Asia-Pacific

Check out this week's top Asia-Pacific news on the Asia Pacific Headline page.
  

Follow RoF

For all the breaking news, follow RoF on Twitter and Facebook

         
   
  

My Profile

Check all your messages, update your blog, change your account details,  find friends and much more on the My Profile section.
  

Regional Firms

Thinking of moving out of the City? Regional Inside Info gives you the lowdown on firms in Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds.
  

Main Discussion

Rate it
0
Report as offensive
Vinnie Gambini
Posted - 11 January 2017 22:43
£1m netnet is what you mean...

Or is not Matty that uses that term?

Either way, it's funny.
nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 22:49
Report as offensive
This is total bait and I'm not biting.

But number 1, no one gets silk at 35 or under. Exceptions to everything but that's the rule.

Number 2. Partners outearn senior barristers. Salaried US partners are c.350-450k. Equity 1-2m+.

Most senior barristers plateau in the low 6 figures. You'll most likely take a cut when becoming QC esp in PI/employment. Most becoming silk are in the 150-300k area and becoming silk, most towards the lower end of that.

At the very top sets, individuals can earn more than those in city law firms, but outside of these and including many, if not most, of the Bar top 30, over their careers they earn less than city lawyers and almost all outside a coterie earn less as solicitors become partners.

Number 3. Expenses, chambers rent and wigs.
Vinnie Gambini
Posted - 11 January 2017 22:57
Report as offensive
I'm a solicitor but...

1. Bazzas make more money. They get all the rich women too.

2. You underestimate how much a half-decent bazza in London earns...

3. Heh at using supposed US rates v average barristers.... or even City solicitors v avg barristers... compare average bazza v average solicitor and see where you get to...

And you accept on your own case ( ) ... :

4. that "most" bazzas earn in the low 6 figures... most solicitors don't make it to that point... in the City maybe but otherwise, no they do not.

5. "at the very top sets individuals cna earn more than those in city law firms"

sub-standard trolling Matty

Vinnie Gambini
Posted - 11 January 2017 22:58
Report as offensive
I am a salaried partner in a US firm on 2371284703847023874092384903824908234098234082390475875984759438758437590438509834584 395874398584930859403906854690806590468430985904859347598437589760890 schillings a year ... so Matty must be right
Misshoolie
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:00
Report as offensive
Oh my Christ this again.
Misshoolie
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:07
Report as offensive
FFS you're as bad as each other.

Your frotting over people you either do know, in which case banging on about it here is weird; or don't know in which case it's really fan boy and odd

His tragic low rent American psycho tribute act.

nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:13
Report as offensive
At c. 5+ PQE, you're over 200k and by 8 PQE closing on 300k with bonuses. Salaried partner salaries go from over 300k easy peasy.

Market's changed, grandad.

Lord Judge, you make a series of points which are actually the same point. That I'm comparing apples and oranges, and fair enough. When I talk about "city" solicitors, I really only mean US/MC lawyers. I've never sought to compare the average solicitor with the average barrister, as if anyone could do such a thing.

What I have said is correct and nuanced. Those working at the very top commercial sets will probably outearn those in city firms. Those outside e.g. Hardwicke, 7BR, 11KBW, Outer Temple, 2TG...will earn at best about as much as the MC lawyers, and probably less. And some cases definitely less. And in the LR will have less earning potential as partners make more than senior barristers. Exceptions of course to this.

Outside of the sort of ordinary commercial/excellent employment/public/PI sets, earnings at the bar has a significant drop - Farrer's Building or 5 Essex Court will have people struggling to keep up with the silver circle firms, and probably will be earning Stephenson Harwood salaries. These are all non entities to me.
nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:19
Report as offensive
My understanding you did this in the 1920s when you still had hair, whilst I am doing this now. Thanks.
nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:23
Report as offensive
Well, you're wrong on the figures. You just are. You haven't been bold enough to put a number on it, you've just mocked real world figures I put up. As in with bonus, some firms are paying that. So you're wrong. And you're throwing your toys out of the pram.
nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:31
Report as offensive
Bonuses aren't that minimal and are paid in relation even in London to the Cravath scale. Minimal compared to IB or banking. Still associates in London can eat 50k+ bonuses. And at the very top close to or over 80k. Salaried partners operate in a different way and depends on the model the firm uses, often it's hybrid.
nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:43
Report as offensive
So I think you're a shining example of how far mediocrity and average intelligence can get you as a solicitor, buzz.

