Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thoughts on unpaid tc?

Don't do it. If they can't even pay $2000 I have doubts about retention, training and profitability.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't do it. If they can't even pay $2000 I have doubts about retention, training and profitability.

Or whatever the going market rate is.

The exploitation has to stop.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Thoughts on unpaid tc?

Don't do it. It's not about being choosy or entitled. Don't let the boomers gaslight you with notions like "u should be grateful we're giving u a chance to get called" and all that rubbish they tried to pull during the glut years. It was bare faced exploitation since the trainees were definitely outputting work that was of value.

The thought of some people I knew who suffered the indignity and explotation of unpaid TC, infuriates me.

Now there's a shortage of lawyers. There's no reason to accept such nonsense. Any firm that does this should raise major red flags.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I think it’s very frustrating and annoying to read.
I mean a facility agreement for instance is a facility agreement.
How do you tell lawyer A doing one agreement is better than the other? Apart from how much the client likes you?

Couldn’t agree more. Been in-house before. Absolutely couldn't stand it when firms we worked with "invite" (read: harass) us to give good reviews of their work come award season. It is almost as if the handsome rewards we give financially to them is not already enough.

Some of these awards have less credibility than the already-questionable google reviews, where at least those who feel like they got bad service could also give their 2-cents. From my experience, the firms that truly were a pleasure to work with were those who did their work well but quietly. These were sometimes cheaper too as they didn't waste time and money having marketing teams and instead let their work speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Couldn’t agree more. Been in-house before. Absolutely couldn't stand it when firms we worked with "invite" (read: harass) us to give good reviews of their work come award season. It is almost as if the handsome rewards we give financially to them is not already enough.

Some of these awards have less credibility than the already-questionable google reviews, where at least those who feel like they got bad service could also give their 2-cents. From my experience, the firms that truly were a pleasure to work with were those who did their work well but quietly. These were sometimes cheaper too as they didn't waste time and money having marketing teams and instead let their work speak for themselves.

Totally agree with this.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Don't do it. It's not about being choosy or entitled. Don't let the boomers gaslight you with notions like "u should be grateful we're giving u a chance to get called" and all that rubbish they tried to pull during the glut years. It was bare faced exploitation since the trainees were definitely outputting work that was of value.

The thought of some people I knew who suffered the indignity and explotation of unpaid TC, infuriates me.

Now there's a shortage of lawyers. There's no reason to accept such nonsense. Any firm that does this should raise major red flags.

Yeah, how do you even justify unpaid to your parents who paid for your university fees and now they have to continue funding your unpaid TC?

Keep applying.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yeah, how do you even justify unpaid to your parents who paid for your university fees and now they have to continue funding your unpaid TC?

Keep applying.

Even if all a trainee does is document review, there's still a ton of value for the team. Some firms also bill for trainee hours. If it is unpaid and you're bringing in billables, they're just profiting off your unpaid labour.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Couldn’t agree more. Been in-house before. Absolutely couldn't stand it when firms we worked with "invite" (read: harass) us to give good reviews of their work come award season. It is almost as if the handsome rewards we give financially to them is not already enough.

Some of these awards have less credibility than the already-questionable google reviews, where at least those who feel like they got bad service could also give their 2-cents. From my experience, the firms that truly were a pleasure to work with were those who did their work well but quietly. These were sometimes cheaper too as they didn't waste time and money having marketing teams and instead let their work speak for themselves.

100000% agree. But broader question. What relevance are such awards for the end user? If you have a litigation matter, it is complicated and you have a lot of funds, you go for an SC and are probably sophisticated enough to know to ignore these. If you have a complex commercial transaction, you again would be sophisticated enough to know who can do a stellar job in those areas and will go to them. In those situations, these awards are unnecessary and a distraction. And the man on the street won't be able to tell the difference from jack and won't be able to understand any of this, nor would they be able to pay any premium even if they wanted to. So apart from being a vanity contest to sate egos as one poster mentioned, how do these awards help any firm in marketing?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

100000% agree. But broader question. What relevance are such awards for the end user? If you have a litigation matter, it is complicated and you have a lot of funds, you go for an SC and are probably sophisticated enough to know to ignore these. If you have a complex commercial transaction, you again would be sophisticated enough to know who can do a stellar job in those areas and will go to them. In those situations, these awards are unnecessary and a distraction. And the man on the street won't be able to tell the difference from jack and won't be able to understand any of this, nor would they be able to pay any premium even if they wanted to. So apart from being a vanity contest to sate egos as one poster mentioned, how do these awards help any firm in marketing?

Assuming all that you said is true, at board meetings when they discuss these issues with their shareholders and directors, can you imagine the person in charge saying they have engaged a firm with no accolades to defend their litigation?

1) you’re giving too much credit to these supposed sophisticated people/corporations
2) accolades help present the firm to the board

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I can safely say that this is a norm rather than exception for a particular b4

which b4 is this