Freshfields moves to freeze associate lockstep

This is frankly counter-productive. Freshfields is simply penalising good and not-so-good lawyers alike, all for the sake of maintaining PEP.

Anon. -09 Feb 2009 | 12:42

That achieves the objective.

playftseforme -09 Feb 2009 | 12:47

If your objective is to end up with a mediocre firm with zero associate loyalty and lacklustre morale, then yes, it does.

Anon. -09 Feb 2009 | 12:58

Does this mean they are all working four-day weeks now? I mean, we wouldn't want the increased chargeout rate with no change on pay to distort this year's partner profits, so presumably there are hours cuts too?

Anonymous -09 Feb 2009 | 12:58

How does cutting associate pay achieve the objective of meeting client needs or providing top levels of service? How tight are the partners at FBD - taking home millions each year, but still take the chance to cut associate pay when CC and Links have already soaked up the bad PR. Maybe we can except some "poor little mites" type comments from the senior partners like last time they did this...?

- -09 Feb 2009 | 13:33

You lot are living in a dream world. Firstly, partner profits are coming down. What some people seem to be arguing for is for assistants to get an automatic 10% pay bump despite demand having collapsed. Meanwhile, back in the real world... And, second, other firms are going to do the same thing, so there'll be a level playing field.

Anonymous -09 Feb 2009 | 13:41

It appears that the magic circle firms are happy to squeeze their models very hard in order to keep PEP on track. The wider question is whether other firms can afford to be as mercenary, and I suspect the answer is 'no'. If high quality associates are forced to take real terms pay cuts now (no one is suggesting anyone is going to quit in this market) they will take the first opportunity to make up the shortfall once the markets recover, and that is likely to mean moving to the firms that recover first.

Silver Circle associate -09 Feb 2009 | 13:53

No matter what the partners at MC firms say in public, they are only interested in maintaining PEP. They've got used to earning boom-time drawings and want to keep it at that level no matter what - even if it means culling their own number or increasing disloyalty amongst their associate ranks (which will have a huge impact later on).

MC Associate -09 Feb 2009 | 14:18

If you didn't see this coming, get an eye test. If you expected a 10% raise every year regardless, get a reality check.If you don't like it, put your principles where your mouth is and leave. As for expecting the market to fragment so that other large firms end up paying significantly more at the same PQE, you'll be lucky. Magic circle pay is a cartel operation. Freshfields is simply redefining what's market.

playftseforme -09 Feb 2009 | 14:19

I get the impression that playftseforme is a non-MC associate with a bad case of sour grapes, or an MC partner trying desperately to convince himself that sweeping pay-cuts - which is what this is, particularly given long-established expectations - are a non-issue.In either case, 'his' argument is flawed. Firstly, the MC firms are not unified in pay, bonuses or benefits, and haven't been for some time. MC salaries differ at many levels, and bonuses - in terms of both quantum and timing - are also varied. A&O is renowned for its bonuses, for example, but actually they end up being deferred in many case for quite some time. CC trainees, out of line with the MC, don't actually receive a bonus at all. There is, therefore, both scope and precedent for the MC firms differentiating themselves from their competitors. Secondly, there are clearly going to be differences between firms which have made people redundant and those which have not. Freshfields have not made formal redundancies, and are therefore entitled to try and reduce salaries on the grounds that they are aiming to retain as many associates as possible, but that that cost needs to be bourn by all. CC/Links etc. will have an incredibly hard job claiming on the one hand that they are making redundancies so that the remainder are fully employed, whilst on the other hand reducing the pay for those remaining associates. It's an either or. Don't make redundancies, allow your employees to shoot the breeze, and pay them less. Or alternately, make redundancies, work the decent remainder hard, but pay them properly.Don't, however, expect the good associates who remain to work hard for scraps. The market is quiet but not dead. And the turnaround, once the banks start lending again, will be swift.

MC Associate -09 Feb 2009 | 14:39

Why do City associates seem to think that they should be immune from the credit crunch? Working in a bank, it astounds me that some lawyers in private practice seem to have no idea that there is huge re-pricing of renumeration going on at the moment in the financial services industry as well the providers who service it such as law firms. The days of massive year-on-year salary increases are probably over, for the short-medium term at least. In the current climate, sounds like Freshfields' plan to freeze salaries is perfectly sensible and may permit a greater number of lawyers to retain their jobs. Also, think about how you look - sulking because you won't get a massive payrise. No wonder society in general doesn't have a favourable impression of City lawyers!

In house lawyer -09 Feb 2009 | 14:39

Yeah, stop sulking. Hehe!

playftseforme -09 Feb 2009 | 14:46

To MC Associate - "Don't, however, expect the good associates who remain to work hard for scraps."No MC lawyer gets paid scraps! Seriously! Even with this pay cut, the lowest level of Freshfields solicitor will be receiving 59k basic, and that's the lowest that any MC solicitor gets paid. That's an awful lot of money - and it's certainly an awful lot of money for a 25-year-old barely out of law school. Why do you think they can all afford to go off gallivanting around the globe for several weeks on qualification leave?! People in the real world can't afford to take hugely expensive career breaks after two years!You are very well paid, as are your peers, so please stop making it sound like you're having to scrape by. Scraps, indeed...

MC Trainee -09 Feb 2009 | 15:03

I would quite happily have a reduced salary in exchange for a better work-life balance, and I suspect that many City solicitors would agree. The salaries are fair for what we do/sacrifice, but much more is needed to enjoy life. Maybe a happier, more respected profession will emerge from the credit crunch.

CrowdedBus -09 Feb 2009 | 15:12

This is a much better way of dealing with the downturn than making redundancies. Nobody is even getting a pay cut, they just won't get a pay rise. Would you rather keep your current job and current salary or get the sack?

Helen -09 Feb 2009 | 15:15

To MC Associate - completely agree with you (especially re playftseforme)! As regards MC Trainee - Are you really a trainee (that to, at an MC)? For all those who raise the 'real world' argument - I am sorry, unlike the 'real world' I don't get to go home at 5:30 everyday, I don't get 52 weekends of every year, there is no guarantee that I will not be working on a bank holiday, I am asked to cancel holidays and I cant keep social engagements due to the demands from stupid partners. In return for this commitment, I would like to be paid. The argument of 'get real this is a recession' - you (i.e. the MC firm) sold me the job on the basis that unlike your US counterparts, you provide job safety and hence the enormous difference in pay. However (the MC comparable) US firms (the likes of Cravath, Sullivan, Cleary and Wachtell) have not fired people or frozen salaries (with the sole exception of Latham). What justification do you have (other than pure greed) for your actions?

Anonymous -09 Feb 2009 | 15:30

To address the responses in turn:MC Trainee - There is a world of difference between an NQ having a jolly as a young, single associate, and that same associate several years later who is on a barely increased salary but is having to deal with the really quite significant costs of marriage/childcare/house deposit and mortgage/pension etc. You are dreadfully informed, woefully naive, or privately funded for you to think that £60/£70k, post-tax, is a sufficient salary to live well on in London with those overheads. This is particularly the case given that the reason people didn't join banks during the boom, or instead go to US firms, was on the basis that their MC pay rises, whilst not meteroic, were dependable. IF MC firms want to both fire people and cut pay, then their claims to be distinct from their US counterparts will fall on deaf ears in future times.CrowdedBus - People aren't at MC firms for fun. If they want a work-life balance they'll join the local petting zoo. MC firms demand top-notch associates who are able to undertake complex work with tight deadlines and punishing hours. Asking associates to do all that for sub-standard pay (compare with swollen public sector salaries, for example) makes that request a cheeky one.Helen - The model above - hard work and good pay - is the one which people signed up to at MC firms. So yes, if I don't cut the mustard, then I'll take my redundancy cheque and leave quietly. I wouldn't want to be carried by my peers if I'm not up to scratch, or if there's nothing for me to do and they're working late nights and weekends whilst I twiddle my thumbs. The opposite should hold true.

MC Associate -09 Feb 2009 | 15:51

There are lots of people in the real world who have to work long and unsociable hours, often for a fraction of what junior City lawyers are paid. And anyone pretending that hours and utilization haven't dropped - high utilization being one of the main arguments for hiking associate pay during the boom - are talking nonsense.

Anonymous -09 Feb 2009 | 15:57

Ok, you can agree or disagree with this move, but on what planet is MC Associate in concluding that it's a stitch-up because of "swollen public sector salaries"?Also - "if I don't cut the mustard, then I'll take my redundancy cheque and leave quietly". If you're not good enough and there's a performance issue, why should you get a redundancy pay-off?

Anonymous -09 Feb 2009 | 16:05

"Ok, you can agree or disagree with this move but on what planet is MC Associate in concluding that it's a stitch-up because of "swollen public sector salaries"?"Not a stitch-up, but if you can get just as good or a better salary for a fraction of the hours whilst hanging around parliament, then the appeal of private practice fades rapidly. What will actually happen of course, now that the MC's 'we invest for life' image is in tatters, is that associates will simply apply to US firms as a matter of course. Same hours, same work, but vastly superior pay.As for "If you're not good enough and there's a performance issue, why should you get a redundancy pay-off?", do you really think that people who are being made redundant are being selected solely on the grounds that there is insufficient work? Of course not, the redundancy programme is being used to clear out underperforming associates and partners. In the case of the former, this is why voluntary redundancy is not being offered, because the firms know that decent associates would happily take the cash and look to US firms.

MC Associate -09 Feb 2009 | 16:13

Amazed you all have the time for such detailed responses. Some of your grammar leaves a lot to be desired too! So much for enormous education and ludicrous salaries. Gratitude, that you have had the opportunity to develop your gifts to their current potential, less arrogance and a greater desire to serve might be better placed - and in the longer term yield more meaningful results in your lives...

lovelylawyer -09 Feb 2009 | 16:18

What planet do you hail from MC Associate? Which US firms do you think want to hire anyone at the moment who is both expensive and not capable of bringing in their own work? There is a recession, it extends to most areas of legal work (particularly those serviced by the former US bulge bracket banks and their coteries of expensive lawyers) and there is little chance of firms paying any rises this year.

City Woman -09 Feb 2009 | 16:28

Why oh why do people categorise the lockstep as a pay rise for doing the same job? It isn't, whether at associate level or partner. If you're a partner (and where's the article about the frozen partner lockstep at Freshfields?) then you are expected to bring in a set number of billings per points, so you can say you earn your crust. Or you'll get pushed out. If an associate, the point is subtler, but you still have a harder job putting down the hours at the higher charge out rate without working harder/smarter. Hence the lockstep, which recognises this. Charge client more = pay associate more has got to be fairer than charge client more = pay associate same (less inflation). It isn't the same thing at all as the year-on-year pay rises at each band during the boom. It is one thing entirely for Latham, who were paying really quite high associate salaries (+£30k on MC at times), to use the opportunity to pare back, quite another for the UK firms to do so.

Anonymous -09 Feb 2009 | 16:40

This is not a pay 'freeze', it is a pay cut. As in the sentence "The firm has cut its pay bands by an average of £7k". One can debate the rights and wrongs till one is blue in the face, but to say it is a 'freeze' on salaries is highly misleading. After all, if it were really a freeze then the firm would not save a penny.

