some where the target is 1,700-1,800 on paper but many associates frequently hit well over 2,000 and get passive aggressive remarks if they don’t. 

[Hitman9172]

1 hour ago, Orz said:

Does anyone know if this is carrying over to the Vancouver pay scales? If Calgary is bumping I would assume Van will to some extent as well?

Blakes Vancouver has confirmed the following scale after the bump:

1st year - $115k

2nd - 127

3rd - 142

4th- 157

5th- 175

6th- 190

7th- 200

8th - negotiated

[frankconners]

2 minutes ago, disgruntledpelican said:

Some of these firms that are “no target” are probably the ones that more realistically have a soft 2,000+ target. I do hear at some where the target is 1,700-1,800 on paper but many associates frequently hit well over 2,000 and get passive aggressive remarks if they don’t. 

That's what I was getting at. The ability to get a bonus is one thing but you do hear things about certain firms where you can't say you're "busy" unless you're reaching 2,000+ hours.

[Ghalm]

So, what's the analysis here? Seems like Cassels makes the market move. Perhaps true that it took Osler's move to make the others lurch forward, but seems like Osler was responding to Cassels. So much for the whole "sister firms don't compete with non-sisters" line?

[RaginaldPipin]

11 minutes ago, Hitman9172 said:

Blakes Vancouver has confirmed the following scale after the bump:

1st year - $115k

2nd - 127

3rd - 142

4th- 157

5th- 175

6th- 190

7th- 200

8th - negotiated

Reading these numbers is incredible. Assuming you spend 2,500 hours a year in the office or doing revenue-producing work (or related work), then as a seventh-year call you're earning an hourly wage of $80. Oof.

[frankconners]

24 minutes ago, Ghalm said:

So, what's the analysis here? Seems like Cassels makes the market move. Perhaps true that it took Osler's move to make the others lurch forward, but seems like Osler was responding to Cassels. So much for the whole "sister firms don't compete with non-sisters" line?

Seemed like a game of chicken really. All the firms seemed content when it was just Cassels, but when one other firm did it, the rest followed instantly. Question really is why the first firm after Cassels decided to do it.

[BlockedQuebecois]

26 minutes ago, Ghalm said:

So, what's the analysis here? Seems like Cassels makes the market move. Perhaps true that it took Osler's move to make the others lurch forward, but seems like Osler was responding to Cassels. So much for the whole "sister firms don't compete with non-sisters" line?

Seems like a stretch to say Osler’s move nearly six weeks after Cassels (and effective three months after Cassels’ effective date) makes Cassels a “market mover”. 

In contrast, a bunch of firms bumped within a day of Osler announcing, and back when Blake’s bumped student comp a few years ago the market moved within a week. 

I think the analysis is that Osler is a market mover and Cassels is not. The market, save Osler (possibly, since we don’t know why they increased comp now), was content to let Cassels get out over its skis. The market was not content to have Osler lead the non-Davies sisters in compensation. 

[Ghalm]

30 minutes ago, frankconners said:

Seemed like a game of chicken really. All the firms seemed content when it was just Cassels, but when one other firm did it, the rest followed instantly. Question really is why the first firm after Cassels decided to do it.

One answer might be that Osler sees itself as competing with Cassels (among other factors like NY/In-house etc.)?? 

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Ghalm

[goonersfc]

20 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

The market was not content to have Osler lead the non-Davies sisters in compensation.

Assuming this was true, I can't quite fathom the idea that it took firms less than a day to deliberate and announce a major salary change.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, RaginaldPipin said:

Reading these numbers is incredible. Assuming you spend 2,500 hours a year in the office or doing revenue-producing work (or related work), then as a seventh-year call you're earning an hourly wage of $80. Oof.

I think at that point people need to avoid focusing on the per hour pay, and ask themselves whether their total compensation is worth their total work effort. If all you want is to bank as much money as fast as possible without regard for a social life or physical or mental health then do those hours go into finance. 

