Jump to content

CanadaWater

Members
  • Content count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About CanadaWater

  • Rank

  1. 2017 Associate Salary Bump (Toronto)

    I've heard that at least two other firms announced they would match this week, but would wait to see where the market ends up. It sounds like there's some uncertainty as to what the final ranges will be.
  2. 2017 Associate Salary Bump (Toronto)

    Another as-yet-unreported firm announced raises yesterday, and a few others are expected to follow suit within the few days.
  3. 2017 Associate Salary Bump (Toronto)

    It's far from clear whether all firms will adopt a higher payscale (though most likely will). If I were a 2L going into in-firm interviews, this would be a major consideration.
  4. 2017 Associate Salary Bump (Toronto)

    You can find sources to support virtually any argument in this context. For example, look at the Chambers rankings for corporate/M&A and litigation in Canada (and the firms that appear in bands 1-2): https://www.chambersandpartners.com/18251/354/editorial/20/1 https://www.chambersandpartners.com/18251/467/editorial/20/1 The bullshit comes in when you start applying these rankings to compensation. For example, why should a litigation associate at BJ make more than a litigation associate at McT? I doubt there's actually a compelling reason, but firms will often say that they only compare themselves with a certain subset of competitors (which conveniently all pay the same salary).
  5. 2017 Associate Salary Bump (Toronto)

    Yes, 100%. From what I've seen/heard, senior people at those firms in decisions making roles care a lot about what their perceived competitors are doing/not doing. Regardless of whether its an outmoded way of thinking, the "Seven Sister" concept still carries a lot of weight in certain circles. Associates (at least the ones that I know) generally think these distinctions are ridiculous.
  6. 2017 Associate Salary Bump (Toronto)

    Not at all. In fact, I agree with you that the "Seven Sisters" distinction is largely bullshit. The point I'm trying to make is that the "Seven Sisters" concept is used by certain decision-makers at Blakes, Osler, McCarthys, etc. to justify not making salary adjustments in line with other firms, who by many other metrics would be competitors. This argument doesn't apply to Davies. Decision-makers at the other Seven Sister firms would (and do) say they don't compete with Davies for work or talent (again, bullshit reasoning - people from Torys/Blakes/Dentons/etc. work across from people at Davies all the time).
  7. 2017 Associate Salary Bump (Toronto)

    I understand where you're coming from, but it's an important distinction to the extent decision-makers at Toronto firms think it's important. If Osler were to raise their salaries, then there would be huge pressure on Torys, Blakes, Stikes, etc. to raise their salaries. When other firms (i.e., non-seven sister) raise salaries, decision-makers at seven sister firms can rationalize maintaining the status quo because, in their view, they generally don't compete for the same clients, talent, etc. as those other firms. I'm not defending this position, but rather explaining why it remains relevant in the context of salaries.
  8. Effective August 1, 2017, at least one Bay Street firm will be moving to the following salary grid: 1st Year - $100,000 2nd Year - $120,000 3rd Year - $150,000 4th Year - $165,000 5th Year - $175,000 6th Year - $190,000 Source: I have a close friend that works at this firm and can 100% confirm this isn't speculation. I'm not willing to discuss specifics, but it's a large, non-Seven Sister firm with offices across Canada and internationally. Certain salary bands remain unchanged (e.g., 1st years and 6th years), but there is a decent increase in years 2-5 (as compared with standard Bay Street salaries). It will be interesting to see how long it takes for other firms to follow suit.
×