Rightmove

With annual net pay of c.£63,740, six Eversheds NQs could club together to own this home outright; complete with immovable climbing frame.


Eversheds Sutherland and Squire Patton Boggs are the latest firms to raise NQ salary, but DWF's CEO has warned against unsustainable pay hikes in the City for junior lawyers.

Eversheds Sutherland is increasing NQ base salary from £82k to £95k in London, effective from May, while the firm's NQs outside London will be given a rise from £50k to £62k.

“Retaining and attracting the best talent is a key priority and salary and bonuses form an important part of our overall employee proposition, alongside culture, learning and development and quality of work," said the firm's Chief Executive Lee Ranson.

Squire Patton Boggs is also increasing London NQ salary from £82k to £95k, while its Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham NQs will have a rise from £50k to £55k. 

“In a highly competitive market for talent, we remain committed to providing competitive pay and distinguishing ourselves with a culture that places the highest value on people’s development and well-being,” said the firm's European Managing Partner Jonathan Jones.

The NQ salary hikes at Eversheds and Squire Patton Boggs in London matches firms such as CMS, BCLPNorton Rose Fulbright and DLA Piper. And puts them just a smidge below the £100k salary offered to NQs at Macfarlanes, Hogan Lovells and Simmons & Simmons.

Above that, Herbert Smith FreehillsBaker McKenzie and Ashurst have raised NQ pay to £105,000. And Magic Circle firms Clifford Chance, Allen & Overy, Linklaters and Slaughter and May pay their NQs £107,5000 (although Freshfields is sticking to its guns and paying £100k, for now). 

In a different stratosphere, the £140k+ NQ club is a US-only affair, with a growing membership, and one of the top payers, Goodwin Procter, recently increasing its NQ salary to an eye-watering £161,500. 

However, DWF's CEO, Sir Nigel Knowles, has spoken out against the strategy of spraying junior lawyers with cash, saying that “offering more and more money to young people is only a sticking plaster." Such hikes are "not a sincere, sustainable or healthy solution for anyone," he said.

"Failure to find better ways of incentivising people and building a healthier workplace environment means the British legal industry risks losing talent to more enlightened sectors,” said Sir Nigel in a letter to the Financial Times. 

He opined that "progressive" firms "champion diversity and inclusion, encourage a modern work-life balance, and are creating physical environments and culture that are much more meaningful than relying on huge, but ultimately one-dimensional, starter salaries and ad hoc payments."

A DWF spokesman would not reveal the NQ salary at the firm, but said: "Each of our newly qualified solicitors receives a comprehensive reward package which also includes a share offering worth 20% of their salary".

Sir Nigel is not the first to warn against the huge hikes across the City. Charles Russell Speechlys (that pays its NQs a salary of £68k) told RollOnFriday last week that its approach was "not to make knee jerk reaction changes in response to these unprecedented labour market fluctuations, driven by US and Magic Circle Firms".

Is your firm raising pay by huge amounts, a fraction, or not at all? Get in touch. 

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 18 February 22 08:34

Sir Nigel has all but eradicated promotion to partnership at DWF, resulting in us losing waves of lawyers to other firms.  He is the very last person who should talk about incentivising staff.

RPC associate 18 February 22 08:35

At RPC we're getting totally screwed over.

Despite a 50% increase in partner profits last year the NQ rate is still stuck on £70k, which is way below market for the insurance teams (Clydes is offering £80k and Ince £90k), let alone the commercial teams who can earn much more elsewhere.

If I were a potential lateral hire, I wouldn't bother interviewing at RPC and if I were an NQ I'd move elsewhere on qualification.

Buck Toothed Beryll 18 February 22 08:39

I was hoping we would see the Roll on Friday. results for career development this week. 😿

No Surprises 18 February 22 08:52

So, the firms that pay the lowest salaries to their associates are upset that peers are being better compensated elsewhere. No surprises there...

The great irony is the DWF and CRS are not pleasant places to work - I have friends at both, and they work the same hours as I do at one of the firms paying 100k to associates. Fair play to the likes of the Shed and Squire Patton - yes, you will still be working unpleasant hours from time to time in most of the teams, but 95k for NQs is closer to fair. The key point beyond this will be what salaries are like further up the scale. Methinks bunching will be the next pain point and differentiation between firms. 

JohnnyBGood 18 February 22 08:56

Imagine being in a national law firm who spent weeks telling everyone how they were finally about to meet market rate and how this was going to reward the hard work that everyone does - to then find out the pay rise was the same tiny amount as every pay review which then caused uproar. There’s a reason why they haven’t announced the pay rise in the same way as other firms…

Shockingly, the list of departures from the firm this month got rather long. 

Nonsense 18 February 22 09:11

I am pretty sick of hearing that these pay rises are “unsustainable”. “Unsustainable” and “impacting partners’ drawings” is not the same thing.

Ultimately to be competitive for talent, firms need to offer an overall package that matches the relevant market. That doesn’t have to be cash, but it’s hard to imagine that the work life balance is so much better at DWF (compared to say Eversheds’ regional offices) that it justifies a big salary differential.

