Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
harveyspecter993

Bay Street Bonuses

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, pzabbythesecond said:

I'm just going to throw it out there that McGill doesn't have some super detailed course on large firm compensation schemes In Toronto and NYC. We have the general business associations course and whatnot, but certainly nothing to teach Chirico the information he's claiming is true.

You know nothing about me, what I have done before, who I know, what I have researched. Why don't you focus about looking into things yourself?

Non-winners focus on winners, winners focus on winning.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, chirico said:

Non-winners focus on winners, winners focus on winning.

Kevin Durant begs to differ. 

Juvenile cliches have limited value in the real world. 

Edit: Wow, how could I forget the granddaddy of them all, the President to the South? He would love that line. 

Edited by easttowest

Share this post


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

I have zero idea why someone would attack my credibility because this is anonymous forum. You should not believe anything ANYONE says, merely use the information provided to look into it yourself.

If you disagree with the information that I provide, feel free to look into it yourself! You might want to speak with recruiters, people on the management committee of your firm, or read blogs of consultants to law firms like Adam Smith Esq.

In any case, the market is moving towards eat-what-you kill model. Feel free to look into it.

Because it’s not that anonymous. 

But also, because you’re the one that made it about credentials. You told Hoju you wouldn’t listen to him until he was up for Counsel. If that’s the bar for this “debate”, you’re at least 7 years too junior to have an opinion. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I have zero idea why someone would attack my credibility because this is anonymous forum. You should not believe anything ANYONE says, merely use the information provided to look into it yourself.

If you disagree with the information that I provide, feel free to look into it yourself! You might want to speak with recruiters, people on the management committee of your firm, or read blogs of consultants to law firms like Adam Smith Esq.

In any case, the market is moving towards eat-what-you kill model. Feel free to look into it.

I agree, I can't understand why people would attack your credibility here given that your posts are so ridiculous, you don't have any.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I have zero idea why someone would attack my credibility because this is anonymous forum. You should not believe anything ANYONE says, merely use the information provided to look into it yourself.

Because this forum is often used as a source of information for people who can't or don't know how to find answers to their questions elsewhere. If you spread information, it should be done responsibly.

Quote

In any case, the market is moving towards eat-what-you kill model. Feel free to look into it.

And again, I disagree. My observation is that some of the remaining eat-what-you-kill full service firms are moving towards lock-step. I even know of a crim firm that has moved to salary lately.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so person positing idea is the one responsible for backing it up. Persuasive burden of proof. 

Also, we can criticize ideas without making it personal, etc. Everyone take a breath. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each partnership agreement is negotiated separately and there are all kinds of base models out there. Revenues fluxuate. Expenses fluxuate. There is a big incentive for partners to suggest a high profit per partner when it’s high, to make their partnership buy in more valuable. Dry those salty tears and hold onto the grains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 8:58 PM, NYCLawyer said:

Is your “part of the country” inside Marie Henien’s offices?  I’m pretty far from a criminal lawyer but I have trouble believing that $250k is on the low side for a criminal practice anywhere in the country. 

Where I live, you can obtain everyone's legal aid billings. And for 10 or so people who are partners in criminal firms, their numbers are high enough that even when you clip off expenses, adding back in as much cash as I bill (and I'd be shocked if they don't bill far more) and a percentage of their associates' billings, they are north of 300K.

I can also think of at least 10 lawyers who are partners in criminal firms and don't do much legal aid because they can bill more privately, so I'd have to assume they'd be north of 300K as well. A judge I worked closely with who used to practice with some of them has said their judge's salary (which is public and close to 300K) is a pay cut and that more top-ranking defence don't want to be judges for a reason. 

So based on hard information and not just people bragging, I conclude that there are at least 20 criminal partners in my jurisdiction making 300K or higher, and so 250K is on the low side for a partner, which is what I said (not for a criminal practitioner.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 8:34 PM, providence said:

I never really get the point of non-equity partners. My husband says they definitely are not to be compared with equity partners - sometimes they are people who are being considered or want to be considered for partner at a later time, sometimes they are people who are not going to be partner but you want to keep them around for their knowledge and make them feel like they are more valuable than a regular associate. I still think it’s kind of weird.

