2007 pay round: a Legal Week Wiki special

Since A&O's bonuses do not vest until nearly 4 years PQE they are paying junior associates much less than most other firms.

Posted by: Associate

23 Apr 2007 | 13:28

To suggest that A&O pay junior associates "much less than most other fims" is absurd.

Posted by:

23 Apr 2007 | 15:04

Germany has seen a dramatic pay hike at the end of 2006. A&O raised from €80k to €95k for newly qualified lawyers, but at the same time curtailled the bonus for associates to zero. I guess this underlines the firm's policy of luring talent by paying less in the end.

Posted by: Associate, Allen & Overy Frankfurt

23 Apr 2007 | 18:20

Think there is something in the first comment. All comes down to retention of bonus of juniors. For last year we had increase in total remuneration of 15% (half through increase for six months, other half probable bonus). So did CC with a 15% bonus. Only we have to wait up to 3 years for bonus element to be paid.Similar for future, while others have a similar increase in base salary, they pay a bonus to juniors after the end of the financial year. We might have to wait for 2 or 3 years longer to get that.

Posted by: Junior associate, A&O

23 Apr 2007 | 22:07

which firms outside the magic circle are likely to increase trainee salaries?

Posted by:

24 Apr 2007 | 01:26

my guess is the top ten will for trainees at least.

Posted by:

24 Apr 2007 | 10:47

They should put the trainee pay up. That would be nice.

Posted by: Trainee

24 Apr 2007 | 15:23

Trainee salaries have already gone up - first seat trainees now get £35,700 - a few years ago they were getting £28,500.

Posted by: Law boy

24 Apr 2007 | 16:56

What is it with city trainees whingeing about pay all the time? Face up to the fact that you basically know next to nothing as a trainee so why all the demands and woe-me? You'll be well enough paid one day if you work hard enough - concentrate on learning your trade and appreciate the very simple fact that you're paid significantly more than the majority of the population - I am now ready for the quick fire responses relating to mortgage payments these days and how much it costs to live in London and the burden of student debt - get over it!

Posted by:

24 Apr 2007 | 18:19

This story is strange, because if you look on The Times website, they claim that A&O have raised NQ salaries to £75,000. Which one is true? There's a big difference in the two reports.

Posted by:

24 Apr 2007 | 18:44

A&O announced a 16% pay rise, the lawyer and the times thought the rise was on the current salaries. It was on the salaries as at October 2006 so they messed up.

Posted by:

24 Apr 2007 | 19:22

Why not post data for more senior levels? Up to 5th year at least would be helpful.

Posted by:

25 Apr 2007 | 10:20

After three years PQE it becomes more difficult to identify a set rate because lockstep is breaking down at more senior levels. However, people are welcome to post guideline rates as well as throwing more light on the extent to which firms are moving away from lockstep pay.

Posted by: legalweek.com web editor

25 Apr 2007 | 11:46

I do not think many trainees would say they were under paid. However, more money is always nice! Furthermore, starting as a trainee requires 4 years at uni minimum. If you compare it to other equivalent city jobs its not an amazing graduate salary.

Posted by:

25 Apr 2007 | 16:21

I think we're all pretty lucky to get paid the rates we do. If you want more, stop simply whinging and move to a bank; replace your job security and profession for more money. The option is always there and banks are actively recruiting, so if money is all you want why not hand in your notice? I suspect few of you will.

Posted by:

25 Apr 2007 | 17:22

Pretty pathetic salaries for the hours involved...

Posted by: Investment Banker

25 Apr 2007 | 17:22

The "whining" from trainees about pay is mostly to do with the amount of training that is required to get here, and the comparative salaries (and comparative salary hikes) of other juniors in the City. It is hardly surprising that the complaints about salaries and paltry bonuses should be more audible in record M&A years.That said, it is unlikely to affect me too much (I'm now more interested in NQ pay) and I agree that all of this was known to us before we started training: you pays your money and you takes your choice. Some ARE leaving for banks, however, and many more are planning to after being a few years' qualified - anecdotally, higher numbers than did so a few years back...

Posted by: 2nd yr trainee, FBD

25 Apr 2007 | 17:59

These "generous" Magic Circle firms will want three extra pounds of flesh from every one of you poor trainees and associates. Best of luck!

Posted by: Associate, top ten City firm

30 Apr 2007 | 21:32

It's not great reading, is it. As an NQ at my US firm, salary-wise (and not including bonus) you're already over two years ahead of your Magic Circle chums. Why does anyone work at A&O, Links etc?

Posted by: US associate

01 May 2007 | 13:43

Quality of life is all I have to say. The extra money at MC/US is not worth the hours.

Posted by:

01 May 2007 | 16:00

Pay peanuts get monkeys

Posted by:

01 May 2007 | 19:20

Most US firms don't offer any contributory pensions, whereas UK firms do. Factor that in and the Magic Circle salaries are now pretty much on a par with Shearman and Weil.

Posted by:

01 May 2007 | 19:33

And while salaries are being discussed, would someone please like to explain why the regions are so far behind in the salary lists? Surely we work just as hard and are just as valuable? Obviously there needs to be a London weighting, but the current gap is huge and rising massively. If the national firms do not get their acts together, regional solicitors will be looking to the City.

Posted by:

02 May 2007 | 14:30

thats not necessarily true - i know of quite a few (5) US firms who offer 5% contrib pension; some who offer more benefits that average.

Posted by: trf

02 May 2007 | 14:59

The US firms paying NY rates (there are several) may not pay pensions but you get a guaranteed bonus starting at about $35,000 for NQs. Add that to the larger salaries (£85,000ish for NQs - and wait till the dollar strengthens) and I know which I'd choose.Oh no, you're right, the work is poor quality and the atmosphere poor. After all, these outfits are only the cream of Wall Street and only attract the best US law school graduates.

Posted by:

02 May 2007 | 15:54

I find it unbelievable that you all honestly believe that you are worth so much money. After all, a one-year qualified lawyer earns the same as one of those "grossly overpaid consultants in the NHS". Is that not enough?!