Anonymous -09 Feb 2009 | 17:06

MC Associate - is it really that ridiculous to suggest that £60k-£70k post tax is an extremely healthy amount of money? I really think not, but perhaps that is me being woefully naive, as you suggest. Indeed, I would think that the majority of people who live in London on a fraction of that money, including people with families/mortgages etc., who still manage to get by just fine, view it as a lot of money. It is a lot of money, it really is - it just depends on who you're comparing yourself to and what lifestyle you're living.In any case, the reason that salaries are as high as they are is down to the demands that have been placed on associates over the last few years, which for the most part have fallen away. It therefore seems perfectly reasonable that firms don't dish out the automatic pay rises when their associates aren't having the same unreasonable demands placed on them (and if you do still have massive demands on you, I'm sure there'll be a juicy bonus waiting when you clock up the necessary hours).

MC Trainee -09 Feb 2009 | 17:09

Might I suggest ingestion of a chill capsule at this juncture?

playftseforme -09 Feb 2009 | 17:19

I'm game - MC Associate, are you at the same firm as me? Perhaps just sat down the corridor? Maybe we should continue this in the pub - your round, with your big, fat salary, obviously...;)

MC Trainee -09 Feb 2009 | 17:33

Fully agree with MC Trainee. I hope your outlook never wears off as you progress up the greasy pole. Whether or not someone thinks he "deserves" more than £60-£70k is by the by - it is both ridiculous and a slap in the face to the majority of Londoners to call such a salary "scraps". Get some perspective and realise how lucky you/we all are. I'll save my violin-playing for the decent hardworking people losing their jobs through no fault of their own, getting their homes repossessed, most of whom have had much fewer opportunities and privileges in their lives than the average City lawyer.

City lawyer -09 Feb 2009 | 19:38

All of you, give MC Associate a break. All he is saying is FBD partners earning £1.65 million need to take the hit and not associates who take home £66,000.

Anonymous -09 Feb 2009 | 22:08

Interesting views on this board - what is also interesting is the seemingly unanimous disagreement with MC Associate. I don't know which MC firm he is at, but I would imagine a vast majority of lawyers at my firm would agree with what he has said. I have to say I question the truthfulness of some of the people that comment on these boards. Anyone who works at a MC firm, and indeed, any top City firm, be it US or UK, would I'm sure, not come out with some of the rubbish that is being put forward here. The bottom line is, yes we are in a recession, and yes utilisation will go down, but not by much - there are certain people that will believe everything management tell them. i.e. we have to make these cuts, it's a hard decision etc etc. Rubbish, it is an opportunistic way of removing those people who you don't want in the firm, i.e. those who are good enough when work is coming out of your ears, but as soon levels drop close to seven chargeable hours a day, you can do without. Some firms really think they can sell this to associates at the top of their respective levels in their profession and get away with it. It's scandalous.And with all the talk about pay - I'm sorry, but you are dreaming if you think NQs-4 years PQE only get paid their basic salaries in the top firms. Bonuses are a big part of the pay. Fine, they will be reduced this year, but reducing the basic pay (which is what Freshfields is doing, contrary to what some may think) is outrageous. Admittedly, they may not make formal redundancies (although some associates will have obviously already gone) but other firms will follow suit in reducing pay, and there will be some extremely unhappy people.One comment stated that US firms weren't recruiting. Garbage. If you are good, and are at a good MC firm, you will be very appealing to US firms. Six figures is a minimum. Please don't try and say that lawyers have to join the real world. Like MC Associate has said, to join the real world, I would be working half the amount of hours per week. And yes, it is still happening now. Firmwide. For this sacrifice, not to mention the pressure that comes with it, I expect to be paid very well, otherwise I will take off. The best lawyers will always have offers - loyalty from lawyers in the MC used to be in traded for job security. Now the latter has been taken away, the loyalty has gone, and it will take a long time to rebuild.

