Lawyer Salary

Finally...somebody who knows what they are talking about and not some self-entitled grad.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But do you seriously think all those highly paid junior management consultants and investment bankers are doing cutting edge stuff too? No. They are doing the same boring number crunching, plugging figures into excel sheets or changing the fonts in the powerpoint decks.

I agree with you. But please address what happens for BOTH the bankers and the lawyers AT the senior level.

Are you tell me that the process is wildly different at the senior? Is it any much different from the roles where the senior banker constructs, analyzes and executes a deal in his domain and THEN senior lawyer drafts the contracts.

I think most of us are arguing that the majority of law work, at the junior or senior level, follows what their client does.

Someone, institutional or retail buys a property, the lawyer drafts the contract.
A banker finalizes a M&A deal, the lawyer drafts the contract.
A broker intends to push out a business insurance product to the market, the lawyer drafts the contract.
You get the point? Someone thinks of X, the lawyer drafts the contract of X.

I'm only speaking from what I hear. There could very well be lawyers that do creative work. But I only envision those to be criminal lawyers as I only have what I see on TV to go by, which numerous blogs themselves say it's still the exception.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I agree with you. But please address what happens for BOTH the bankers and the lawyers AT the senior level.

Are you tell me that the process is wildly different at the senior? Is it any much different from the roles where the senior banker constructs, analyzes and executes a deal in his domain and THEN senior lawyer drafts the contracts.

I think most of us are arguing that the majority of law work, at the junior or senior level, follows what their client does.

Someone, institutional or retail buys a property, the lawyer drafts the contract.
A banker finalizes a M&A deal, the lawyer drafts the contract.
A broker intends to push out a business insurance product to the market, the lawyer drafts the contract.
You get the point? Someone thinks of X, the lawyer drafts the contract of X.

I'm only speaking from what I hear. There could very well be lawyers that do creative work. But I only envision those to be criminal lawyers as I only have what I see on TV to go by, which numerous blogs themselves say it's still the exception.

I'm a new poster. What you say may be correct for some types of transactions that you have been exposed to, especially those fully domestic transactions. But there are other transactions which require Creative input mainly from Lawyers, for example structuring private equity funds which have an offshore domicile in the Cayman Islands but are managed by firms domiciled in another country, with various SPVs and other entities in between. You need Lawyers to be the main Drivers in terms of setting up entities, structuring their relationship in accordance with the laws of each jurisdiction.

You just need to broaden your view of the types of legal work there are.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I agree with you. But please address what happens for BOTH the bankers and the lawyers AT the senior level.

Are you tell me that the process is wildly different at the senior? Is it any much different from the roles where the senior banker constructs, analyzes and executes a deal in his domain and THEN senior lawyer drafts the contracts.

I think most of us are arguing that the majority of law work, at the junior or senior level, follows what their client does.

Someone, institutional or retail buys a property, the lawyer drafts the contract.
A banker finalizes a M&A deal, the lawyer drafts the contract.
A broker intends to push out a business insurance product to the market, the lawyer drafts the contract.
You get the point? Someone thinks of X, the lawyer drafts the contract of X.

I'm only speaking from what I hear. There could very well be lawyers that do creative work. But I only envision those to be criminal lawyers as I only have what I see on TV to go by, which numerous blogs themselves say it's still the exception.

Even just talking about purely transactional lawyers, as opposed to disputes lawyers e.g. civil and criminal litigators, you have a very narrow view of what it is lawyers do.

The contract is just the reduction of how a deal is structured into the written form. There are a lot of other things that go on between "Someone thinks of X" and "lawyer drafts the contract of X".

There's due diligence (boring as hell), regulatory compliance (think Securities and Futures Act, is SGX or MAS going to chew your client's ass off?), legal issues that pop up (hmmm this seems legal on paper, but does it comply with the spirit of the rules?), timelines, clients' commercial concerns in terms of time and costs, anti-trust issues (is the Competition Commission going to object?), jurisdictional issues (Cayman Islands SPVs), trusts and equitable issues, potential dispute resolution mechanisms (if the deal collapses).

Who structures the deal? Of course the bankers. But the lawyers' input is there to ensure that the legal position is solid, not only from a contractual and corporate law perspective, but a regulatory perspective as well.

Of course for the vast majority of transactions, lawyers rely on past precedents and standard forms. But every deal is different. There is room for creative dealmaking as well.

Who invented the famous poison pill defense for hostile takeovers? Martin Lipton, one of the most famous M&A lawyers in America.

Think of it another way. Aren't bankers no different from real estate agents? Except that they buy and sell companies instead of houses.

Well, lawyers and bankers are both middle men to be sure.

However, what do you say of the view that lawyers earn less, especially at the beginning stages of their career?

This is coupled with the fact that the hours in law are pretty brutal though not as bad as IB.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Well, lawyers and bankers are both middle men to be sure.

However, what do you say of the view that lawyers earn less, especially at the beginning stages of their career?

This is coupled with the fact that the hours in law are pretty brutal though not as bad as IB.

Comparing law and IBD is as ridiculous as comparing between poly and jc. One class is clearly above the other.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Comparing law and IBD is as ridiculous as comparing between poly and jc. One class is clearly above the other.

Agreed. You are comparing the average lawyer with the top 1% finance student. For a better comparison, compare the salaries of IBD with a magic circle or white shoe law firm. They are about the same.

The last time i checked it was A LOT easier to enter a Finance related course than Law faculties in general.

For me, my issue is that law is ridiculously overrated.

Even if you take away IB, their pay package is only slightly better than MA/Grad programs from banks and MNCs. And in time to come, these people even have the opportunity to surpass them.

Most reputable banking/MA programs have salaries in the range of 4-5k. Law starts about 5k +, definitely below 6k for big 4. And this is excluding bonuses. Law doesn't give good bonuses, especially for juniors, so they might even be equal where total package is concerned.

Yet junior lawyers work longer hours, and do incredibly mundane work starting out.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For me, my issue is that law is ridiculously overrated.

Even if you take away IB, their pay package is only slightly better than MA/Grad programs from banks and MNCs. And in time to come, these people even have the opportunity to surpass them.

Most reputable banking/MA programs have salaries in the range of 4-5k. Law starts about 5k +, definitely below 6k for big 4. And this is excluding bonuses. Law doesn't give good bonuses, especially for juniors, so they might even be equal where total package is concerned.

Yet junior lawyers work longer hours, and do incredibly mundane work starting out.

Apples to oranges. You can't compare top notch IBD, PE, and MA entry level positions with entry level legal associate positions in general.

You are comparing the top 10-15% of business/finance/accounting/econs grads with 80-90% of the law grads.

Look at salary medians instead. The average law grad (50% percentile in his/her class) is better off in terms of staring salary than the average business/finance/accounting/econs grad (50% percentile in his/her class).

That being said, it is my opinion that comparing starting salaries is about as satisfying as scratching your balls. It's shiok for a while. After that, what then?

Work on finding your career fulfilment, regardless of whether you stay in the industry that you originally studied for or started out in.

For baby lawyers complaining that they are underpaid and doing dog **** work, wake up your idea and make your own career success.

Hate law? Go into civil service. Go into finance. Take the CFA. Whatever.

Go hustle and stand out from the crowd. Apply to Blackstone and tell them why your experience as a funds lawyer (however junior it may be) sets you apart from the tons of aspiring finance graduates. Use the cachet of prestige from a law degree (while it still lasts).

Or you can sit on your ass and continue whining about your mediocre career. Your choice.