Posted by:

03 May 2007 | 12:52

"Worth"? The question is how the cake is sliced given that what doesn't come to us goes to partners.

Posted by: Young meteor

03 May 2007 | 19:04

Comparison of city law firms to NHS is novel. Sounds like a comment from one of the slops in an HR Department. Would partners be content to have their pay packet pegged to those in the NHS??

Posted by:

03 May 2007 | 19:19

Given the number of hours put in by MC associates and trainees, it still isn't enough. Also we are keenly waiting to see the PEP increases.

Posted by: Associate

03 May 2007 | 20:49

In response to the comment that the extra pay at US firms is not worth the additional hours - all I can say is that since moving from a magic circle firm at the beginning of the year I've worked quite a lot less hours (ave 2,200 hours billable p/a rather than 2,700 hours), I'm paid a lot more and I have great work to do. What's not to like?!

Posted by: Ex-magic circle senior associate

04 May 2007 | 11:51

The White & Case increases are interesting as until now there has been a fairly clear tiering of NY rates, then mid-Atlantic, then MC then chasing pack. The difference between mid-Atlantic and NY rates seems to be collapsing, while MC rates are narrowing the gap on mid-Atlantic.All this is bad news for the chasing pack which will now be obliged to introduce significant hikes across the bands. More interesting is the question whether Manhattan firms will for the first time factor in the London market when next reviewing associate remuneration. Perhaps the London dog will finally wag the US firm outpost tail.

Posted by: Associate, Magic Circle

08 May 2007 | 14:58

Now that Norton Rose has matched the Clifford Chance salaries it will be impossible for any top 20 firm not to follow or move beyond. Significant increases in assistant pay are long overdue give unstoppable increases in house (or more realistically, flat) prices and the profits of firms in recent years.The rule of thumb is said to be that you earn one-third of what you are meant to bill. I earn less than one-fifth of what I am meant to bill and that seems common upon checking with friends in other firms. The question is not whether the remaining large firms will match the rises as much as how, given the deliberate policy to restrict entry to the partnership while keeping salaries fairly static for the past five or so years, firms have got this far without having to give assistants some real pay-back.My personal view is that attrition to other careers/clients has taken its toll and City partners have realised the model was creaking under its own inequitability.

Posted by: Slave

09 May 2007 | 16:43

We all know that the market leaders dictate salary levels and the rest follow dutifully along... eventually. Hence, no doubt, the focus on MC/US salaries in the table above. But what of the Clydes, Dentons and Beachcrofts of this world? Any prospect of hearing what the rest of the market is paying?

Posted by:

09 May 2007 | 17:14

Works out to about 6 quid an hour chaps!

Posted by: Tim Kingsley

10 May 2007 | 04:17

Only in the kind of mental math pratictised by junior lawyers.

Posted by:

10 May 2007 | 10:53

£6/hr? Rubbish. If you were on £50k, you would have to average 23hrs a day, 365 days a year for your hourly rate to be that low. Let's not exaggerate, chaps.

Posted by:

10 May 2007 | 11:09

So the big boys have decided it is time to move the goalposts and the only question now is whether the chasing pack will decide to try and keep up with the Jones Days or give up completely. What about the poor unfortunates out in the sticks though? Are the markets in Birmingham, Manchester or Bristol going to realign or be allowed to fall further behind?

Posted by: £

10 May 2007 | 11:31

True enough. The hourly rate is more like £15-25/hr. But is that a whole lot better? Compare to the following on Legal Week today... "The biggest revenue rises so far have come from SJ Berwin and Ashurst, which are both set to increase billings by more than 20% to hit £191m and £275m respectively." Someone is making a killing and it ain't the junior associate working 15hrs a day for £15/hr!!

Posted by:

10 May 2007 | 14:44

The market sets salaries. Those in the regions are paid fairly. If regional firms couldn't find the staff then they would no doubt raise the bar. But as it is, people accept the jobs and continue to work, albeit whilst moaning on boards such as this. Same goes for trainees.

Posted by: Associate, mid-tier

10 May 2007 | 21:30

The regional firms probably do pay too little given house-price rises across the country, although as a London-dweller I can't say this with any authority. The regional firms won't ever get near City salaries, however. As is pointed out above, the market just won't do that.Like it, lump it or come to London.

Posted by: Another assoc, city firm

11 May 2007 | 12:26

In the interests of a balanced debate (cue soapbox): I don't think anybody in the regions does expect a "City salary" but, equally, it's not unreasonable for them to expect a proportionate rise in the regional market rates, is it? The regions WILL no doubt always be behind London, but currently they are falling further away with little justification. They can generate fees too. Yes, the market sets salaries, but as the market IS the lawyers "moaning on boards such as this" it's fair to assume that the market is ripe for an upwards shift - particularly given the rampant growth in turnover and profitability seen by most firms. I'm sure there are more than one or two other regional readers - what IS the market doing in these areas, are firms increasing their rates, or are they waiting for staff to lump it and move to London?

Posted by: Regional monkey

11 May 2007 | 13:21

It would be interesting to see the salaries paid to those above 3 year PQE, I presume this information must be pretty readily available?

Posted by: Anon

11 May 2007 | 15:01

Regional monkey talks sense. If the London offices of national firms are getting 15-20% rises, then the lawyers in the regional offices of those firms should get 15-20% rises too. Now that Nabarros have announced a large rise in NQ salaries, lawyers at similar sized firms should be pressing for similar rises - across all offices.

Posted by: Northern Turk

11 May 2007 | 15:32

In my experience regional offices of national firms work bigger hours on higher quality work. The pay difference between London and other expensive cities such as Manhcester and Leeds is outrageous.

Posted by: NQ, national firm

11 May 2007 | 16:15

"...people accept jobs and continue to work, albeit whilst moaning on boards like this." Of course people in the regions (and London) accept jobs and continue to work. The better question is whether the level of productivity/performance of assistants drops in proportion to a sense of being short-changed. 'fraid so from what i have seen and the clients also end up being worse off!