Seriously though, I've never understood the value people ascribe to the effective hourly rate when most people, particularly in junior years, are far more concerned with how much is deposited in their bank account every two weeks. A higher hourly rate doesn't pay down debt or save a downpayment faster if you work fewer hours.

[WhoKnows]

1 hour ago, RaginaldPipin said:

Reading these numbers is incredible. Assuming you spend 2,500 hours a year in the office or doing revenue-producing work (or related work), then as a seventh-year call you're earning an hourly wage of $80. Oof.

Assuming 2,500 hours a year of work. Let's assume you never work a weekend or holiday, that's 251 working days. Let's assume you take 4 full 5-day weeks of vacation, that's 231. 2500 hours/231 working days is 10.82 hours per working day. 

So you work 11 hours a day, for 231 days, and in exchange you are compensated with an income in the top 2 percent of all Canadians. I'm hardly incredulous at that. There are people putting in 10 hour days, 231 days a year for a whole lot less than that. 

Now of course, realistically, most Bay St. lawyers aren't working 231 days a year. They're working more than that. And I think 2,500 hours of total work is probably an undershoot. But if you want to make an income 98% of Canadians don't, you're not gonna work a 9-5. You get to choose whether that's worth it. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by WhoKnows

[Pantalaimon]

15 minutes ago, goonersfc said:

Assuming this was true, I can't quite fathom the idea that it took firms less than a day to deliberate and announce a major salary change.

This doesn't negate BQ's/frankconner's point, though, that it took Osler to make the market move. Maybe firms were deliberating a raise after Cassels, so they had it ready in their back pocket, but they didn't pull the trigger until a sister did.

@Ghalm, I think it's more likely that Osler is responding to the sentiments discussed earlier in the thread rather than feeling any competition with Cassels. The street not matching Cassels probably rubbed Osler associates the wrong way and they jumped/were looking elsewhere, like in-house or NY.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Pantalaimon
typo

[frankconners]

10 minutes ago, goonersfc said:

Assuming this was true, I can't quite fathom the idea that it took firms less than a day to deliberate and announce a major salary change.

Agreed. Most, if not all, Bay Street firms have some sort of management committee that decide these sort of things and it seems pretty unlikely that they all met so quickly to pass these raises.

 

I think it’s more likely that they had already previously decided that they would declare the raises the moment the rest of the market moved.

[Ghalm]

18 minutes ago, goonersfc said:

Assuming this was true, I can't quite fathom the idea that it took firms less than a day to deliberate and announce a major salary change.

Well, at my firm we were told by people in the know that the firm was running the numbers and having the necessary meetings as early as end of September. It seems like the Cassel's move got at least my firm to prepare a plan, probably pre-approve it, and only pull the trigger if another moved. This suggests Cassels had an influence. One way to read the situation is that it moved the market, but its position wasn't so strong as to cause a quick move. But I can see how the facts could persuade otherwise. 

13 minutes ago, Pantalaimon said:

This doesn't negate BQ's/frankconner's point, though, that it took Osler to make the market move. Maybe firms were deliberating a raise after Cassels, so they had it ready in their back pocket, but they didn't pull the trigger under a sister did.

@Ghalm, I think it's more likely that Osler is responding to the sentiments discussed earlier in the thread rather than feeling any competition with Cassels. The street not matching Cassels probably rubbed Osler associates the wrong way and they jumped/were looking elsewhere, like in-house or NY.

Good point! But, it just doesn't sit right with me to say Osler was the market mover in this situation. One way of reading what you suggest is that Cassel's caused the market to move by rubbing the associates' at other firms the wrong way. Is that not an indication that they can move the market by causing a stir and pushing other firms to react.

Edited October 21, 2021 by Ghalm

[Rashabon]

Well yeah, in the broadest sense, Cassels had an influence because nobody would have moved had they not. But the pressures were internal - as I said before, nobody was worried about losing talent to Cassels. It was the internal messaging that was a problem. And none of the Sister firms would have moved unless one did.

Cassels was the fart in the elevator but nobody was willing to leave until one of the big boys/girls did.