Big Law Salary Increase

[Scout]

1 hour ago, Rashabon said:

But the other thing about being on Bay Street as an associate is that you don't have to do anything but your job. Work is handed to you. Being in sales and having to win clients and mandates and actually sell is a completely different animal then getting to do work that's handed to you.

None of these people are in sales, but that's a great point! 

[Judgelight]

On 6/24/2022 at 7:09 AM, Scout said:

 

 I just wanted to vent as I really feel immense resentment about my job after hearing this. 

Comparison is the thief of joy. I'm a serial complainer about salaries, but then I go back to where I grew-up and my high school friends are unemployed or working warehouse jobs.

[Scout]

9 hours ago, Judgelight said:

Comparison is the thief of joy. I'm a serial complainer about salaries, but then I go back to where I grew-up and my high school friends are unemployed or working warehouse jobs.

On the one hand, I agree. We certainly have it good relative to many. But I also think it is important to stay cognizant, as employees, about the conditions of our employment. While there is a lot of pay transparency in law, I'm learning that we (or maybe just me) are out of touch with the salaries of a lot of other industries, which only benefits the firms.

Bay Street salaries have fallen incredibly behind NYC/London and they are starting to be on par with positions that are far less rigorous in terms of education, stress, and working hours. We also receive less vacation days than similar industries like consulting. Recognizing this more openly allows people to reconsider whether the salary on Bay Street is worth the experience or perhaps even start putting pressure on the firms to make changes. We've been seeing this with the raises/bonuses/increased acceptance of counsel track over the past couple years, and I would love to see that continue. 

Edited June 27, 2022 by Scout

[KOMODO]

On 6/24/2022 at 10:59 AM, C_Terror said:

...

Including articling, it'll normally take about 10 years to become a partner which, during this decade you're working consistently to hit the 1800 target (and as we all know, if you're on partnership track, the expectation is that you're billing 2200+ in the last 3-4 years to "prove your worth"). 1800 BILLABLES is a lot different than 1800 hours in the office/on call. Nobody is that efficient, and you'll be working (in the common parlance) a lot more than that. (Don't get me started on vacation either- 1800 billables means that you don't really get 2-4 weeks of vacation because you have to make it up on the back end).

... (emphasis added)

I'm not convinced that this is widely the case. Many large firms now have income partnership before equity, and I don't see the average new income partner coming off 3-4 years of 2200+, if they even hit that ever. That's a crazy number and there are certainly a few people at every big firm who hit it, and those people are often on track for partnership, but I don't think it's a prerequisite for partnership. I personally know several people who made income partner at various firms last year who routinely billed 1700-1800 (which I agree is still a significant time commitment as billables do not equate to time spent working). And then for the income to equity transition, people are even more focused on client development, so I don't get the sense that their billable numbers increase (nor should they). 

[C_Terror]

1 hour ago, KOMODO said:

I'm not convinced that this is widely the case. Many large firms now have income partnership before equity, and I don't see the average new income partner coming off 3-4 years of 2200+, if they even hit that ever. That's a crazy number and there are certainly a few people at every big firm who hit it, and those people are often on track for partnership, but I don't think it's a prerequisite for partnership. I personally know several people who made income partner at various firms last year who routinely billed 1700-1800 (which I agree is still a significant time commitment as billables do not equate to time spent working). And then for the income to equity transition, people are even more focused on client development, so I don't get the sense that their billable numbers increase (nor should they). 

Fair, this might be specific to the few firms that I know have this "unspoken" requirement, which may not translate down to the rest of the sisters or even other big law firms. 

[C_Terror]

13 hours ago, Judgelight said:

Comparison is the thief of joy. I'm a serial complainer about salaries, but then I go back to where I grew-up and my high school friends are unemployed or working warehouse jobs.

I don't think that's an apt comparison though. Your compensation comparables should be with other "like" jobs, i.e. front office revenue generating professional industries. Of course we're better compensated compared to unemployed people and warehouse workers, but that's not a "peer" to big law. 