This all varies by firm - in many places income partner is a "holding tank" for senior associates that could use the title for marketing purposes but who haven't been voted in by the partnership yet.  Sometimes you can stay there for years.

In other firms, "income partner" is a category people stay in, often by choice.  It most often applies to people:

(a) with specialized practices that rely on other people's clients to be fruitful; 

(b) with no client development skills (or inclination to do client development) who are excellent lawyers that will always be reliant on other partners for their income; or

(c) who like their jobs and want to keep them just the way they are.

I know this sounds crazy, but being a partner is a lot of work.  You're responsible not only for running your own files at the highest possible level, managing a legal team and hustling for clients, but also for a share of running a massive, multimillion-dollar business.  It's a lot of stress!  It's like working two full white-collar jobs.

And on top of that, to constantly be competing for more units and worrying about collections and new client development and having your compensation veer wildly based on other people's work... not everyone wants that kind of life, even if it pays a lot more.

My articling principal was a sure thing for partnership, but she just didn't want to bill 20-bajillion hours a year.  She's an awesome mom as well as being a kick-ass lawyer, and she has her own clients and everything, but she wanted to work 9 to 5.  The firm would rather suffer a building fire than lose her to someone else, so they were happy to agree.  A very high fixed income and low-ish hours, all the while getting to do headline-grabbing Bay Street work... it's not unreasonable that some people would prefer that arrangement.

In many cases, they've more than earned the title of "partner" - they just don't want to participate in running the business.

That is the exception, though.  I'd venture that most "income partners" are just very senior associates in waiting to make equity.  I have heard, though, that the more millennials start coming up for partner, the more interest there is in taking an income-partner arrangement.

That's another factor; firms don't necessarily want too many of those kicking around.  They want partnership to mean something, and they want people to be motivated to bill like mad and run the company well.  Losing too many partners to permanent second-tier status can starve the partnership of the talent it needs to be competitive.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, lioness said:

Where I live, you can obtain everyone's legal aid billings. And for 10 or so people who are partners in criminal firms, their numbers are high enough that even when you clip off expenses, adding back in as much cash as I bill (and I'd be shocked if they don't bill far more) and a percentage of their associates' billings, they are north of 300K.

I can also think of at least 10 lawyers who are partners in criminal firms and don't do much legal aid because they can bill more privately, so I'd have to assume they'd be north of 300K as well. A judge I worked closely with who used to practice with some of them has said their judge's salary (which is public and close to 300K) is a pay cut and that more top-ranking defence don't want to be judges for a reason. 

So based on hard information and not just people bragging, I conclude that there are at least 20 criminal partners in my jurisdiction making 300K or higher, and so 250K is on the low side for a partner, which is what I said (not for a criminal practitioner.) 

Fair enough. I guess from my perspective not being in the top 20 or so partners doesn’t put you on the “low side” but maybe this is semantics. In any event I would not have guessed people are making 300k+ off legal aid files.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An income of $250K puts you in the top 1% of earners in every province but Alberta. Lawyers do well, but I'm not sure the expectation is that you'll be a one per center automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Uriel said:

This all varies by firm - in many places income partner is a "holding tank" for senior associates that could use the title for marketing purposes but who haven't been voted in by the partnership yet.  Sometimes you can stay there for years.

In other firms, "income partner" is a category people stay in, often by choice.  It most often applies to people:

(a) with specialized practices that rely on other people's clients to be fruitful; 

(b) with no client development skills (or inclination to do client development) who are excellent lawyers that will always be reliant on other partners for their income; or

(c) who like their jobs and want to keep them just the way they are.

I know this sounds crazy, but being a partner is a lot of work.  You're responsible not only for running your own files at the highest possible level, managing a legal team and hustling for clients, but also for a share of running a massive, multimillion-dollar business.  It's a lot of stress!  It's like working two full white-collar jobs.

And on top of that, to constantly be competing for more units and worrying about collections and new client development and having your compensation veer wildly based on other people's work... not everyone wants that kind of life, even if it pays a lot more.

