Editor’s weekly: Fair pay
Share
Do you think it’s fair for corporate associates who often put in all-nighters to earn exactly the same as their colleagues in non-transactional departments who enjoy more regular working hours?
If not, you’ll probably be surprised to learn that’s how most major law firms pay their associates. Known as lockstep an associate’s pay is linked to the number of years they have been qualified.
But some firms are gradually phasing out such systems in favour of ones that are more flexible. Allen & Overy, Denton Wilde Sapte and Norton Rose have already stopped using post-qualification experience (PQE) as a benchmark for assessing associates and determining remuneration, while CMS Cameron McKenna and Simmons & Simmons are understood to be conducting reviews of their development systems.
Magic circle firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, meanwhile, is overhauling its career development model in London from spring 2010 and replacing PQE to assess development with a so-called career milestones system (see article).
As you would expect, any moves to do away with associate lockstep will generate resistance from some quarters with even some City managing partners warning against it (read article). Indeed, many Lawyer2B.com and TheLawyer.com users have also come out in defence of associate lockstep.
“Nobody is pretending that locksteps are a good system, but as Churchill said of democracy, it is the least worst that has been tried. Big firms just aren’t equipped to properly assess merit across practice groups, let alone assess potential recruits against their existing crop of associates,” wrote one poster.
Elsewhere, for those of you who are contemplating a career in legal aid you might be interested to learn that according to the Law Society legal aid lawyers earn less than sewerage workers (read article).
Last but not least click here to find out why girl power rules at LG.
PS – congratulations to University of Leicester law student Elizabeth Garcia, the winner of our Legally Blonde competition.
Although I returned home from work utterly exhausted yesterday I managed to squeeze out enough energy to have a heated discussion with my husband about the lack of quality careers advice on offer to students at state secondary schools.
Readers' comments (6)
Anonymous | 24-Nov-2009 9:12 am
It's totally fair that they earn the same. The work of corporate lawyers is often a lot less demanding than that of other departments - whilst the hours are longer the technical expertise demanded is a lot less. From my experiences of corporate and banking it's often just about stamina and who can stay awake the longest whereas you need a certain level of intelligence to work in other departments....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Nov-2009 5:26 pm
Lawer2B, you have GOT to be kidding if you think Corporate have it tough at the moment and 'non-transactional' Litigation teams are coasting along. Qualifying, or even training, in Litigation right now will be a sharp wake-up call for anyone who thinks that it involves lunches with clients and evenings at the theatre. Litigation is counter-cyclical which means that when the economy is tanking, Litigation is thriving. Unfortunately, this has to happen on the reduced team numbers that transactional partners will allow of it's contentious counterpart just before the bubble bursts.
Perhaps Corporate lawyers should be paid more for the mundanity of their work, but that's a completely different argument.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 25-Nov-2009 6:08 pm
In my experience, firms tend to conceal a pay differential by grading corporate assistants a band higher than their peers of equal ability in other departments; and they also operate a bonus system based on chargeable hours which favours those doing transactional work. So the poor little darlings get some recompense for those lost weekends after all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
tuttifruti | 26-Nov-2009 10:37 am
"Enjoy more regular working hours"? Give me a break, that is utter cobblers. Has the person writing this misconceived article ever worked in a major city law firm? If you think big ticket litigation is any less demanding, both in terms of hours and in terms of intellect, than corporate transactions then you are a fool.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Husnara Begum | 26-Nov-2009 12:23 pm
Tuttifruti - for the record I worked as a corporate lawyer in a magic circle firm before I changed careers to become a journalist so contrary to what you think I do know what I'm talking about - granted there are probably a number of corporate lawyers sitting around without much to do. But when the boom times return I'm sure that will change again. So rather you're the fool.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Kz | 26-Nov-2009 12:25 pm
lol@Husnara! I love it when someone proves someone wrong :D
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment