Jump to content
Ghalm

Bay street articling salary increases?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, beyondsection17 said:

I don't work in biglaw so I could be wrong - but to me, first year associates in biglaw seem pretty fungible. Also,  every year there seems to be a bunch of unemployed first years floating around who didn't get hired back at their biglaw jobs, who I'm sure would all be thrilled to get a job at [firm name redacted]. I don't know that it would be too difficult to replace these students. But it's unlikely, you're right.

who says fungible XD lmao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beyondsection17 said:

I don't work in biglaw so I could be wrong - but to me, first year associates in biglaw seem pretty fungible. Also,  every year there seems to be a bunch of unemployed first years floating around who didn't get hired back at their biglaw jobs, who I'm sure would all be thrilled to get a job at [firm name redacted]. I don't know that it would be too difficult to replace these students. But it's unlikely, you're right.

Most first year associates are fungible in terms of skill but for a big firm, you've spent possibly 2-4 months of summer time and 10 months of articling training and getting to know your students. By the time you've hired them back, you have a good sense as to where they'd fit, they've built relationships within the firm, they know how it operates, etc.

Hiring the cast offs from all the other firms means not only are you not getting your top choices, you're getting the people other firms did not want to hire (whether for good reasons or bad reasons), who you don't know, have never met, and suddenly have to integrate and train with the firm.

Yes it's possible to easily hire enough bodies to physically make up for losing an entire articling class worth of associates, but it's not really an ideal situation in any way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Smorr53 said:

Agreed ! I've just never seen/ heard it used. Kinda want to make a thread now just for cool words. 

I'm pretty sure some people pursue a career in law for, inter alia, the cool words. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, if I encountered a student who stood up for themselves and others on a point of principle, I'd have more respect for them and would rate them more highly as a potentially good lawyer. After all, if you can't advocate for yourself, how will you be able to advocate for others? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 11:13 PM, erinl2 said:

Students frequently have an inflated sense of their value to an employer. This thread is no exception. ;)

Considering most partners' salaries on Bay street, I think we have a fine judgment of our value to employers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, georgecostanzajr said:

Considering most partners' salaries on Bay street, I think we have a fine judgment of our value to employers.

Don't steal the thunder of associates, friendo. Note that partners don't technically have salaries, they are owners, and believe me when I say its not really the students that are contributing to the bottom line. Student time is often a write-off, if billed at all. Associates get paid something like 15-20% of what they bill out if they make target, before bonus.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would Fasken's shift to 1800 cause the others settled at 1700 to move to 1800? Heard Fasken didnt cut bar benefits though they do not give tuition bonus i think

Share this post


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

Would Fasken's shift to 1800 cause the others settled at 1700 to move to 1800? Heard Fasken didnt cut bar benefits though they do not give tuition bonus i think

Well that would Mean there is no difference in pay. A tuition bonus of $4000 =  $100 extra per week x 40 weeks of articling. It’s basically the same thing 

thats why students have to look at the totality of the numbers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, healthlaw said:

Well that would Mean there is no difference in pay. A tuition bonus of $4000 =  $100 extra per week x 40 weeks of articling. It’s basically the same thing 

thats why students have to look at the totality of the numbers 

don't think fasken cut benefits at all

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Associates get paid something like 15-20% of what they bill out if they make target, before bonus.

 

do you have a source for this? heard its closer to 50% for jr associates and increases with years of call

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, healthlaw said:

Well that would Mean there is no difference in pay. A tuition bonus of $4000 =  $100 extra per week x 40 weeks of articling. It’s basically the same thing 

thats why students have to look at the totality of the numbers 

Not all firms pay a tuition bonus, though they pay bar benefits. If those firms that do not pay a tuition bonus raise to 1800, it wouldn't it seem odd, for optics at least, for those firms that pay a tuition bonus to stay at 1700. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, katurian said:

do you have a source for this? heard its closer to 50% for jr associates and increases with years of call

 

I don't see how that could be possible. 

$400/hr x 1800 hr target = $720,000.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, easttowest said:

I don't see how that could be possible. 