I understand that comparison is the thief of joy, but I don't think it's too out of line to acknowledge that Canadian big law salaries as a whole hasn't moved much in the past 15 years in comparison to other peer jobs, much less the market down south. 

[Judgelight]

20 hours ago, C_Terror said:

I don't think that's an apt comparison though. Your compensation comparables should be with other "like" jobs, i.e. front office revenue generating professional industries. Of course we're better compensated compared to unemployed people and warehouse workers, but that's not a "peer" to big law. 

I understand that comparison is the thief of joy, but I don't think it's too out of line to acknowledge that Canadian big law salaries as a whole hasn't moved much in the past 15 years in comparison to other peer jobs, much less the market down south. 

I make 75k less than big law working government this year. 

I'll make 80k less than big law working government next year.

I'll make 90k less than big law working as a government lawyer next year.

Big law is paid bonkers money compared to lawyers everywhere. What would the "peer" group be other than big law in the US?

[Scout]

27 minutes ago, Judgelight said:

I make 75k less than big law working government this year. 

I'll make 80k less than big law working government next year.

I'll make 90k less than big law working as a government lawyer next year.

Big law is paid bonkers money compared to lawyers everywhere. What would the "peer" group be other than big law in the US?

Do these figures include your employer's pension contributions? I'm genuinely curious. I'd be wiling to bet between your salary and pension you are paid significantly more per hour than a Bay Street lawyer. 

Also, I think you're missing the point. The point isn't big law vs other lawyers in Canada. It's big law vs other professional industries that have kept better pace with cost of living/inflation. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Scout

[Mountebank]

Not to state the obvious, but law isn't about earning a high salary and never has been. It's about accumulating power and leveraging that power to set you and your family up for generations to come. Why are people so concerned about their paycheques when they should be focusing on the unspoken work? Isn't finding the means to get out of practice, and preventing your children from falling into it in their turn, the whole point of becoming a lawyer? It's almost like the biglaw meat grinder is a trap for those who don't understand what the law is for.

[CleanHands]

3 hours ago, Judgelight said:

I make 75k less than big law working government this year. 

I'll make 80k less than big law working government next year.

I'll make 90k less than big law working as a government lawyer next year.

Then quit.

All you ever have to say about your Crown job is how much you hate it.

[C_Terror]

3 hours ago, Judgelight said:

I make 75k less than big law working government this year. 

I'll make 80k less than big law working government next year.

I'll make 90k less than big law working as a government lawyer next year.

Big law is paid bonkers money compared to lawyers everywhere. What would the "peer" group be other than big law in the US?

Scout already said it, but I don't consider government a peer group to Big Law. The pros and cons of government is much more different than the pros and cons of front office jobs.

3 hours ago, Mountebank said:

Not to state the obvious, but law isn't about earning a high salary and never has been. It's about accumulating power and leveraging that power to set you and your family up for generations to come. Why are people so concerned about their paycheques when they should be focusing on the unspoken work? Isn't finding the means to get out of practice, and preventing your children from falling into it in their turn, the whole point of becoming a lawyer? It's almost like the biglaw meat grinder is a trap for those who don't understand what the law is for.

Law isn't about earning a high salary, but high salary is corollary to big law. People are concerned about their paycheques because of the rapidly rising cost of living and housing over the past 10 years, and Canadian big law's compensation (whether pay, work/life balance, total experience) has lagged behind its peer groups. Finding the means to get out of practice would also be a lot easier if you were more financially stable when getting out and trying different things. I full well knew what I was getting into when going into Big Law, but the realities of compensation also shouldn't be kept hush hush either.  

[QueensGrad]

I’ve always found law attracts a fair number of “shut up and be grateful for what you have” types. Maybe that’s part of the problem. The attitude towards compensation in peer industries like IB is certainly more along the lines of “I want and deserve as much compensation as possible”.

 

[C_Terror]

51 minutes ago, QueensGrad said:

I’ve always found law attracts a fair number of “shut up and be grateful for what you have” types. Maybe that’s part of the problem. The attitude towards compensation in peer industries like IB is certainly more along the lines of “I want and deserve as much compensation as possible”.

