Big Law Salary Increase

[washeduplawgrad]

23 hours ago, Lycidas said:

At least one Sister firm is actively considering 20k raises for first-years. 

How do you know they are actively considering it?

[Lycidas]

49 minutes ago, washeduplawgrad said:

How do you know they are actively considering it?

Trust me 

[BlockedQuebecois]

It’s not like “actively considering” is any type of revelation or new information. It doesn’t suggest any type of commitment.

Another way of phrasing it would be to say that one sister firm has not yet ruled out matching the Cassels raise. Which is probably true at all of them. 

[C_Terror]

Just now, BlockedQuebecois said:

It’s not like “actively considering” is any type of revelation or new information. It doesn’t suggest any type of commitment.

Another way of phrasing it would be to say that one sister firm has not yet ruled out matching the Cassels raise. Which is probably true at all of them. 

I know for a fact the partners in my firm are aware of the bump and have talked/is talking about it. Not sure if this means they are "actively considering" it. 

[Gunners4ever]

Any news on the bump being implemented? Wonder what the timeline for non-sisters firms to follow suit would be? If they will even. 

[Rashabon]

If they haven't yet they probably won't.

[C_Terror]

4 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

If they haven't yet they probably won't.

Yeah, I've kinda given up on any hopes of a base salary raise. On the other hand, I know that this has accelerated and/or motivated a few colleagues to start looking at job postings and responding to recruiters on linkedin.

[QueensGrad]

8 minutes ago, C_Terror said:

Yeah, I've kinda given up on any hopes of a base salary raise. On the other hand, I know that this has accelerated and/or motivated a few colleagues to start looking at job postings and responding to recruiters on linkedin.

Likewise. At a certain Sister firm the churn is allegedly 1 corporate associate every 1-2 weeks, and it sounds like this will accelerate some of my friends looking to the US. 

[Jaggers]

It's not likely due to salary, but we're starting to see a lot of laterals in-house. In our case, I think people are just bored of working from home and looking for something to shake things up a bit, rather than necessarily a big raise.

[Hitman9172]

4 hours ago, Jaggers said:

It's not likely due to salary, but we're starting to see a lot of laterals in-house. In our case, I think people are just bored of working from home and looking for something to shake things up a bit, rather than necessarily a big raise.

Not surprised by this. Another factor is that working in big law during COVID feels extra tough since none of the ancillary "perks" - fancy events, post-work drinks, marketing budgets, etc., are there to offset the demanding nature of the work. Without the perks, all you have left to focus on is the actual work itself, which can be a slog.

[Jaggers]

9 hours ago, Hitman9172 said:

Not surprised by this. Another factor is that working in big law during COVID feels extra tough since none of the ancillary "perks" - fancy events, post-work drinks, marketing budgets, etc., are there to offset the demanding nature of the work. Without the perks, all you have left to focus on is the actual work itself, which can be a slog.

None of which is solved by going to a new job, of course. But it scratches the itch of needing something new and exciting in your life, which has been sorely lacking over the last 18 months if you're in a full-time job.

[Bob Jones]

On 10/1/2021 at 2:16 PM, BlockedQuebecois said:

It’s not like “actively considering” is any type of revelation or new information. It doesn’t suggest any type of commitment.

Another way of phrasing it would be to say that one sister firm has not yet ruled out matching the Cassels raise. Which is probably true at all of them. 

The way you phrased this gave me PTSD/throwback to prepping for LSAT the LSAT.

[rocketship]

Management at my firm has implied, but not said directly, that we will not be getting raises. That said, I am sure this will change if ALL Bay St firms follow suit (which I won’t hold my breath for). 
 

I think the reality (which none of us want to accept, myself included) is that partners don’t care too much if they lose junior associates - we are so easily replaceable and high turnover is nothing new (though I understand that there has been more this year). We can leave because of salary, lack of perks, whatever, but so many equally talented people will happily take our place and firms know that. There’s tons of competition for our jobs. It’s not the answer anyone wants but I think we are over-estimating how much firms care about (junior) people leaving. 