$400/hr x 1800 hr target = $720,000.

 

Jr associates get billed at 800 dollars an hour?

Christ. Corporations have too much money. Raise corporate taxes to 90 percent immediately.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, katurian said:

do you have a source for this? heard its closer to 50% for jr associates and increases with years of call

 

Definitely not. 

Average billable rate on Bay for a junior associate (i.e. a first year) is somewhere between $300-$370 

Targets are usually between 1500 ("lifestyle firms") and 1900hrs per year. Even on the lower end that would be $450K billed per year (at $300/hr for 1500 hrs). First year associate salary on Bay is usually between $100K-$110K (not everyone followed the McCarthy's increase). So, on the lower end it adds up to about 25%. On the higher end ($370/hr for 1900) it's 15%. 

And remember - many associates bill over target, and most bonuses cap out at 30% of your base salary so that percentage can tend to get smaller and smaller as you bill more (*sniffle - us Bay street lawyers are just so hard done by...) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard that Fasken never previously paid the tuition bonus, so going to 1800 was impressive for them since it means, in effect, the students are now getting the benefit of the bonus through the higher salary. 

Share this post


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

Don't steal the thunder of associates, friendo. Note that partners don't technically have salaries, they are owners, and believe me when I say its not really the students that are contributing to the bottom line. Student time is often a write-off, if billed at all. Associates get paid something like 15-20% of what they bill out if they make target, before bonus.

 

Yes, but students are an investment for the future since they become those associates that are profitable for the firm. Also, students are not entirely worthless. They're definitely not as valuable as associates, but they still do a ton of grunt work that would otherwise need to be done by someone else.

  • Like 1

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.



  • Recent Posts

    • Hi,   I was just wondering if my reference would need to write one general reference letter that is applicable to every school or a targeted reference letter to each school. On the OUAC website it says that only one version is allowed so I am pretty confused.    Thanks in advance for the help!  
    • Going to help Ryn out when I can. I have the same experiences as them.  The review teams do not have the previous files, but we can request the information from admin if we needed it.  Practically speaking though, the scenario you're worrying about will not happen. It's quite rare for us to look at your previous application.  That being said I've always been of the opinion that you should tell the committee about your experiences. No reason to remove them IMHO 
    • There are a lot of recent topics on this website that you can review that discuss ways a new call can obtain employment. I was called in June 2019 and got my current job off of contacting a partner from a firm that was hiring in one practice area and providing him with an application package. I then did two interview with them, as per normal. Other people I know tended to do the same thing, rather than relying on Indeed, etc., just because it is so competitive and unless you are a superstar, it can be hard to distinguish yourself. 
    • If OP went to TRU in 1L then UBC in 2L, I'd assume they just didn't have strong cover letters/resumes. I'm in 3L at TRU and received 9 Vancouver OCIs with the following grades: A-, B+, B+, B, B, B, B. I had heard rumours that transferring to UBC from TRU/UVic looks bad to employers unless you had a compelling reason to transfer (family issues, you got married, etc.). I have no idea how true that is, so yeah.
    • Its mostly hyperbole for the pace of it part, I don't really see myself holding a tin can and a sign that reads "Will review contracts for Food".  There is nothing wrong of course with teaching fundamental skills. Just borrowing a page from say, physics. They teach fundamental theories and its very important to. But its laterally supplanted with learning how to use sophisticated machinery, and now supplanted with learning how to design and program simulation models. We spend like, an hour a week learning to use Westlaw and Quicklaw which are the tools of yesterday. We learn nothing about how these tools are going to operate. But yes, case summaries have not changed. It literally went unchanged for over a decade. Not for criminal law obviously, but the summaries I looked at were virtually identical to mine in teaching ratios and so-on with the same cases used. My point wasn't that it isn't useful; but the way of teaching it has not adapted yet and this is IMO problematic.  Sorry I seem very bitter and so-on, but I am just kind of frustrated with how archaic some of the curriculum for law schools generally seems to be entering my second year. 
×
×
  • Create New...