Posted by: Associate, national law firm

11 May 2007 | 16:31

This isn't about complaining, or greed (well ok, it's a little bit about greed, so sue me). It IS about firms finally being forced to apply a little tranparency to their salary reviews. Nobody objects (much) to London being paid more than the regions, or to understandably "peppy" partners taking home a salary equivalent to the GDP of a small country, provided that they feel they are being fairly paid for the work they are doing and that the differential between the two remains about the same - particularly in firms where the regions generate more profit than their London offices do. What was fair last year may not be fair this year, if the market has shifted. It's not necessarily moaning to discuss these issues in an open forum. Are London lawyers really worth TWICE (ouch) what their counterparts in other regions get paid?

Posted by: Regional Monkey

11 May 2007 | 16:52

The big banana (london) may get the lion's share of big deals, but the regional offices of the nationals bill well. You ask any associate at DLA, Pinsents, Addleshaws or any other and they'll tell you they work just as hard and deserve to be treated with a little more respect than being told that banana men are twice as good. But at the end of the day its all about location, location, location. To put it in prespective, a first-seat trainee at the london office of the regional firms starts on the same as a NQ in the regional office.

Posted by: Another regional monkey

11 May 2007 | 17:58

The regional monkeys are assuming that all of us City lawyers hike in the same level of earnings - I can assure you that there is a huge discrepancy between the City firms in the magic circle and those employed by firms who fall lower in the rankings i.e. consider the top 50 - for example, an NQ in a MC or US firm in the Cty is (allegedly) now earning £15,000 a year more than me and I'm at 4 years' PQE - a bit of a kick in the teeth really, but such is life

Posted by:

11 May 2007 | 18:06

Us regional monkeys don't assume that all you City boys get paid MC wages. However, any City lawyer at any national firm will get paid significantly more than his regional colleagues - and fair enough. But if your pay goes up 15%, so should ours - and I can't see how even the most blinkered City types could credibly argue otherwise.

Posted by: Northern Turk

14 May 2007 | 11:21

Why "should" salaries at regional offices of national firms go up by 15% just because the London office has a 15% rise in salaries? There are many factors taken into account in salary review, including the local market and what they need to pay to recruit and retain. If you're not happy in the regions with a pay-rise of less than 15%, move firms. Or, let me guess, the other regional firms pay no better. Quit moaning. If you expect to paid by reference to the London market then go and work there.

Posted by: Associate mid-tier

14 May 2007 | 12:37

It must be tough having to live somewhere like Hull, even before one considers the measly salaries there.

Posted by: Riddler

14 May 2007 | 13:33

Taking the same point that 'Associate mid-tier' has applied, why should London lawyers' salaries increase just because US firms/MC firms in New York have increased their rates and these increases have taken effect over the Pond? It's only to avoid said firms ending up with a whole lot of disgruntled associates complaining about large pay differentials between colleagues in different offices. It's a domino effect seen many times over the past years: Manhattan's elite take the lead, other US firms follow, the MC pay to keep up, the rest of London follows, with national firms trailing the crowd. Us regional monkeys aren't arguing for London rates; far from it. However, I would imagine that in your firm you would be pretty peeved to discover that someone in another department got 15% more, not because of hours or billing performance but simply because they were sat at a different desk. Take your point about "if you're not happy, move" but I don't think the answer to the problem is piling more lawyers into the City.

Posted by: It's outrageous

14 May 2007 | 13:50

mid-tier associate should be careful what he wishes for. If regional salaries don't rise, regional lawyers will move to London to enjoy the disproportionately high salaries. And with a greater supply of lawyers, firms won't need to pay so well - that's the effect of market forces

Posted by: Northern Turk

14 May 2007 | 14:56

Associate Mid-Tier may have a point, I suppose. There is no reason that regional monkeys "should" get a pay rise just because their London counterparts working for the SAME firm doing the SAME work do (aside from the fact that this is pretty much the nature of a free market at work and, semantics aside, it seems likely that 15% increases in the London arena will predicate some form of shift in the regions). Alternatively, perhaps all this moaning you find so abhorrent is an indication that Regional Monkeys have had enough with the increasing differential and WILL, in fact, leave and go work for another firm if they don't get a pay-rise which matches (pro rata) what their counterparts are getting - or will pressure the regional market into paying increased salaries. The point about other regional firms paying the same kind of misses the point though - when the question was WHETHER other regional firms were in fact raising the bar. As of 2 weeks ago, all London firms paid the same (lower) rate, but once one went up they all "had" to. What makes the London market so unique that it controls its own micro-economy ? Generally speaking, turnover seems to be up across the board, house prices have risen uncontrollably and interest rates and inflation are at their highest for over six years. Are any of these factors particularly focused on London? Perhaps Regional Monkeys shouldn't be judged by reference to London salaries, but until periodicals like this one start reporting the pay wars that ARE clearly occurring in the regions you'll have to excuse the unfortunate ones using your example as an indicator of their worth.

Posted by: Downtrodden in Doncaster

14 May 2007 | 15:19

Apparently Wraggs will be increasing NQ salaries in Birmingham to 40k+ as of September (now at £36k). That ought to prompt even the nororious misers like Eversheds and Pinsents into some action in the regions.

Posted by: Brummie trainee

14 May 2007 | 15:44

It's outrageous - "peeved" doesn't come into it, I'd do something about it. If I was being underpaid I would be able to get a job elsewhere paying me properly; if I couldn't, then clearly I am not being underpaid.Difficulty is that people don't compare like for like. Sat at a different desk but otherwise hours and billings the same? It's that simple, right? Wrong. There are a number of other factors which will impact on why two people would be paid differently by the same firm, including: practice area, long term propects within the firm, likelihood that the person would leave rather than just whinge a bit etc. But the crux of it is market forces.I find it hard to believe that the position of two lawyers would be absolutely identical.

Posted by: Assoicate mid-tier

14 May 2007 | 16:04

Re: mid-tier associate - how can a firm raising its London NQ salaries by X% whilst keeping regional NQ salaries at existing levels be justified by saying that other factors such as "long-term prospects" and "practice area" are relevant? It's just a fixed salary which is applied to all NQs, irrespective of those issues you mention.

Posted by: City associate

14 May 2007 | 16:41

Associate mid-tier makes the (repeated) point that market forces dictate salary, but what constitutes "the market"? It's not an intangible force for all that is just and equitable in the world, it's a bunch of real life human lawyers, and if each regional sub-set of monkeys decides that collectively they are not being paid what they feel they are worth, whether this is compared to London or not, then they will redefine the boundaries of what the market will suffer. Hence why the raising of the bar by US firms will (no doubt) have affected Associate mid-tier's salary review this year, despite the unlikely position that their circumstances will be exactly the same as that of any one lawyer at said US firm. No firm wants 150 disgruntled associates who believe they are being underpaid, it's not conducive to efficient billing, so firms suck it up, raise their salaries and charge clients more for the privilege. As noted above, such is life. Finally, perhaps we could cut through all the bullwinkle and get to the point, though. If there is no regional pay war, then these last 8 posts have been a waste of time. But the overwhelming indignance seeping through each and every comment suggests that there IS a move towards an upwards market shift, in and out of the regions, at all levels. We've seen the figures from Nabarros, the first "mid-tier" brave enough to stand up and be counted. What of the other mid-tier firms?

Posted by: Mordant in Manchester

14 May 2007 | 17:04

Can I just say I am making loads of cash at my City firm. LOADS OF CASH.

Posted by: cashmonster flash

14 May 2007 | 18:40

Having just got a TC with White & Case, on the one hand I welcome the massive salary (who wouldn't?) but on the other, am prepared for the number of hours I'll be putting in!

Posted by: LPC Student

15 May 2007 | 13:12

LPC student - not a useful comment, it does not add to the above debate.However I agree you should get paid a massive salary given that you will in all probabbility break up with your girlfriend/boyfriend within 6 months and will look like a 50 year old chain-smoker once you qualify. But hey "you are prepared for it".

Posted by: NQ national firm

15 May 2007 | 14:25

Bit harsh to say LPC student does not add anything to the debate, it was more constructive than the previous comment. And indeed this one.

Posted by:

16 May 2007 | 22:22

What does one need to earn in order to buy a house with a significant other, also working as a lawyer, in a decent area and have enough spare to have one or two nippers who won't have to be schooled in Croydon?

Posted by: Ingenue

17 May 2007 | 11:44

It would be interesting to know if firms like Nabarros have increased their salaries in the regions to complement the hikes in London, given that I imagine the cost of living in Sheffield has risen in the past few years, just as it has is London?

Posted by:

17 May 2007 | 12:49

Did someone above mention that Wragge were looking to increase their salaries in Birmingham?? Hopefully it will mean that other national firms across the country will follow and finally break the £40k mark. I think it just needs one to make a move and the others will follow. Furthemore, does anyone know if equity partners at these national firms are paid the same as their City counterparts?

Posted by:

17 May 2007 | 21:48

I can answer your last question. No.

Posted by: DLR Soul

18 May 2007 | 17:06

The firm is matching Herbert Smith rates - £36k, £40k, £64k. I don't know about beyond NQ, as I'm still a trainee!

Posted by: CMS Cameron McKenna

19 May 2007 | 15:09

Just announced:NQ £64,0001 PQE £68,000

Posted by: Ashurst

21 May 2007 | 16:52

what are ashurst paying 2-5 PQE? Have they been increased too?

Posted by: Mid tier lass, A&O

22 May 2007 | 17:31

More to the point, what are DLA gonna do ?

Posted by: Climbing the ladder

23 May 2007 | 13:04

Any idea on whether Dentons are upping their salaries?

Posted by:

23 May 2007 | 15:33

Why are the regionals taking so bloody long? A couple of my collegues and I have decided that we're looking to London once our training contracts with the Leeds big six are completed. Will it be difficult to make the transition? Let's hope the money helps.

Posted by:

23 May 2007 | 23:40

Working as I do at a Magic Circle firm, I have to admit that Linklaters have got the best salary structure (I don't work there incidentally!). Compared to most other quoted bonus schemes, where only a handful of people actually achieve what is stated, theirs, from what I know, is genuine. I know a number of people there and they are all getting hefty bonuses. Of the people I know, two are 4.5 years PQE and both now on 6 figures and got over 30% bonuses. Another is 1.5 PQE and got 35% bonus. The 1.5 PQE did an astonishing number of chargeable hours admittedly (about 2,700) but one of the 4.5 PQEs got a 32% bonus off the back of just over 2,000 hours. They do seem to value the contribution overall and the quality of the individual not just the number of hours. Their lockstep salary also doesn't plateau noticeably (many other firms start to flatten out at around 5-6 PQE as this tends to be just above the publicised rates). Links publish all their salaries internally through to 10 years PQE and have no banding at any level.

Posted by: Magic Circle

24 May 2007 | 11:02

I'm a 4 yr PQE Co-Co lawyer with a large Bristol firm. There is a talent war being fought in down here and corporate lawyers are in short supply. My salary is £60k plus bonus for 1400 hrs.

Posted by: Rather not say

25 May 2007 | 00:38

Eversheds is to increase NQ salaries in the regions to £37,000 (a 1.4% increase over last year).

Posted by:

25 May 2007 | 07:55

3 yrs PQE - 68k. Below the market rate, as expected. When will the firm learn? Will the last person to leave please turn the lights off?

Posted by: Clyde and Co

25 May 2007 | 15:42

68K at 3PQE in the City blows. Call an agent quicksmart.