MC/US lawyer -09 Feb 2009 | 23:12

The distinction is not between lawyers and the real world but between the privileged and the rest of society (no criticism intended). City lawyers are privileged in that they are skilled and those who are good are in demand. Remuneration in the legal sector is largely governed by market forces, meaning we don't need a union to negotiate a pay rise - if we are good we don't even need to leave our desks, headhunters will contact us offering more lucrative opportunities. This is at the heart of what MC Associate is saying when he talks about taking a redundancy quietly - he is saying that he will allow market forces to determine his fate, good or bad. The different views above are not right or wrong - they just represent the various reactions in the legal market. This is what Freshfields has to worry about - they've made a decision and the market will react. MC Trainee talks like he'd still take a job at Freshfields, MC Associate talks like he wouldn't accept it and would get a job at a better-paying firm, others might seek employment in the public sector etc etc. Calling the lockstep payscale a payrise doesn't tell the full picture either, it is more akin to a promotion with a corresponding pay rise - how many non-lawyers would accept an increase in responsibility with no increase in remuneration? As for comments on poor pay: unless you're an egalitarian you think that there should be differentials in pay. That being so, there are two distinct questions: do City lawyers get paid well, do I get paid well? Both of these are relative - the answer to the first is obviously yes, the answer to the second depends on how my salary compares to other lawyers of the same experience doing similar work etc. So a salary of £59k can be both good (relative to the average salary) and poor (relative to a US firm salary). Obviously lawyers shouldn't lose perspective of the fact that they are privileged, however neither should they accept a pay cut simply because they're still earning more than the average person. I accept that to many non-lawyers complaining about a £59K salary might be insensitive, but my exerience of non-lawyers tells me they find law generally boring and are unlikely to read a thread like this so I don't think we have to worry too much about those kind of insensitivities (though I wouldn't complain about a £59k salary in public since the complaint is likely to be misunderstood). Freshfields may or may not be damaged by their actions - it depends on whether those in the market who react adversely are the best. In my opinion they are likely to be. Some might think that securing an MC training contract is a mark of excellence, however for every five people who get one MC offer there is probably one person who gets five offers, it is these candidates that the MC are really competing for and whilst no trainee qualifying this summer will turn down a £59k job, if I were a law student with multiple MC offers I know that Freshfields' decision would certainly be a factor.

Anonymous -10 Feb 2009 | 08:20

As I said, the argument as to whether or not the salary is, in market conditions, good enough, or as much as everyone deserves given how hard they work etc, is one question; the argument as to whether it is "difficult to live on" £60-£70k is another. Both these arguments have been made and it is the latter I have a problem with. And yes, non-lawyers aren't going to come on here, but there are some lawyers, like me, who have seen real poverty and who are sickened by colleagues who class City salaries as "difficult to live on". It's those people who give lawyers a bad name...

Anonymous -10 Feb 2009 | 09:22

Why the assumptions that MC Associate is a "he"??....of course MCA may very well be, but I find it rather interesting that several posters have assumed "he" - not looking to stir (who me?), but...

Dorothy Gale -10 Feb 2009 | 09:52

I find the posts here completely gobsmacking to be honest. Do any of you (MC Associate in particular) have the first clue as to what is going on out there? To quote Ed Balls "the worst recession in 100 years". Are you all so self-satisfied that you think you should be immune from this? "It's ok for mere steel workers to get fired and take pay cuts, but why should I, an MC associate, have to do so?" Just listen to yourselves!I can confidently predict:all major City firms will introduce some form of pay cut;almost all major City firms will shed 10%-15% of their associates (just because Freshfields hasn't done it yet doesn't mean they won't...); profits per partner will go down, very significantly in some cases; and plenty of partners will be fired.If you have the first clue about law firm economics (and most of you clearly don't - I do, I used to manage one) this is not about maintaining average profit per partner at £1.5m (although I don't doubt some firms will manage this for the financial year ending April 09 - but remember these cuts are about next year and thereafter, not this year). This is about business survival. Try asking your departmental head about the financial effects of "operational gearing" (good in good times, very bad in bad times) and you will quickly see why the firms are doing what they are.The City is in financial dire straits. It is going to affect everyone. Those of you who thought the world owed you a (very handsome) living had better wake up and smell the coffee.Oh, and US firms are not recruiting. They are often in even worse shape than the UK firms. Those of you who think your salvation lies there are in for an even ruder shock than the rest!

Someone from the real world -10 Feb 2009 | 10:00

Dorothy - I assumed MC Associate was a he because that level of arrogance and sense of entitlement is more often (though not solely) found in men :)

City lawyer -10 Feb 2009 | 10:18

These posts are getting too long to read. If the main issue is whether partners should feel some pain rather than or as well as associates, I don't see why. Partners are by definition the ones who get to suit themselves. In case anyone had forgotten, that's why so many associates want to make partner.This 'debate' is as confused as listening to football supporters berating their club's new owners for buying it using debt. Um, remember who owns the business.

playftseforme -10 Feb 2009 | 10:18

How about we spare a thought for the non fee-earners who are also having their pay frozen but unfortunately get paid a fraction of what the trainees and associates earn. It's hard to listen to people moaning about a £60-£70k salary when you're on less than £25k and still don't leave at 5.30 or get 52 weekends a year... Now that's the real world.

Other side of the coin -10 Feb 2009 | 10:23

Dorothy - excellent post. I have wanted to write something similar for a while but you have managed to do so far more succinctly than I could.I would add that everybody seems to think that when a headline comes out, this represents a definitive and final position from the firm in question. So everyone says that Linklaters are making more redundancies than CC and Freshfields are making none etc.Rubbish - this is merely a snapshot in time. I think Freshfields have made a mistake doing what they have done precisely because everyone will interpret (as they have already done) that this move is to save everyone's jobs. I will be astonished if Freshfields do not make any redundancies this year. And if they don't, then they have a very peculiar business model as they will be paying lots of people to sit around doing nothing. Likewise, I think that CC have not done enough and will probably need a further round of redundancies later in the year.Given that all three firms will probably come out at the end of 2009 in a similar position, Linklaters may well end up being applauded for activing decisively in one hit (assuming of course that they don't also need a further round) to instil job security in those that are not affected. Better this than to see your firm bleeding lawyers steadily through the year and wondering when you will get the call....

Anon -10 Feb 2009 | 11:09

Firstly, pay freeze vs pay cut: this is relatively simple, but seems to be causing some problems. An NQ associate on £66k will stay on £66k at one year PQE. Therefore, that associate's base salary is being frozen, not cut. Freshfields is cutting each pay band, but that does not mean people will experience a cut in their basic salary, as they will be moving up to the next pay band. I assume the people most upset by the article are the ones struggling to comprehend this. Incidentally, a lawyer who can't understand something this simple is surely likely to be one of the ones affected by next week's follow-up article on a Freshfield's redundancy consultation! Secondly, re £59k: as a trainee (not Freshfields) approaching qualification, it is disappointing to read that NQ salaries will be lower. I'm sure this will set a new benchmark that will be followed by other firms. However, while it is hardly an obscene amount, £59k is certainly not a pittance. I suggest that those complaining that £60-70k AFTER tax is too little to live on consider how people on £35-£40k cope with the cost of mortgages, families etc. I suspect they don't pay £600/week in rent, live in zone 1, or privately educate their children. See? Simple really...

A -10 Feb 2009 | 12:34

This is an interesting debate but must be looked at from two sides. When times are good, bonuses do not necessarily match the increased fee revenue of firms they merely add to PEP. Bonuses do not come close to matching the fee income increase during so-called boom times. In bad times, cut salaries, sure, but in good times pay top bonuses or award increases. It has to work both ways. Freshfields didn't pay the top bracket bonus to any associate for the 2007-08 year at a time when the majority of the year was considered to be bumper.

Anon -10 Feb 2009 | 12:47

I don't agree with associates suffering so that partners keep the same PEP - they should share the risk. But given that they are too selfish to do that, and can't bear to only earn £1.3m rather than £1.4m, I'd rather see pay freezes or even pay cuts rather than redundancies.And most associates earn a lot more than £60-£70K - that's the rate for junior associates. Most will earn in excess of £100K, which is a high salary however you look at it - not compared with partners - but try being a teacher or a bus driver or even a public sector lawyer and look at what they earn!

