Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hello,

I'm on 7k a month with the rest being bonus.

I have a very good relationship with my ex-boss and i don't think it will be a problem for me to go back to private practice - but be clear that this will not be based on any kind of merit, it is very much based on connection (and our past working relationship, which was very good). I left practice because i felt i was being severely undervalued/underpaid (nothing to do with the boss mentioned above, just the culture in general). I'm currently on slightly less than twice what i used to earn and possibly a thousand more than what i would be earning had i remained in practice.

I miss practice a lot. The difference in terms of intellectual rigor is great - a lot of what i do is very much people management as opposed to hardcore legal work.

My welcome to this company was marred in equal part by the culture shock and steep learning (being the politics and people management) curve. The role of legal counsel requires you to work with many different people on a daily basis, each with their own agenda (most of the times not even hidden). It is like being thrown in a wolf's den because you know they are only working with you so they can throw you under the bus if anything blows up. It takes a certain finesse to maintain the tenuous balance between keeping people (remember that there is usually more than one person on any deal) happy and making the legally correct calls.

It is also a very lonely role - you should be used to making judgment calls on a daily basis. If you call your GC for approval on decisions often, the likelihood is that you won't have a job for much longer.

I think if you can find a firm that truly values your talents and skills and is willing to investment in your learning and progression, it is worthwhile to continue in practice. I sometimes think that if i had met seniors who were kinder (and more generous with teaching and mentoring) and firms that truly believe in the potential of their people, I would've stayed for a long time. Unfortunately, a lot of seniors are just plain assholes.

Good luck!

Thanks for sharing

Sorry if i misread, but you were making abt 3.5k at 2 year pqe? Or 14k?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sorry, do you mean "a thousand less"?

Also, I'm surprised you're taking in "only" (I say this with caution, of course) $7k/month before bonuses. I always heard that in-house offers match your current pay in private practice but simply freeze your pay progression for a number of years. I didn't expect one could take >50% paycut for moving to in-house...

Not sure if i read right

I thought he meant he used to earn abt 3.5k and it doubled when he went in house

Not sure why anyone would take a 50% paycut

Or who is earning 14k at 2y pqe

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not sure if i read right

I thought he meant he used to earn abt 3.5k and it doubled when he went in house

Not sure why anyone would take a 50% paycut

Or who is earning 14k at 2y pqe

Pretty sure it's this.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Pretty sure it's this.

More like he used to earn $4k in private practice as an NQ, and got poached in-house for $7k, which is $1k less than double of his old paycheck.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

More like he used to earn $4k in private practice as an NQ, and got poached in-house for $7k, which is $1k less than double of his old paycheck.

Ya sounds correct

From the way he wrote i guess he's in liti

Given what he was earning I guess in a smallish firm

Not a bad dec to go in house i guess

Anyone concerned about the recent proposal to scale fees in litigation / limit our earnings? Will this cause a drop in the salary of litigation associates?

Personally I think this will affect the small-mid firms the most who do the bulk of low-mid value litigation work. For high value litigation work, the rewards are still there e.g. for a 10m claim the cap is about $140k (still lower than now of course). Also doesn't affect international arbitration.

Is it still viable to go into liti?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Anyone concerned about the recent proposal to scale fees in litigation / limit our earnings? Will this cause a drop in the salary of litigation associates?

Personally I think this will affect the small-mid firms the most who do the bulk of low-mid value litigation work. For high value litigation work, the rewards are still there e.g. for a 10m claim the cap is about $140k (still lower than now of course). Also doesn't affect international arbitration.

Is it still viable to go into liti?

I agree that it will largely affect the small-mid firms. The fees are still no where near high enough for "high value" litigation work. Fees in a big firm for a 10mn file can range from 600k to 1m. The difference is that clients who require "high value" work are far more likely to agree to exclude scaled fees.

What I think will be the end result would be further stratification of the legal profession. As fees for the small to mid firms go down, these firms will push down their juniors salaries. Coupled with the new rules on qualification, the legal profession will become less and less of an attractive proposition. This will eventually lead to a lack of juniors. We'd become more and more like the HK legal market. Probably not the intended result.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

More like he used to earn $4k in private practice as an NQ, and got poached in-house for $7k, which is $1k less than double of his old paycheck.

Lol, no. He meant he used to earn probably about $3.5k in practice, and was poached in-house for probably around $6.5k (which is slightly less than twice what he used to earn i.e. $3.5k).

After spending some time working in-house, \with salary increments, he is earning $7k now, which he thinks should be $1k more than what he would have been earning if he stayed in practice (i.e. his pay would have only gone up to $6k in private practice, in the same time he has spent in-house).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Anyone concerned about the recent proposal to scale fees in litigation / limit our earnings? Will this cause a drop in the salary of litigation associates?

Personally I think this will affect the small-mid firms the most who do the bulk of low-mid value litigation work. For high value litigation work, the rewards are still there e.g. for a 10m claim the cap is about $140k (still lower than now of course). Also doesn't affect international arbitration.

Is it still viable to go into liti?

I think Shen Yi's article on law watch today sums it up well. Either go to international firms and do arbitration, or leave the litigation bar entirely. Seriously planning to move before the reforms kick in.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I agree that it will largely affect the small-mid firms. The fees are still no where near high enough for "high value" litigation work. Fees in a big firm for a 10mn file can range from 600k to 1m. The difference is that clients who require "high value" work are far more likely to agree to exclude scaled fees.

What I think will be the end result would be further stratification of the legal profession. As fees for the small to mid firms go down, these firms will push down their juniors salaries. Coupled with the new rules on qualification, the legal profession will become less and less of an attractive proposition. This will eventually lead to a lack of juniors. We'd become more and more like the HK legal market. Probably not the intended result.

This seems to be the end result of the legal industry in a lot of developed markets - the US legal profession is also highly stratified with two humps.

https://www.biglawinvestor.com/bimod...ibution-curve/

i.e get good or get out before its too late - other industries are more forgiving