Posted by: Boddington

27 May 2007 | 23:29

Great. So it looks like non-London offices at the national firms are offering pay cuts in real terms this year. Will be interesting to see what the London offices of DLA, Eversheds etc are paying this year, as in the regions our hours etc are increasingly being compared to the City firms, yet it looks like our pay will be held tight to finance bigger salaries at the London offices.

Posted by: Leeds pauper

29 May 2007 | 11:26

Does anyone know how the regional solicitors can can go about making themselves heard by their firms? Going to them individually will just mean being shown the door, but some form of uniform attack could go a long way. Any suggestions??

Posted by:

29 May 2007 | 20:04

in response to "what can we do about pay", the first thing you need to do is forget the idea that making an issue of pay will lead to getting fired. It costs a small fortune for firms to fire and hire people - there is no way you will get sacked for raising issues about pay. Discuss these issues with friends/colleagues, direct them to this forum, and just stir the pot. Salaries at my firm have fallen in real terms since I joined (i.e. the overal increases over the years are below inflation). If we had a trade union, we'd have been out on strike

Posted by: Impoverished of Manchester

31 May 2007 | 10:40

I agree, in real terms salaries are actually falling in places like Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham. Its time we made it clear that we will move around for the highest pay packet, because at the end of the day I leave my wife and kids in the morning to earn a decent pay packet and for no other reason.

Posted by: Leeds top 6

31 May 2007 | 14:07

I have a lot of sympathy for those in the regions getting crap money. We're all being shafted - even here in London on relatively high wages - but being shafted relative to one's peers is unacceptable. Leave your firm. "Dialogue" with management is a waste of time.

Posted by: Sam A. Ritan

01 Jun 2007 | 11:19

I see that Pinsent Masons has won Roll on Friday's wooden spoon award for the worst bonus in the profession....£100 gift vouchers!! And to think I was feeling hard done by...just goes to show that there is always someone less fortunate that yourself!

Posted by: Impoverished of Manchester

01 Jun 2007 | 11:49

Pinsent Masons do seem to be a 'tight' bunch. Salaries at their regional offices are below Eversheds and DLA.

Posted by: Birmingham rival

05 Jun 2007 | 10:10

Salary details. No recent pay rise, but prevailing rates NQ £92,000, 1st year £97,000, 2nd year £106,000, and 3rd year £120,500. Figures include a 3% salary contribution paid at the conclusion of the year, and are therefore slightly inflated (max contribution is, I think, £3,000). Also get bonus.

Posted by: Cleary Gottlieb

06 Jun 2007 | 15:35

Addleshaws has broken the cosy Manchester consensus by offering 40k to NQs. I could almost hear the equity partners of Manchester choking on their cornflakes as they struggled to the realisation that they are going to have to get their wallets out. Expect a new mid-tier standard of 35k-36k, a "bubbling under" rate of 37k-38k, with the 3 big boys at 40k.

Posted by: Busy Rec Con

06 Jun 2007 | 20:16

Its also worth noting that Addleshaws have a decent bonus scheme and their NQs can easily earn 3 or 4 grand on top of their £40k. As identified above Pinsents paid £100 and Eversheds £400 (I think). Not really a "big 3" - one big boy and a couple of pretenders

Posted by: Impoverished of Manchester

07 Jun 2007 | 10:55

Well done Addleshaws, finally a national showing it cares for its regional offices. Lets hope Pinsents and the rest can follow suit, especially considering that Addleshaws pay a bonus on top of that pay, unlike the other nationals. May be I should move to Addleshaws on qualification, hint hint bosses.

Posted by:

07 Jun 2007 | 17:15

Eversheds do also pay lawyers a bonus based on chargeable hours (up to 20% of salary depending on hours) in addition to the firmwide bonus (the £400 mentioned above), which is paid to all staff and not just the lawyers.

Posted by:

08 Jun 2007 | 14:42

Any idea what DLA are going to do and when they're going to do it?

Posted by: Anon

08 Jun 2007 | 15:34

Do Eversheds pay trainees a bonus? And does anyone know what the Pinsent bonus is like? An earlier post mentioned they only paid £100 and that too in vouchers.

Posted by:

08 Jun 2007 | 15:40

I work in the regions and have to say that we are starting to have equivalent hours to London. The main problem is that the newly qualifieds are starting to earn more than more qualified people who become trapped in their jobs because it becomes more and more difficult to move. A while back the Birmingham firms even used to get together like a cartel and decide what salaries would be, but I am not sure whether they still do this.

Posted by: Birmingham Sour Grapes

09 Jun 2007 | 16:09

Dear Ed. I don't mean to whinge... but, is this table being updated with all firms' salary announcements? Addleshaws' have not yet been added and, on behalf of those of us relying on good ol' Legalweek for aide in salary discussions, I am concerned that we are not getting the full picture. Are any criteria being applied to select the firms whose salaary announcments are being posted?

Posted by:

11 Jun 2007 | 10:59

Fair enough. We'll do some updating this week.

Posted by: Wiki Ed

11 Jun 2007 | 13:18

Had an 'off the record chat' with my supervisor on reading this...who to my amazement, thinks it's fine that the HR people from all the nationals in leeds sit down together to decide what to pay. so much for competition!

Posted by: DLA bod

11 Jun 2007 | 19:09

Dumb question for a lawyer, but surely that must be breaching some kind of law?

Posted by:

11 Jun 2007 | 20:01

Anyone know if Addleshaws have increased trainee salaries in the regions??

Posted by: Leeds rival

15 Jun 2007 | 12:43

Any chance of posting trainee rates as well or is that too difficult to source?

Posted by: Bottom of the pack

15 Jun 2007 | 13:56

The increases at Weil Gotshal will force the ohter US firms to pay similarly where they are not doing so already. That will in turn expose the UK firms' increases for what they are - a grudging, tardy and insufficient response to better deals available elsewhere.

Posted by: Associate, UK firm

15 Jun 2007 | 15:20

Why are The Lawyer claiming they "revealed" Weil Gotshal's pay rise? It was on legalweek.com two hours before.