[C_Terror]

That's the impression I'm getting at my firm as well. The one thing I will point out is that the attrition rate is still higher than the replacement rate. Further, my firm is bringing in junior associates while the mid levels are the ones leaving. Definitely not knocking on their firms, but almost all the new hires are from smaller regional firms so there's likely an adjustment period when it comes to taking on a bigger file. 

 

One thing that has always irked me is that I don't think these partners understand the cost of high turnover, especially with front office revenue generators (the associates). It's very costly to have an associate that you've spent considerable resources on training leave. Add in the cost of recruitment, the aforementioned adjustment period to get the new hire as productive as the old one, and the cost benefit quickly skews towards retaining people.

That being said, most bay Street firms aren't run efficiently, and it's my opinion that the business savvy lawyers go to the business side anyway as it's more lucrative. Thus you end up with the same old risk adverse model in almost every big shop on the street.

Edited October 13, 2021 by C_Terror

[AHLALA]

9 hours ago, C_Terror said:

That being said, most bay Street firms aren't run efficiently, and it's my opinion that the business savvy lawyers go to the business side anyway as it's more lucrative. Thus you end up with the same old risk adverse model in almost every big shop on the street.

I generally agree with your assessment, but not sure what you mean by "the business savvy lawyers go to the business side anyway as it's more lucrative" are you talking about in-house? Starting businesses?

[C_Terror]

1 hour ago, AHLALA said:

I generally agree with your assessment, but not sure what you mean by "the business savvy lawyers go to the business side anyway as it's more lucrative" are you talking about in-house? Starting businesses?

Just in my experience, the more business savvy lawyers leave the legal field altogether and start their own business, or join a business in a non-legal capacity (i.e. management, consulting), or go to finance for significantly more compensation. I'm speaking from an associate's standpoint.

[RaginaldPipin]

On 10/12/2021 at 5:12 PM, rocketship said:

Management at my firm has implied, but not said directly, that we will not be getting raises. That said, I am sure this will change if ALL Bay St firms follow suit (which I won’t hold my breath for). 
 

I think the reality (which none of us want to accept, myself included) is that partners don’t care too much if they lose junior associates - we are so easily replaceable and high turnover is nothing new (though I understand that there has been more this year). We can leave because of salary, lack of perks, whatever, but so many equally talented people will happily take our place and firms know that. There’s tons of competition for our jobs. It’s not the answer anyone wants but I think we are over-estimating how much firms care about (junior) people leaving. 

I can echo this exactly! Honestly, look in the mirror. If you can’t originate your own book of business, you simply have no leverage. 10 people will take your spot. So, until you bring in $300k, $400k, or more in originations, partners will not pay much attention to your salary wishes. Hard to hear, but it’s the truth and makes absolute sense. No leverage, no upside.

Edited October 16, 2021 by RaginaldPipin

[washeduplawgrad]

Oslers apparently raised salaries starting Jan 1

[theSquibandtheEye]

29 minutes ago, washeduplawgrad said:

Oslers apparently raised salaries starting Jan 1

Do you know if the raise is in the same as Cassels?

[washeduplawgrad]

33 minutes ago, theSquibandtheEye said:

Do you know if the raise is in the same as Cassels?

So I can confirm that they did and all I know is 3rd year went from 150 to 175 which matches 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, washeduplawgrad said:

So I can confirm that they did and all I know is 3rd year went from 150 to 175 which matches 

1st: 130

2nd: 150

3rd: 175

4th: 195

5th: 215

6th: 235

7th: 255

[Ghalm]

25 minutes ago, Guest said:

1st: 130

2nd: 150

3rd: 175

4th: 195

5th: 215

6th: 235

7th: 255

ooooooooooo baby lets goooooo 

[Ghalm]

I heard Tory’s moved. Apparently same scale. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Ghalm

[washeduplawgrad]

No other firms with updates yet?

Just now, Ghalm said:

Tory’s moved. Apparently same scale. 

Is this confirmed because I’ve heard this rumour a few times and then had it dismissed. 

[C_Terror]

12 minutes ago, washeduplawgrad said:

No other firms with updates yet?

Is this confirmed because I’ve heard this rumour a few times and then had it dismissed. 

There's been a lot of chatter this afternoon about it.