CC fires payrise starting gun with 15% NQ hike

Everyone I know expects Ashurst, Macfarlanes and SJ Berwin to follow suit.

Posted by: Top 20 lawyer

13 Apr 2007 | 11:29

No.

Posted by:

13 Apr 2007 | 11:51

Hadn't the gun already been fired months and months ago by A&O and then a catch-up attempt by Slaughters?As to whether it is enough depends on what the firm (and partners) can afford to spare. At CC it is probably less than Freshfields, Linklaters and Slaughters. So I suppose those should go up accordingly.

Posted by:

13 Apr 2007 | 13:32

Even with 15% rises lawyers in London can do far better at hedge funds, banks, PE houses or US firms. The fact that UK firms continue to respond last to market movements creates hefty resentment among assistants. Does anyone remember the idea of loyalty to the firm where one trained? When I qualified 9 years ago I felt genuinely committed to my employer. A number of peers felt similarly. Times have indeed changed. I tell juniors starting out to believe in themselves and take whatever their own firms tell them with a large dose of salt - particularly stories about how the grass is less green elsewhere!

Posted by: Corporate partner

13 Apr 2007 | 13:35

No. Associate pay has not been keeping pace with the cost of London living - nor has it kept pace with increases in partner pay. By lagging A&O's rates so much, CC are admiting they are second-best.

Posted by: Associate

13 Apr 2007 | 14:03

CC is paying more than Slaughters and less than A&O. I think its fine...as long as Freshfields and Linklaters don't match A&O and as long as A&O don't increase their salary even further.

Posted by:

13 Apr 2007 | 15:14

Partner profit increases at leading city firms come in the tens of thousands per partner. It rather puts a 15% rise on, say, £60k in perspective. No wonder associates basically hate partners. Will we accept the rises? Yes. Will they buy our loyalty? Pull the other one.

Posted by:

13 Apr 2007 | 16:29

Would be interesting to see the actual rise in partner profits for the top 25 firms over last 5 years against the rises in associate salaries at all levels.

Posted by:

13 Apr 2007 | 16:49

A lot of people are aware that partner profit increases in recent years have far outstripped increases in non-partner pay. I think we are approaching a change in the London legal market where good assistants refuse to work themselves grey for comparatively measly rewards when there are so many alternatives that offer more excitement, better money and the prospect of quicker advancement.Conversations abound about moving to banks, setting up in business, hopping across to a competitor or "greenfield" opportunity, taking the Yankee dollar, taking time out to travel, going back to university or changing track for a more decision-based commercial role in industry.And, more than that, people are following through.London firms have for too long underestimated assistants, planning their practices on the basis that a certain number of bodies are needed for deals and that once hired, people will be too grateful to leave. The best advice for such firms would be to rearrange the following words to make a familiar catch phrase:Coffee. Wake. Smell. Up. The. And.

Posted by: MC footsoldier

14 Apr 2007 | 10:24

Long overdue and still not enough. If talent retention is supposedly such a crucial issue to the elite law firms these days, their associate remuneration packages should reflect this. Even with the proposed rises it does not. The top UK firms have comfortably justified second-rate salaries on 'market rates' for far too long. My university friends, some of whom are currently working in New York and California (and putting in very similar hours) at second-tier firms remain astounded at the remunerative gulf that exists between UK and US associates. This is made worse by the fact that the cost of living is higher in London too.'Corporate partner' is absolutely right. Associates at the top firms can do better elsewhere and it is about time City firms realised this. Loyalty is important but it must work both ways.

Posted by: Trainee, magic circle

16 Apr 2007 | 13:07

If, as many of the above posters say, they could have done better in other walks of life, they would have done it already. Are we supposed to believe that assistants hate their employers and have loads of better-paid job opportunities but choose to stay put for some mysterious but undefined reason? Junior commercial lawyers get paid a massive amount of cash for their actual skills and experience.

Posted by:

16 Apr 2007 | 14:19

It is rather pointless to assert that junior lawyers are or are not worth what they are paid, unless you have some sensible way to quantify worth. And however you do it, it is hard to avoid looking at what such lawyers earn for their employers. The reference to house prices and the cost of living generally also looks sensible, for why shouldn't junior lawyers be looking at what their salaries buy them beyond beer and clothes?The question isn't 'what is a junior lawyer worth?' It's 'is the job still worth doing?'Not only are there surveys indicating that younger lawyers are less likely than before to hang around for the non-promise of partnership; anecdotally, it is pretty obvious from anyone with friends in the profession that many are disillusioned and embittered as a result of their experiences.