 

In my opinion, it's probably also because of the power dynamics and experience. For many lawyers this is their first job out of school, and are much less likely to speak out and are grateful for their salary. I found that my colleagues and friends most likely to speak out are those that are older and already had past careers, and know "what's on the other side", which forms a better basis of comparison. 

 

[Rashabon]

On 6/27/2022 at 6:09 AM, Scout said:

On the one hand, I agree. We certainly have it good relative to many. But I also think it is important to stay cognizant, as employees, about the conditions of our employment. While there is a lot of pay transparency in law, I'm learning that we (or maybe just me) are out of touch with the salaries of a lot of other industries, which only benefits the firms.

Bay Street salaries have fallen incredibly behind NYC/London and they are starting to be on par with positions that are far less rigorous in terms of education, stress, and working hours. We also receive less vacation days than similar industries like consulting. Recognizing this more openly allows people to reconsider whether the salary on Bay Street is worth the experience or perhaps even start putting pressure on the firms to make changes. We've been seeing this with the raises/bonuses/increased acceptance of counsel track over the past couple years, and I would love to see that continue. 

I have always had virtually unlimited vacation days, and that tracks with a lot of my peers on Bay Street. There may be complaints, but not being able to take time off is a weird one since it doesn't jive with reality as far as I can tell. There are few careers as flexible as being on Bay Street. I have been able to take time off whenever as long as I plan for it ahead of time and make arrangements for coverage.

Comparing to NYC is fine, but do that for every industry. An investment banker at National Bank is not making the same as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. Someone working for Birch Hill is not making the same as someone at KKR. That's not unique to law. Canadians get paid less, other than maybe for tech roles these days, than their peers in similar industries by and large. As much as I love Toronto, we are more of a backwater compared to NYC and London when it comes to deal flow and litigation mandates, and that flows down to compensation. But even with last year's insanity, NYC hours are still worse by and large, with less chances of making partner down the road and similar opportunities.

 

[Scout]

17 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I have always had virtually unlimited vacation days, and that tracks with a lot of my peers on Bay Street. There may be complaints, but not being able to take time off is a weird one since it doesn't jive with reality as far as I can tell. There are few careers as flexible as being on Bay Street. I have been able to take time off whenever as long as I plan for it ahead of time and make arrangements for coverage.

 

"Vacation days" where you have to make up those missed hours is not a true vacation. You're just allocating your hours differently. 

[Rashabon]

2 minutes ago, Scout said:

"Vacation days" where you have to make up those missed hours is not a true vacation. You're just allocating your hours differently. 

I don't understand what this means. I haven't had to "make up" missed hours. I just need to hit my target. There are plenty of hours in the year to do so, even taking vacation. I also don't understand how this is distinct from any other professional industry or how bankers or consultants are purported to have more vacation days than lawyers.

[Dinsdale]

On 11/3/2021 at 4:56 AM, Guest said:

I don't think there's been such a sustained pressure from US firms (not even just NYC) in a while, if ever.

 

Around the turn of the century was the only other really big one.  Advent of OCI's in Ontario was a direct response to NYC firms hiring top U of T law students before Bay Street "even had a chance" to interview them.  First year summer positions also came into vogue shortly after.

[Scout]

7 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I don't understand what this means. I haven't had to "make up" missed hours. I just need to hit my target. There are plenty of hours in the year to do so, even taking vacation. I also don't understand how this is distinct from any other professional industry or how bankers or consultants are purported to have more vacation days than lawyers.

I'm not sure what the confusion is. If you take a week off, that is a week without billables. Our targets aren't lowered by a x hours to reflect that we had the week off. So, you're just redistributing your hours to another time. This is very distinct from a professional who is expected to work 40 hours a week. Those 40 hours they missed aren't "owed" later.

As for the second point, that is also pretty simple. A contract for 25 days/30 days/6 weeks paid vacation is much higher than Bay Street's 20 days. Also, most non-law offices (including consultants) completely shut down for about 2 weeks around Christmas, meaning none of their vacation days have to be used over that period. This hasn't been my experience in law. 