Posted by:

15 Jun 2007 | 17:47

Can someone explain to me why U.S. firms pay so much more than UK firms. Why do UK firms seem not to be bothered by this difference?

Posted by: student

15 Jun 2007 | 18:02

Anyone know if Addleshaws or any other national firm have increased trainee pay at all?

Posted by: Leeds 'big 6' trainee

20 Jun 2007 | 10:56

I think the guys in the regions at DLA have got reason to feel very, very annoyed.

Posted by:

22 Jun 2007 | 14:34

I think the big problem is the disparity in increases within national firms between London and regional lawyers and the message it potentially sends out to regional fee-earners. Irrespective of market conditions, you question your value to an organisation if your London colleagues are paid over 70% more for doing ostensibly the same amount of work. Addleshaws recognised that problem and dealt with it well. The other problem with the London/regional divide is that national firms are at risk of only looking at the economic arguments and ignoring the impact on morale of adopting a two-tier approach to salary increases. Economically it makes sense to ring-fence London salaries in order to limit the cost of salary increases to the firm, but is there a limit to the extent to which non-London employees accept market-based arguments as a justification for a 70% disparity in rates of pay? Currently the disparity is about 50%, and I think that's a reasonable benchmark; not sure where the threshold is at which point regional employees consider moving to the City, but DLA must be getting near it.

Posted by: Country lawyer

22 Jun 2007 | 14:40

Any word on trainee rises?

Posted by: Anon

22 Jun 2007 | 14:41

Regional lawyers shouldn't be complaining. Nationally, house prices aren't going through the roof as they are in London. City associates tend to work longer hours and on more valuable deals. This reflects the fact that London is a booming financial centre and the regions are not. Their work is worth disproportionately more to the firm.

Posted by:

22 Jun 2007 | 15:27

In the words of Ice Cube, regional moaners should ESAD.

Posted by: Fletcher Ambrosian

22 Jun 2007 | 16:17

My experience is that lawyers in offices of national firms outside London work just as hard, and for just as long, as their London-based colleagues. There is a real danger of firms like DLA becoming very unattractive for employees in the regions - City hours, local salary!

Posted by: Associate, DLA Piper

22 Jun 2007 | 17:08

How naive is that DLA trainee?! All the bands should be going up at the same time. This is just DLA trying to save itself a couple of million quid by skimping in the regions. There's no staggered review in London, by strange coincidence.

Posted by:

22 Jun 2007 | 17:55

A regional lawyer certainly does not pull in the same number of hours or profits as a London based lawyer for the similar types of work. Don't kid yourself. There's a reason why people think of "retiring" to the regions for a work-life balance.

Posted by: Rupert

23 Jun 2007 | 18:44

Being almost 2 years PQE and on £39,000 in Leeds, I think Addleshaws have set an unrealistic benchmark in the regions. That said, our pay review year runs Jan-Dec so it may be that our reviews will take account of the hike.

Posted by: DLA bod

25 Jun 2007 | 13:33

What Addleshaws are going to be paying should become the market rate for the big 6 in Leeds. Pinsents have already said that they will be announcing 'substantial' pay increases in London and their regional offices. Let's hope the regional rises go as far as at least matching Addleshaws, or maybe even slightly higher so that the other regional firms realise that there is a new benchmark for regional pay.

Posted by:

25 Jun 2007 | 13:33

DLA bod misses the point - Addleshaws aren't "paying above the market rate". They've just done what City firms have been doing for the last 12 months - come to the market with their best deal in order to position themselves at the top of the market and attract the best talent. The £60K+ NQ salaries in London didn't happen by accident - someone always has to move first and set the bar; the market repositions itself and other firms follow. Hopefully that's what Addleshaws have done in Leeds and Manchester.

Posted by:

25 Jun 2007 | 13:34

Pinsents should come in just above Addleshaws if past experiences are anything to go by. Previously in the regions Pinsents paid more than their rivals. Any idea if the trainee salaries have gone up in the regions?

Posted by:

25 Jun 2007 | 13:34

We were told clearly last year by management that in the regions, they would not review salaries until end of December to allow them to react to moves by competitors. London salaries are still increased mid-year so at the moment the City-region pay gap is huge in our firm. To justify the half a year wait, we now surely have to match Addleshaws (and others) in the regions from 1 Jan 08? On that basis, it's not such a bad time to be in the regions.

Posted by: DLA Piper lawyer

25 Jun 2007 | 15:49

In response to Rupert and his comment about "retiring" to the regions, the fact that blinkered City types beleive we don't work as hard up here is not proof that it is so. One major negative of working in the regions is idiots coming out of the City with that type of attitude.

Posted by:

25 Jun 2007 | 15:55

Why are firms with regional offices not as transparent with their non-City offices as they are with their City offices? You see them all clambering over one another to announce headline-grabbing salaries for London trainees and solicitors but when it comes to Leeds or Birmingham, they try twice as hard not to allow their pay to be in the open. Surely it has to be down to the fact that the gap is so unjustifiably wide that they're actually embarrassed to write the City and regional salaries in the same columns, knowing that NQs at a Pinsents or Addleshaws office in London earn more than 4-5PQE in the regions.

Posted by: Regional office of a National

27 Jun 2007 | 10:41

Just heard that Wragges 1 yr PQE will be on £42k. Hopefully, that'll prompt the other regional firms to follow suit.

Posted by: Bhambased

27 Jun 2007 | 18:09

Why can't national firms such as Pinsents and Eversheds understand that their London offices are fledgling as compared to their well-established offices in, say, Birmingham and Leeds? Moreover, it is not a walk in the park working for a national firm's regional office. We have the same chargeable hours target and certainly over the last 2 years I have done more hours than my counterparts in my firm's London office. Granted their charge out rate is higher than mine but only by about £50! That hardly warrants them earning at least 50% more than me. Come on national firms, how about appearing truly national and recognising ALL of your staff's efforts ACROSS the board.

Posted by: 3yrPQE national

28 Jun 2007 | 09:47

The extent of Pinsent Masons 'tightness' has been revealed. They paid a bonus of £100 in gift vouchers to staff in a record breaking year, in which PEP and turnover are at an all time high. Suppose makes sense they pay less regionally and nationally then their so called rivals.

Posted by:

29 Jun 2007 | 12:41

Were Pinsent Masons supposed to announce their increases today or 1st July? Any ideas?

Posted by:

02 Jul 2007 | 11:50

Pinsents have just announced their increase. Have they increased their trainee salaries in the regional offices or in the City?

Posted by:

02 Jul 2007 | 13:27

I find the debate on national salary rises v City rises interesting. I started my career at a regional firm and am now working at a Top 10 City firm. My salary has increased dramatically as a result (even more so with the recent pay round) and was the motivating factor for my move. The regional firm I was at paid "market rate" for the regions they had offices, but were still losing a significant number of staff to London. With the pay rises announced in the City, the regions will continue to lose talent to London (though for how long remains to be seen - the boom will not last forever!). My hours in the City are substantially longer than they were in the regions and I believe my payrise is commiserate with this. However, I do know friends in the regions who work equally long hours and therefore it is even more inevitable that more will leave if the pay gap continues to be so wide. While the M&A boom continues, young talented lawyers will move to the City for the better pay and experience.

Posted by: 2 Year PQE

02 Jul 2007 | 16:44

Does anyone know if Eversheds have announced anything yet for their City and regional offices?

Posted by: John

02 Jul 2007 | 16:44

Congratulations Legalweek.com. You have helped the regional monkeys voice their oppinions and benefit with a pay rise. Thanks.

Posted by: top 6 Leeds

02 Jul 2007 | 16:57

see rollonfriday.com for the pay increases...

Posted by: Travers Smith

02 Jul 2007 | 18:30

Is everybody in the regions naive or what? Fair enough that Pinsents and Addleshaws have got their headlines in the legal press regarding NQ salaries (well done them) but they have not provided the same increases to the 1-4 PQE salaries. The whole impetus behind the pay increases was the London firms increasing their salaries across the board. Instead, with clever marketing, all the regional firms have done is increase their headline NQ rate and nothing else. When will the disaprity between the regional and London offices of regional firms be addressed? Until it is, morale among the 1-4 years will remain low in the regions, partcuarly given that an NQ in London is paid substantially more for less experience, lower charge out rates and the same hours.

Posted by:

03 Jul 2007 | 09:23

The regional lawyers above seem to have an idea that law firms are some kind of workers co-operative rather than businesses and that they should act "fairly" and give the same rises across the board which is a bit of a stupid argument. Law firms will pay what they need to recruit and retain and no more. The recent rises in the city have been a reaction to firms losing assistants in droves for more money and similar hours elsewhere and if they could get away without it then they would. If firms in the regions are getting away with paying low salaries then they are only reacting to the market they are in and if assistants there think they are being underpaid then they should vote with their feet as has been happening in the city. In the current market assistants with transactional experience in a decent regional firm/office and with a good cv could well get a job in a city firm. Regional law firms would soon react if large numbers of people were leaving their firms but until then the firms will pay what they need to to retain their lawyers.

Posted by: Associate, City

04 Jul 2007 | 00:15

I'm not convinced there really is an open market in the regions for legal salaries. There are only a few big players after all.The rather surprising aspect of the static payrise structure at 4PQE+ in the regions is rather staggering salary hike that can now be expected if you leave the profession altogether and go for the alternate options. Of course, such a change means not being a member of a profession, and just accepting money and improved job prospects instead.

Posted by: Alternate plans

04 Jul 2007 | 16:48

After reading the article about Wragges' pay rises, it is so obvious that the regional firms have just sought to grab the headlines with their NQ rate. I cannot believe that they think it is acceptable to have the 1 yr PQE salary at £42,000 and the 2 yr PQE salary at £42,500. Only £500 for an extra year's experience - I imagine there's a lot of low morale at Wragges, and after speaking to friends at Pinsents the same is applicable there with the gap between the regions and London becoming far too wide.

Posted by:

05 Jul 2007 | 07:41

In fairness, I do not think that the full impact of the small pay gap between 1 and 2 year PQE lawyers at the regional offices of national firms will be felt for another year or two. Whilst the gap between 1 and 2 year PQE pay bands is ridiculously small, the pill has been sweetened by the fact that most fee earners have just received a £4,000 to £5,000 pay rise. Next year, when the 1 yr PQEs move up to 2 yrs PQE and only pocket an extra £500 - that's when there might be some vocal grumbling among the ranks.

Posted by: Country lawyer

06 Jul 2007 | 17:42

Eversheds have upped NQ salaries in the regions to 39k. How they have not managed to match the market rate when they have had so much time to respond is an absolute disgrace and makes them look like a joke in the regional market.

Posted by: Get out!

10 Jul 2007 | 09:09

Halliwells London Office are increasing salaries to 62k for NQ...not sure about the regional offices though...

Posted by: Lawyer-in-waiting

10 Jul 2007 | 12:24

Well, the pay review at one of the big nationals has just been completed and, guess what, they have royally messed it up. The movement of NQ regional salaries upwards has clearly had no knock on effect on any of the tiers above - at 4PQE I now earn as much as that level did at my previous firm 2.5 years ago (big regional player, same city). the amount I earn is just under 80% of what an NQ gets in this firm's City office. So, much as the people I work with make this "a great place to work", the pay doesn't. So, I shall take my 14+ hour days and work in the City or abroad and get some recompense for the pound of flesh I give those equity partners desperately pushing up PEP. And they wonder why everyone is leaving and they can't recruit? How shortsighted.

Posted by: Looking for another job

11 Jul 2007 | 12:37

Why are firms not realising that the work-life balance claims in the regions are false? We bill just as highly as the City boys, albeit not at the same rate. Surely a 4PQE in the regions deserves more than an NQ in the City. When the regionals realise this simple fact, they'll be back in business. Until then, we'll all be heading to London.

