maanv11

Toronto Salary Increases

54 posts in this topic

Just now, Livinginamerica said:

I'm not so sure. Again, without any statistical data, it's hard to say, so I'll have to throw a question back at you, in your experience, have people with very high IQs tended to have good or bad EQ compared to the broader population? I would argue there is some negative correlation between very high IQ and good EQ, but that's just my opinion based on experience. I feel students at lower ranked schools often have better EQ for a variety of reasons.

 

Studies I've seen don't indicate a significant correlation between IQ and EQ [Source]

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlockedQuebecois said:

Studies I've seen don't indicate a significant correlation between IQ and EQ [Source]

Interesting, perhaps it would balance out then. I think, for a lot of reasons, people who do well on these sorts of metrics tend to focus less on developing EQ because they feel they can get by on IQ alone, but I'd probably agree that's more on them and many are perfectly capable of improving their outward manifestations of EQ. 

 

I probably will concede that GPA and LSAT probably have some predictive ability regarding the speed and acuity with which one can grasp the law, although this does not necessarily mean that someone lower on these metrics cannot equal or exceed the understanding of someone higher on these metrics, but that it will nonetheless take them longer and be more challenging for them to reach the same level. Such is life, one might say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Livinginamerica said:

Interesting, perhaps it would balance out then. I think, for a lot of reasons, people who do well on these sorts of metrics tend to focus less on developing EQ because they feel they can get by on IQ alone, but I'd probably agree that's more on them and many are perfectly capable of improving their outward manifestations of EQ. 

 

I probably will concede that GPA and LSAT probably have some predictive ability regarding the speed and acuity with which one can grasp the law, although this does not necessarily mean that someone lower on these metrics cannot equal or exceed the understanding of someone higher on these metrics, but that it will nonetheless take them longer and be more challenging for them to reach the same level. Such is life, one might say.

 

Oh, I don't object to the fact that some people with lower GPAs and LSATs will be far better lawyers than some who scored better on those metrics, but I'm talking about the population level, and those people are outliers. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maximumbob said:

Junior associate work may not be particularly complicated (although you probably don't want idiots doing it) but you're hiring associates on the hope that they will become future partners (or, if they leave, that they will find good positions in-house and give you work). So hiring schlubs isn't really an option.  Sure, you could fill out a full house of articling students by paying the, $40k a year, but you aren't going to be getting the people you want 4, 10, or 20 years down the road.  

And, I don't know, the US biglaw lawyers I've met are generally pretty impressive, I'm pretty sure they were hired for more than just prestige.  


My question would be: what's the conversion rate of summer/articling student to Partner?

If only a small percentage of those hired early on make it to partner and most head off somewhere else, then why pay the salary if most (or an amount that wouldn't strongly deviate from a random sampling) of your eventual partners come from after the summer/articling stage? I was never in biglaw, never close to it, but I perceive the prevailing wisdom on this forum to be that the rate of summer/articling students that ultimately stick around 4/10/20 years later at the same firm is relatively low?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are plenty of people hired to do junior associate work who are not able to do it competently. It's easy to do poorly. It's not easy to do well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Myrand said:


My question would be: what's the conversion rate of summer/articling student to Partner?

If only a small percentage of those hired early on make it to partner and most head off somewhere else, then why pay the salary if most (or an amount that wouldn't strongly deviate from a random sampling) of your eventual partners come from after the summer/articling stage? I was never in biglaw, never close to it, but I perceive the prevailing wisdom on this forum to be that the rate of summer/articling students that ultimately stick around 4/10/20 years later at the same firm is relatively low?

It is.  But let me ask you this, what's the conversion rate of Major League Baseball draft picks to MLB players?  Would it make sense for MLB teams to recruit less talented prospects to save a few bucks?  To ask the question is to answer it.  The one or two people in a given class who become partners 10 years down the road form the backbone of the firm and it's culture.

Moreover you're ignoring the second point, that firms want people who are going to succeed even if they leave the firm (e.g., by going in-house or into business) since that's a source of work and relationships.  

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maximumbob said:

It is.  But let me ask you this, what's the conversion rate of Major League Baseball draft picks to MLB players?  Would it make sense for MLB teams to recruit less talented prospects to save a few bucks?  To ask the question is to answer it.  The one or two people in a given class who become partners 10 years down the road form the backbone of the firm and it's culture.

Moreover you're ignoring the second point, that firms want people who are going to succeed even if they leave the firm (e.g., by going in-house or into business) since that's a source of work and relationships.  

 

Exactly big law firms are aware that out of their 30 articling students for any given year, one maybe two will make partner. That is how the model works and just because only a couple people make partner doesn't mean the other students that 'fell off' were not profitable and useful while they were with the firm.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salary increases aren't going to be driven by supply/demand because there's an overabundance of indebted lawyers. Intuitively you'd think increasing salaries might be a response to debt, but I think it's the opposite. Escalating student debt will actually stop firms from giving raises because it handcuffs more graduating students into needing corporate jobs. In a world where students weren't so handcuffed, fewer might select Bay St paths and then the firms might need to offer more money to entice them. Now, the debt is doing that for them.

I'd think that the only way you see salary increases is if you had a situation like in the States where a ton (I mean like 100+) firms are paying on the same scale, and then the top of the pack chooses to raise salaries as a way to aggresively put pressure on lower firms ("Now you need to raise salaries to match us, and it's going to eat into your PPP more than it'll eat into ours!"). Given the fewer number of firms in Canada, I'm not exactly optimistic.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sng said:

Intuitively you'd think increasing salaries might be a response to debt, but I think it's the opposite. Escalating student debt will actually stop firms from giving raises because it handcuffs more graduating students into needing corporate jobs. In a world where students weren't so handcuffed, fewer might select Bay St paths and then the firms might need to offer more money to entice them. Now, the debt is doing that for them.

Incredibly, I was thinking *exactly* this as I crushed myself onto the subway tonight. I think it's true. There's no incentive for firms to increase salaries significantly, because as it is, there are people lining up to get the jobs. Why would they? If anything they could lower salaries.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, lightthefire said:

Incredibly, I was thinking *exactly* this as I crushed myself onto the subway tonight. I think it's true. There's no incentive for firms to increase salaries significantly, because as it is, there are people lining up to get the jobs. Why would they? If anything they could lower salaries.

On some (most?) routes during rush hour.. there is no better way to describe commuting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^This is why I love being within walking distance. Public transit is so unpleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't they raise when NYC raised in the 2000s? Feb 2006 SullCrom went from 125 to 145 and the market followed right away. Then 2007 Simpson Thacher moved up to 160 and everyone followed. Cravath raised to 180 summer 2016 after almost a decade. It seems like Toronto is due.

Aren't alot of UofT students turning down bay street for NYC? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Marlo said:

Didn't they raise when NYC raised in the 2000s? Feb 2006 SullCrom went from 125 to 145 and the market followed right away. Then 2007 Simpson Thacher moved up to 160 and everyone followed. Cravath raised to 180 summer 2016 after almost a decade. It seems like Toronto is due.

Aren't alot of UofT students turning down bay street for NYC? 

This is the only reason why they would raise salaries. 

That being said, it increase in the number of students, the decrease in the number of jobs and the increase in debt load all drag costs down.

Unless firms think that the US market is draining talent from Canada, they have no reason to raise salaries. The low dollar may also encourage this, as it means we are 1. Cheaper globally and 2. American salaries are even more attractive.

 

Really, schools like Ottawa and Queen's increasing class sizes is bad news for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Marlo said:

Aren't alot of UofT students turning down bay street for NYC? 

I've noticed this happening more frequently as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.