Posted by: Associate, London

16 Apr 2007 | 15:29

"Disillusioned and embittered" - I often see young lawyers characterized in this way. But, as a question to 'Associate, London' or anyone else who has an answer, disillusioned and embittered about what? What exactly is the cause of this discontent? What message is it that trainees are sold by law firms that they then fail to deliver on? It's a genuine question.

Posted by:

16 Apr 2007 | 16:39

Well, one mysterious undefined reason for staying on is that its easier to go with 'better the devil you know', especially when you have a mortgage to pay. More money is important but so is having the time in your day to take some control of your working life - even if it's just a matter of thinking about how you want to build your own book of business. Working all night doesn't give that sense of satisfaction or buy-in to the business and gets people into a position where they just do work they are given and hope to go home the same day as they came in. There is a very real difference between firms (and between departments in firms) in this - some run it like associates are the slaves in a galley ship, others run it like their associates are business people in their own right.

Posted by:

16 Apr 2007 | 19:02

One of the consequences of UK law firms not paying associates enough is that associates will hang around for a year or two to get the experience and then move on to greener pastures - be it US law firms or more lucrative industries. This is a loss to law firms as associates are leaving at a time when they can make a real contribution to the firm. Instead of paying current associates a bit more to retain them, firms lose them and consequently spend fortunes recruiting, sending partners off Down Under on recuitment trips, paying relocation allowances and time and effort in training new joiners. Not to mention the time new joiners must surely take to adjust and get up to speed.

Posted by:

17 Apr 2007 | 00:04

I'm still at university and many of my colleagues feel exactly the same as the people here. Those of us that are going to become solicitors all feel that for the amount of work and training we have to do even to get to that stage, and the amount of hard work once we do get there, solicitors' firms pay comparatively small salaries when compared with other 'high-flying' industries. In fact, several of my friends have said that they intend to use the training they receive as a springboard to other industries or types of firm, and this is before they've even joined! What one person said above, that salaries do not match mortgages (in London, at least) is the most frequently raised concern here also.

Posted by:

17 Apr 2007 | 11:28

There is a posting above (probably by a slightly bemused and/or out of touch senior partner) asking why assitants are so "dissillusioned and embittered" about salaries. The answer: maybe it's more about the sacrifice that is expected in return for the comparatively unspectacular wages? The unappealing deal for an assiatant: you are a workhorse, aspirations are irrelevent, promotion a gamble, be part of a firm that doesn't know how to act responsibly, learn from greedy self-obessed partners and lose any normal balance with life outside the office.Somehow, the current salaries don't seem to stack up - and the aforementioned poster probably wonders why the best assistants are leaving private practice and finding a life with more (or similar) money in a better working environment.

Posted by:

17 Apr 2007 | 14:38

I used to feel quite strongly about this issue but then I visited http://www.channel4.com/money/chat_vote_win/richometer/ and suddenly it didn't seem to matter so much.

Posted by: Anon

17 Apr 2007 | 15:33

Good point by the last poster. I just went on to the Richometer and put in the starting salary for a magic circle firm. It certainly puts the whinging into perspective.

Posted by:

17 Apr 2007 | 16:21

People may complain about London salaries not keeping pace with the price of living in London, but the regions are suffering from the same problem. When will we see the trickle down?

Posted by:

17 Apr 2007 | 16:32

Trickle down? The north has colour TV now, doesn't it? Stop crowing.

Posted by:

17 Apr 2007 | 17:38

Someone, presumably a partner, asks above: "What message is it that trainees are sold by law firms that they then fail to deliver on?"Typically, the poster fails to see how unimpressed your typical bright, industrious lawyer is going to be by someone 20 years older who expresses himself using the inauthentic management-speak so common among those who build careers on blag rather than brains.Implicit in such a lazy mode of expression is the notion that juniors don't serve to be treated respectfully.No surprises there.

Posted by: Top 10 firm lawyer

17 Apr 2007 | 20:05

Rich-o-meter. Nice tool but I already know I earn more than the guy at the local video store. Apples with apples? On same logic, partners would obviously no longer strive for higher PEP because they are already wealthier than 99.95% of the population? Back to the real world please.

Posted by:

17 Apr 2007 | 20:26

I'm the person who several days ago asked why assistants are so embittered? Several posters have characterized me (completely inaccurately) as a partner, out-of-touch and, surreally, a peddler of "inauthentic management speak", without really addressing the actual question I posed. For the record, I certainly do believe assistants should be treated respectfully and have plenty of cynicism about partners' general ability to manage assistants. As to the person who assumes that I wonder "why the best assistants are leaving private practice and finding a life with more money in a better working environment", I think nothing of the sort. I do believe that any talented young lawyer in a job that makes them miserable with such an attractive alternative career path would be a total idiot not to quit the law and good luck to them. I just don't understand people who complain and do nothing about it - vote with your feet, it's ultimately the only real power you have as an employee. To come back to my original point, I honestly don't see how the young lawyers who choose to pursue a career with a big corporate law firm can say that they didn't know exactly what they were getting into at the start. As to the apples posters: how about a comparison to doctors, accountants and architects, because corporate lawyers come out pretty well against them? That real world enough for you?

Posted by:

18 Apr 2007 | 13:40

Some responses to the confused poster above:"I just don't understand people who complain and do nothing about it - vote with your feet, it's ultimately the only real power you have as an employee."Answer: perhaps people would rather not have to resign in order to get a better deal. Do you follow me or am I going too fast?"To come back to my original point, I honestly don't see how the young lawyers who choose to pursue a career with a big corporate law firm can say that they didn't know exactly what they were getting into at the start."Answer: and how exactly did they know exactly what they were getting into, given that they were at university at the time?More generally, telling people to shut up when they're working hard at their chosen job and finding themselves miserable and knackered by it does not really help. If you haven't noticed, the debate here is not about how to leave law, but whether assistants get a fair deal. Many feel they do not. Shouting at them that they are wrong is pretty sterile.

Posted by:

18 Apr 2007 | 15:24

Given that the Rich-o-meter works on the assumption that we only work 175 days per year and then only for 8 hours a day, its conclusions should be treated with caution...

Posted by: Stats fan

18 Apr 2007 | 17:57

Does an extra £1,000 a month make you happier? Will it compensate you for missing your child's first year, for being too tired to enjoy life? I would take extra holiday over more pay/higher resultant targets any day.

Posted by: Associate, City firm

18 Apr 2007 | 18:10

Easy, tiger. I'm not shouting at anyone, in a sterile manner or otherwise, or telling anyone to "shut up". I feel sorry when I hear people are in jobs that make them miserable. I am just offering a personal opinion on the most likely way to resolve it. I think I can also just about keep up with your blistering rhetorical pace.You ask how people can know what they are getting into when they are at university. I'd say that bright under-graduates considering a 20/30-year career commitment to a profession that requires three years of post-grad training and a close personal relationship with a photocopier might want to do a bit of basic research.There's lots of relevant directories, press, blogs and websites to give aspiring lawyers the basics. If you don't do the research then surely you have to accept some measure of personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions.Regarding the other point: of course people would rather stay put, get to work less and still get the same or better money. Who wouldn't? That doesn't mean that it is going to happen. Lawyers can switch to lifestyle firms where they will make good money with more time for a life after work. It's about choices. The ones we make and the ones we don't.

Posted by: "Confused poster"

19 Apr 2007 | 11:10

I have some symphathy with the earlier poster rather than the one above.I did a lot of research into law before switching into it, including a placement, but can hardly say I knew what I was getting into in the sense of knowing what the working day would feel like.The fact that the career may be for 30 years doesn't mean an interested undergraduate is more likely to be able to predict what it will be like.

Posted by:

19 Apr 2007 | 15:36

One sees more sense posted on threads like these than one hears in a year of listening to BS from partners and HR at firmwide "initiative" presentations about "winning the war on talent" and "how the bonus system, which we all know is crap, is actually, when you look at it, crap" and the like.You can tell partners find pay rises hard to stomach. Us underlings don't often get the chance to bite back or flex our muscles, so forgive us if on this occasion we, like, totally max out in that regard.

Posted by:

23 Apr 2007 | 23:53

There is a constant and fluid market for talent amongst law firms, city/regional, US/UK, legal/banking/industry etc. Lawyers are all pretty well paid for what they do - speaking as someone who has been in private practice as well as in commercial roles in banks you appreciate that lawyers do not realise how easy their job is in comparison to, say, bankers. Every sector of employment finds its level, lawyers are no more underpaid or overpaid than any other part of the private sector. And in terms of what anyone is "worth", the market, self-evidently says that some City lawyers are worth at least twice what some regional lawyers are worth, some are not.

Posted by: Few Home Truths

19 May 2007 | 11:33