Posted by:

11 Jul 2007 | 13:44

To "Looking for another job" above - I think that the spin of "good place to work" has caught up with you that you cite it in your entry - awards are sought by firms who do not want to pay the going rate but want justification when they seek new clients / interview new recruits - awards are all part of the spin

Posted by:

11 Jul 2007 | 22:00

I think that "Looking For Another Job" is alluding to the mission statement of the firm he works for rather than any awards they have won when he mentions "a great place to work".

Posted by: Wise Owl

12 Jul 2007 | 11:51

one year PQE manchester £39,000

Posted by: cobbetts LLP

12 Jul 2007 | 16:34

i'm in one of the big nationals in manchester and whilst i agree we work hard and should be paid more i do agree with the school of thought that says if you want the extra cash move to london. it is a myth that anyone in the regions works the same hours as those in the smoke - if you are, it's usually because you have a hidden agenda such as trying to suck up above and beyond everyone else - 7/8 chargeable a day in the reqions will keep you well above target and your supervisors happy - and that's at any of the big regional boys

Posted by: debating a move to london

12 Jul 2007 | 23:03

halliwells regional - £39k for nq from sept

Posted by:

12 Jul 2007 | 23:05

Take the point made above by Debating a move to London, and largely agree with it. Think the key problem isn't the disparity in pay between regional firms and City firms, but the disparity that exists within national firms between their City and regional offices. A solicitor at a regional firm can look at a US/magic circle firm and admit that they do work longer hours, have a different work culture and consequently are paid a premium for doing so. It's harder to make that admission (and accept that as justification) when you're a regional-based fee-earner looking at City-based colleagues in the same firm. The hours are not significantly longer, the culture is the same, yet they earn a great deal more.

Posted by: Midlands Lawyer

16 Jul 2007 | 11:38

Take the point made above by Debating a move to London, and largely agree with it. Think the key problem isn't the disparity in pay between regional firms and City firms, but the disparity that exists within national firms between their City and regional offices. A solicitor at a regional firm can look at a US/magic circle firm and admit that they do work longer hours, have a different work culture and consequently are paid a premium for doing so. It's harder to make that admission (and accept that as justification) when you're a regional-based fee-earner looking at City-based colleagues in the same firm. The hours are not significantly longer, the culture is the same, yet they earn a great deal more.

Posted by: Midlands Lawyer

16 Jul 2007 | 11:39

Any idea what Beachcrofts NQ wage is?

Posted by:

16 Jul 2007 | 14:32

Perhaps a point missed here is whether such pay is sustainable. Paying huge salaries while the work is flooding in is a way to secure the resources. What happens when the work slows? Those paying the higher salaries will have the highest overheads and the greatest exposure to the market. Will there be massive lay-offs in the near future? You just have to make surplus resources redundant. No firm is immune but perhaps those paying sensible salaries can survive the downturn. If you are good, you might be spared from the cull, regardless of where you practice and how much you are paid.

Posted by: Regional Numpty

16 Jul 2007 | 15:57

Would the last assistant out of DLA please turn of the lights.

Posted by:

16 Jul 2007 | 18:16

A very good point made by Regional Numpty above - sals will always be good when times are - but should there be a slow, we are going to be very expensive fodder!Re the point a little more above about the disparity between the regional and london offices, yes I can see the point re the same cultures, diff pay etc. but we have to face facts here, law firms are businesses who need a) to recruit and b) keep costs as low as poss - applying this, the regionals in London a) have to pay big sals to maintain staff in london and b) only do this cos they have to in what it a candidate driven market..........there's no real conspiracy going on, it's just market forces!

Posted by: a *

17 Jul 2007 | 11:45

everyone's oh DLA, DLA.....truth is, their salary increases run Jan - Dec and when it's announced in Jan, it's obviously going to be circa £40k. Why is everyone obsessed with a couple of grand - tis peanuts after tax.........if you want London work in London

Posted by:

17 Jul 2007 | 18:03

In response to the above post, how come the Jan-Dec pay review has been neatly bypassed for London then? Delaying the payrise in the regions until January effectively costs the fee earners who would benefit £1,000 before tax. Someone has previously made this point, but it's this sort of two-tier approach that makes a mockery of the idea of a single team culture.

Posted by:

18 Jul 2007 | 10:54

I'm applying for training contracts at the moment and was wondering if anyone knew what the likes of Addleshaws and Pinsents pay their trainees in the regional office?? is it worth me going to the regions if there is a massive pay differential?

Posted by: UCL

16 Aug 2007 | 15:49

Student above - you're going to have to wise up sharpish if you want a career on a salary you assume you are worth......if you want a top salary you normally have to be a top candidate. The answer to the question is simply your choice, understand the type of work you want to do in the type of firm you want to work in. Money shouldn't really come into the equation at your level - if that is your sole driving force, why on earth are you not going into banking?!!

Posted by:

18 Aug 2007 | 12:49

That is perhaps a bit unfair on UCL; the difference between the £23k or so offered by a regional and the £36k offered by City firms can make a big difference, even taking account of the costs of living in London, to a new trainee who has to shift a student loan, an overdraft and a postgrad loan. Might be an idea for the regionals to make trainee pay more enticing of course, but I would be sympathetic to any 25-year old who felt that it was worth going to the City for 2 years to get back on their feet financially. The qualification decision thereafter is the one at which to ponder the type of work you want to do. If you are free of loans etc by then, as a City traineeship would enable you to be, then you would have the freedom to choose without debt hanging over you.

Posted by: Brizzle

20 Aug 2007 | 15:14

It's right that someone coming into the law as a junior should forget the money bit for now and concentrate on joining a well-reputed firm and getting some interesting seats under his/her belt during the training contract. The big thing you can achieve early on is choosing the right area to qualify into; and the big trap you can fall into is choosing the wrong one. Once you've identified the right specialism the rest will follow - money, security and satisfaction - provided you're any good.

Posted by: Wise Hand

23 Aug 2007 | 11:21