I'd also make the depressing point that based on personal experience, and based on my law school friends' experiences, it is quite difficult to truly take a vacation on Bay Street. At minimum, most of us are expected to at least check our emails. This is not true in a lot of industries. 

Edited June 28, 2022 by Scout

[Rashabon]

You're out to lunch if you think IB and consultants are working 40 hours a week. Or if you think there are jobs out there paying 65 dollars an hour routinely to people working 40 hours a week, alongside the other benefits. Of course Bay Street looks bad when you're comparing to fantasy positions.

6 weeks paid vacation being common is also a fantasy. And if you don't know how to properly take vacation on Bay Street, that's on you bud. I've never seen anyone run through the fictitious 20 days. Nobody is tracking, and if you respond to an email and bill your 0.1 of an hour, great, not a vacation day. I've never had anyone come and tell me I was getting close to my vacation day allotment or that it was a real thing, because the firms know that they demand weekends and other hours. I've never heard of an associate at a large Bay Street firm getting docked salary because they took too many vacation days, and if they did, their firm is trash and they don't know how to look out for themselves in the slightest.

EDIT: You edited your post, but again, citation needed on "most offices shutting down completely for two weeks at Christmas". That's a bold claim that I don't think bears up to the scrutiny unless you're working in like, education.

I really don't think there are mythical positions paying $150K a year + 6 weeks paid time off + 2 weeks of Christmas vacation + 40 hour work weeks. It's great to aim for that but using this fantasy to argue for better law positions isn't going to help.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Rashabon

[Scout]

I'm not going to continue engaging with you because frankly you're being extremely condescending, rude, and strawmanning most of what I'm saying. But I began this by talking about advertising. Why you are so fixated on IB/consultants is beyond me. I never once claimed they worked 40 hours a week because of course that is not the case. Maybe you should take time to actually reflect on what I'm saying instead of being a spokesperson for Bay Street employers who aren't keeping up with the times.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Scout

[Dinsdale]

On 2/22/2022 at 2:53 PM, Rashabon said:

Seems incredibly dysfunctional if so. Delaying in a manner that prevents you from planning for March 1 costs you a lot more than $5-10K in real dollars. I'd be pissed if my firm was unable or unwilling to meet that timing.

But it happens frequently.  Poorly run associates committee with partners too busy to meet, conflict between practice group chairs advocating for their associates vs the AC, executive committee doesn't get around to approving the numbers on time -- there are lots of reasons.

[Damages]

36 minutes ago, Scout said:

I'm not sure what the confusion is. If you take a week off, that is a week without billables. Our targets aren't lowered by a x hours to reflect that we had the week off. So, you're just redistributing your hours to another time. This is very distinct from a professional who is expected to work 40 hours a week. Those 40 hours they missed aren't "owed" later.

As for the second point, that is also pretty simple. A contract for 25 days/30 days/6 weeks paid vacation is much higher than Bay Street's 20 days. Also, most non-law offices (including consultants) completely shut down for about 2 weeks around Christmas, meaning none of their vacation days have to be used over that period. This hasn't been my experience in law. 

I'd also make the depressing point that based on personal experience, and based on my law school friends' experiences, it is quite difficult to truly take a vacation on Bay Street. At minimum, most of us are expected to at least check our emails. This is not true in a lot of industries. 

So, which profession are you comparing with bay street biglaw lawyers?

[CB2021]

6 minutes ago, Damages said:

So, which profession are you comparing with bay street biglaw lawyers?

 

29 minutes ago, Scout said:

I'm not going to continue engaging with you because frankly you're being extremely condescending, rude, and strawmanning most of what I'm saying. But I began this by talking about advertising. Why you are so fixated on IB/consultants is beyond me. I never once claimed they worked 40 hours a week because of course that is not the case. Maybe you should take time to actually reflect on what I'm saying instead of being a spokesperson for Bay Street employers who aren't keeping up with the times.

 

[C_Terror]

34 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I don't understand what this means. I haven't had to "make up" missed hours. I just need to hit my target. There are plenty of hours in the year to do so, even taking vacation. I also don't understand how this is distinct from any other professional industry or how bankers or consultants are purported to have more vacation days than lawyers.

Assuming you have an 1800 billable target, that's roughly 150 a month in billables which you'd hit assuming you bill 7.5 hours a weekday (nobody's that efficient normally, but let's just assume this is it). You take a week off, that's 37.5 that you're missing now that you have to make up for some where else in the year. You take the full 4 weeks off, that's essentially a full month of billables you have to "make up" for. 

In any other industry where there isn't a "billables" system, you don't have to "Make up" the 150 billable targets elsewhere in the other 11 months (i.e. you're now compelled to take on more files and work more just to hit your 1800). If you take 2 weeks off in IB, assuming you're in between deals and don't have to work, you don't have to give those two weeks back by adding 2 weeks worth of work on top of whatever you're doing. In a sense, you're not actually getting 4 weeks off in a billable system because you're always giving it back to the firm (assuming you're hitting 100% of billables). On top of that (going off tangent), if you have a slow week, say by billing 15 hours, now you have to "make up" those 22.5 hours that you should've billed that week somewhere else. In any other industry, you get to enjoy that week, and move on without the pressure of additional hours. 

28 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

You're out to lunch if you think IB and consultants are working 40 hours a week. Or if you think there are jobs out there paying 65 dollars an hour routinely to people working 40 hours a week, alongside the other benefits. Of course Bay Street looks bad when you're comparing to fantasy positions.

6 weeks paid vacation being common is also a fantasy. And if you don't know how to properly take vacation on Bay Street, that's on you bud. I've never seen anyone run through the fictitious 20 days. Nobody is tracking, and if you respond to an email and bill your 0.1 of an hour, great, not a vacation day. I've never had anyone come and tell me I was getting close to my vacation day allotment or that it was a real thing, because the firms know that they demand weekends and other hours. I've never heard of an associate at a large Bay Street firm getting docked salary because they took too many vacation days, and if they did, their firm is trash and they don't know how to look out for themselves in the slightest.

EDIT: You edited your post, but again, citation needed on "most offices shutting down completely for two weeks at Christmas". That's a bold claim that I don't think bears up to the scrutiny unless you're working in like, education.

I really don't think there are mythical positions paying $150K a year + 6 weeks paid time off + 2 weeks of Christmas vacation + 40 hour work weeks. It's great to aim for that but using this fantasy to argue for better law positions isn't going to help.

There are absolutely lots of professional non front office jobs out there paying 100-150K a year (total comp, which in most cases include a slight bonus of anywhere from 10-20%, stock matching, or defined contribution  pension) to people working 40 hours a week. It's not a fantasy at all. In a majority of corporations, normal back office FP&A finance jobs offer you that at 4 years out (aka 1st year associate because you don't go through law school). System administrators in IT across all major corporations average that. If you have relevant experience after 4-5 years (again, I choose this because this is how long law school + articling is), there are lots of jobs that open up in the 6 figure range. Caveat, this is my personal experience, and my friends in recruiting in downtown Toronto. 

I won't comment on the 6 weeks off + 2 weeks Christmas, because that hasn't been my experience, but that salary @ 40 hours a week (maybe 50-60 hours once or twice during year and semi annual year end) is way more common than you think. 

[123]

On 6/27/2022 at 6:09 AM, Scout said:

While there is a lot of pay transparency in law, I'm learning that we (or maybe just me) are out of touch with the salaries of a lot of other industries, which only benefits the firms.

Has partner compensation seen increases that are disproportionate to associate pay? I'm not arguing with you, I just don't know the answer. I assume that if partner compensation has skyrocketed while associate rates remain stagnant, then you're right. The firms are benefiting. The grunts are not. But I don't see why @Rashabon's point about lower compensation flowing from lower deal volume and litigation mandates isn't also true. And in that case, I'm not sure what you would be protesting? You're angry that your employers aren't more profitable?