My articling principal was a sure thing for partnership, but she just didn't want to bill 20-bajillion hours a year.  She's an awesome mom as well as being a kick-ass lawyer, and she has her own clients and everything, but she wanted to work 9 to 5.  The firm would rather suffer a building fire than lose her to someone else, so they were happy to agree.  A very high fixed income and low-ish hours, all the while getting to do headline-grabbing Bay Street work... it's not unreasonable that some people would prefer that arrangement.

In many cases, they've more than earned the title of "partner" - they just don't want to participate in running the business.

That is the exception, though.  I'd venture that most "income partners" are just very senior associates in waiting to make equity.  I have heard, though, that the more millennials start coming up for partner, the more interest there is in taking an income-partner arrangement.

That's another factor; firms don't necessarily want too many of those kicking around.  They want partnership to mean something, and they want people to be motivated to bill like mad and run the company well.  Losing too many partners to permanent second-tier status can starve the partnership of the talent it needs to be competitive.

It is definitely a lot of work and lots of hours :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, providence said:

It is definitely a lot of work and lots of hours :(

Not to mention the debt from the buy-in, which increases each year when your allocation increases. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, erinl2 said:

Not to mention the debt from the buy-in, which increases each year when your allocation increases. 

Unless you pay it up front!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, providence said:

Unless you pay it up front!

Why would you pay more than you were required to up front?  Typically, you pay the initial buy-in then an additional amount each year that your allocation/#of units goes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, erinl2 said:

Why would you pay more than you were required to up front?  Typically, you pay the initial buy-in then an additional amount each year that your allocation/#of units goes up.

Not all of it, but you can pay the starting amount upfront or choose to have it or some of it deducted, can’t you? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, providence said:

Not all of it, but you can pay the starting amount upfront or choose to have it or some of it deducted, can’t you? 

It is typically financed. I've never heard of having it or some of it deducted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, erinl2 said:

It is typically financed. I've never heard of having it or some of it deducted.

I have! You’re probably right about what most people do.

Edited by providence

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • I don't see a lot of UofC Associates or Articling Students in Toronto at all, but there's certainly Windsor grads at every large firm. I also wouldn't place my hopes on getting into Big Law in Calgary and then lateraling over either - that's a lot of steps that have to go correctly. Getting Calgary BigLaw isn't a lay-up in and of itself. I would say go to Windsor and network, get good summaries and work your butt off in 1L and try to get grades in the top quarter of your class. 
    • Bit of an odd-duck here.    B2: 78% LSAT: 157 (one write) Sask Connection: Step-father is ex-law lecturer at UofS and Queen’s Bench and I served as president of the University of Regina Student’ Union for two elected terms.    Will these connection items help??
    • hey thanks! this is a good perspective. yeah I am open to biglaw in Vancouver, Calgary and Toronto, but ideally would like to end up in Toronto. I know about Windsor having low placement rates, so I guess my question is whether to risk the low placement rate but be in Ontario, or risk being out of province but have the Calgary market open to me. I don't really want to stay in Calgary longer than I have to.
    • The categorization of those firms was in response to the list in the original post, and not intended to identify tiers of law firms. BLG, Dentons, and probably McCarthy's should be in the larger firm bracket for the Calgary market.
    • Family law practitioner here, here are my 2 cents. First, losing a case does not make someone a terrible lawyer, having a terrible grade in a course does not make you an incompetent law student. We all have off days - I call it "didn't think the right thoughts in the right moment." Second, what you learn in law school barely scratches the surface of what you will do in practice. Family law in particular is very "experience-centered" and requires you to be in the middle of the action. Third, in practice, rarely are you forced under pressure of time to write out a coherent contract. The affidavits, pleadings, and contracts I draft sometimes have 12-15 revisions. You will likely need to draft a Minutes of Settlement in court under time constraints and that gets better with practice. When I am invited to sit with my manager to screen potential candidates, we look for: grit (having thick skin and tenacity to manage demanding family law clients), general passion for the area, past experience in the field, reasons why he or she chose family law, ability to communicate ideas and experience clearly, personality, awareness of professional pitfalls and liability issues, and general mannerism. If you are asked a pointed question about a particular grade, just admit that you did not do well on the 100 percent exam. I prefer honesty.  

×
×
  • Create New...