Helen -10 Feb 2009 | 13:43

It is not until you see a discussion like this that clients really understand how much they are being overcharged by their legal advisers - or the kind of people they are paying for. As many of your posters have stated, these salaries and the remuneration of the partners is unreal and artificially maintained through an opaque, monopoly of insular professionals that refuse to explain how their bills add up, or what it is they actually provide clients by billing so highly, other than a kind of fear-induced legal insurance. All this so the overpaid can leap at each other's throats for daring to freeze their pay in the middle of a recession. Possibly one of the most unedifying spectacles in our society.

My name is Client -10 Feb 2009 | 14:41

Helen: the £60-£70k figure being referred to is earnings AFTER tax, so is not a junior lawyer salary (at least at UK firms).

A -10 Feb 2009 | 14:51

MC Associate - It's kinda sad that there are partners on this site masquerading as associates arguing in favour of their grubby self interests. Shame on you, you greedy capitalist. Just know that your head will be the first on the chopping block when the revolution comes.If you are actually an associate arguing against your own self-interest ... you have bigger problems than a salary cut.

bob dylan -10 Feb 2009 | 15:52

Other side of the coin - nice to see someone finally sticking up for the poor Business Services staff stuck in the middle of this. To all you associates etc earning over £50k - just spare a thought for your secretary/IT guy/Librarian/HR person etc who is having to go through the same thing, only with a fraction of the money you're moaning about. They're just as educated and work just as hard as you.

BusinessServices -10 Feb 2009 | 16:13

Sorry sanctimonious chaps, but most people became a corporate lawyer because it offered an appropriate trade-off between good salary and job security. To compare lawyers with other careers (teachers etc) is utterly pointless - they have chosen an entirely separate route and have entirely separate value systems. If the complaint is that teachers are underpaid versus lawyers, that's a separate issue and one for society to address.As for comparisons with other individuals within law firms (secretaries etc.), again the comparison is false. Despite their great value to firms, secretaries are not, as one poster stated above, as "educated" as fee-earners. Most, in my experience, do not even have a degree. This does not mean that they are not equally valuable to law firms but again, they have struck a different deal, In general, secretaries have an hour for lunch, clock off at 5.30 and have no desire for/expectation of partnership.Of course corporate lawyers are well paid - they are well-educated, dedicated and work hard (and are therefore in demand). Arguments to the contrary are unrealistic and stem from jealousy. The real issue here is whether it is acceptable for associates to take the brunt of the bad times having been awarded little of the benefit of the up times (in relative terms by comparison with the partners). On balance, I think Freshfields might have done more to anticipate the drop-off in demand but should at least be congratulated for attempting to preserve as many jobs as possible.

Greedy Associate -10 Feb 2009 | 16:28

"They're just as educated and work just as hard as you."Really?

I had to jump in -10 Feb 2009 | 18:01

Most PAs are *barely* qualified to wipe their own ample bottoms, and I have never seen them working weekends and through the night. Not sure what firm the poster works for, where the PAs are as qualified and work as hard as, the fee earners, but I would like to know, because it sounds like a place to avoid!!!

Stunned Associate, MC -10 Feb 2009 | 20:43

City Associate - sheer, unadulterated brilliance, which I suppose, in all too many cases is probably true!As to all the debate about whether or not pay freezes are warranted, who works hard and who doesn't, who "deserves" what they're paid and who doesn't, from my perspective, a great deal of this is probably of little consequence... increasingly (at least from my perspective, which is perhaps becoming increasingly cynical) it seems it's not so much a question of whether or not you're going to be shafted (said shafting coming in a wide variety of flavours - i.e. sacking for "performance reasons", redundancy, pay freeze, pay cut, no bonus, reduced prospects for advancement, etc.) but when, how badly, and what you might do prior to such shafting to mitigate the resulting damage to self...

Dorothy Gale -11 Feb 2009 | 09:51