Genuinely, it's a compliment.

Of course I didn't say 350 was a minimum. I just said c.350-450. I shouldn't have to explain what "c." means. I then later said "over 300 easy peasy". As a matter of basic reading comprehension, your illegitimate 3 year old could see the two are not contradictory.

Meanwhile you make, or at least did make, far more than a barrister who got a double first from Oxford and slogged his guts out in xyz very good set.

Good show.


nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:50
Report as offensive
Cravath scale for 5 year associate now is c.200k + 50-55k bonus, but few firms will match that in London.

And I mean hybrid equity.
nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:53
Report as offensive
Under 200 for a US partner...he's delusional or works for an odd shop. Maybe it's Locke Lord or something, I don't know. The figure he just produced is veritably untrue for the majority of US firms in London, a figure which will see junior associates touching.

But it's to be expected as I've suggested above.
nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:55
Report as offensive
I'm not 10PQE. But I am up to speed on the numbers.
nernernernerner
Posted - 11 January 2017 23:56
Report as offensive
And I'm up to speed on the numbers for obvious reasons, sweetheart.
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:02
Report as offensive
You're winding me up. It wasn't a "top" commercial set. And I have never said I do not work for such a firm. I have given a 5-10 PQE range which I might be in. I have said I am on track for partner.

I'm not giving you anymore.

Just FTAOD, because of the salary increases in law firms in relation to inflation, and because of inheritance and parental property, I am exponentially better off than buzz ever was in relation to my PQE.
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:07
Report as offensive
I think I meant to say I am better off than you in relation to your age/PQE every year that goes by. Property increases. Salary increases a lot in relation to inflation.
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:10
Report as offensive
I didn't necessarily say that.

Just because you're given the expectation you're on track, doesn't mean you'll get it. It's luck, timing and sometimes people say things and mismanage your expectations. That's life. You can be told you're doing great and then there's a restructuring and you're gone.

You can never predict the future. I can though. And i'm on track.
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:14
Report as offensive
Anyway, you've very nicely diverted from the fact you were grossly wrong on US partnership figures. That or you've unwittingly revealed you've worked at the arse end of the US, possibly in some kind of transatlantic merger or some bastardisation of one like Locke Lord.
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:17
Report as offensive
So then if I obtained the pupillage when I was an NQ, it would make sense that I would be about 10 PQE now. Except I didn't say that.

This is really a bit of a cripple fight. Especially from buzz.
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:22
Report as offensive
Not sure what game you're playing but in the real world you've been pawned.
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:26
Report as offensive
OLPAS was around 7/8 years ago, after I applied

I applied before I took my TC.

That doesn't mean I applied 7/8 years ago, or 12/14 years ago. I means I applied when I applied.

HTH
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:32
Report as offensive
I find this funny because I have indicated I am going through the processes right now. Obviously I can't say anything more than that. I am holding something carrot shaped right now and I am pulling on it. I am almost on cloud 9 right now. This is why I've been absent. I'm actually doing pretty well.

OK, best of luck all.
nernernernerner
Posted - 12 January 2017 00:45
Report as offensive
The process re joining the Inns, applying for scholarships and the BVC has not changed. So I question the veracity of what you have said about becoming a barrister because the above has never been correct.
Vinnie Gambini
Posted - 12 January 2017 07:48
Report as offensive
Loving the work here.
PhoenixSunsOutGunsOut
Posted - 12 January 2017 14:34
Report as offensive
List is out. 6 solicitors got made up.
Nexis
Posted - 12 January 2017 14:56
Report as offensive
Good lord. Is this nonsense still going on?

Generally, wot buzz said.