It’s a straightforward business decision. Will any given firm make more money in the long term by (a) matching the market for comp or (b) having a below market package and generally accepting a lower quality of candidate as a result?

The answer isn’t necessarily obvious for firms whose business model is based around bulk churn rather than high value bespoke work (paying more for a once in a generation legal talent to do resi conveyancing for £500 a pop is bad business).

Anonymous 18 February 22 09:16

Sir Nigel’s “Ratner” moment?

After all DWF were all smiles giving me a 6% pay rise at Christmas, but the CEO has revealed he plans to phase out rises over time. Maybe it is time to speak to other firms?

Sir Nigel Knowles’s job is becoming unsustainable.

Skint 18 February 22 09:21

The lack of UK firms' PQE-banded pay data beyond NQ level is quite frustrating. Even interviewing at various places won't get you a clear answer.

It was only a few years ago that it was 'tradition' for many firms to publish their banding up to at least 3PQE level.

As someone at a national firm with a historically mediocre NQ salary, there seems to be a 'flat' increase per year of between 2.5‰ and 3% which is obviously dire. What are other people seeing? 

Gary A 18 February 22 09:30

It's all very well people moaning about whether they get paid £90 or £100k as a NQ....what about the poor folks at the likes of Plexus living off crumbs. Do the equity partners even earn as much as NQs elsewhere?

pretty flat 18 February 22 09:34

Our increases are pretty flat - from 85 at NQ it seemingly goes 88/92/96. Not great when combined with a pretty poor bonus system.

Anonymous 18 February 22 09:34

Where are all the Knights plc comments from the RoF survey. We want a article!!!! 

Also RPC Associate 18 February 22 09:51

@RPC Associate but remember from the firm-wide Town Hall last year - it’s all just about the culture. Really don’t see how much longer this trumpet can be played while we slip further and further behind the market rate. 

Pyramid scheme 18 February 22 09:59

All law firms are Pyramid schemes. 

All of us foot soldiers are working all the hours god sends with the promise of lucrative partnership further down the line. The reality is we all work hard to increase the firm profits so more worker bees can come in under us, and on and on it goes. Only the top few get the spoils. I echo the comments above, why can't partners get their heads around the concept that if they earn slightly less than £500k and pay the workers more; or hire more workers to lessen workload and create better work/life.

I am in a national firm, routinely bill 4/5 times my salary and as a senior associate I am somehow supposed to be grateful that I am given 2% par rise while PEP go through the roof. What happened to earn 3 times salary. Why don't we have a realistic target and a % bonus of anything above this. This gives flexibility to both sides. The finance sector has done this for years. Our advantage is that we don't get to be reckless as it would be based on work billed. 

I also fully support Skint. Why can't firms publish salary bands. we deserve a better playing field

  

Anon 18 February 22 10:18

Most of western capitalism is built on a pyramid scheme.  Beneath the foot soldiers in law firms are many many thousands of people who work hard and earn little in society to provide services so the foot soldiers can have a comfortable life.  

Anon exDWFer 18 February 22 10:21

Not sure about London, but in the regions, the NQ pay at DWF tends to be around the 40k to 45k mark. There's no point awarding shares to people if they are share options only and they vest a few years down the line, with performance caveats (affecting that vesting) attached on top. Like people say above, Snige should be the last person commenting on incentivising people. It'd also help if the share price itself was bouyant, right now it isn't worth shouting about. Snige should say it how it is, you won't have problems attracting talent if you pay high salaries. Lest we forget, these firms pay for LPC's and TC's to get the best talent. The reality here is the risk of equity partners having a bit less. That is what Snige's real problem with this NQ salary war appears to be.

RPC associate 18 February 22 10:49

The whole RPC culture thing is bull. 

Partners and other associates being reasonably ok to work with should be a bare minimum at any firm.

We shouldn't be asked to accept salaries that are 25% below market because of it.

RPC Associate 18 February 22 12:00

Salary increases need to come quickly at RPC, otherwise people will walk.  The atmosphere is truly atrocious at the firm right now.  I have zero motivation to do work today.  

Gopher 18 February 22 12:41

DWF had pisspoor partner promotion numbers this year.

For an international law firm of 4,000 staff to only promote 17 new partners is pathetic. 

Everyone knows why the promotions process is restricted, it’s so Sir Nigel and pals can increase their share. Yet everyone is baffled by Sir Nigel inviting ex-DLA staff to the partnership on bumper contracts. He’s obviously only interested in the short term, so it’s best he’s jettisoned quickly. 

Anon 18 February 22 12:55

Radical thought, but maybe offer a sh*t load of cash AND some work life balance/shares/positive working culture etc etc??

Bolton boy 18 February 22 13:17

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I work hard for my 28k at Keoghs and I cannot for the life of me understand why people moan about 55k or more.  Get a life people. You are not that special. 

Anonymous 18 February 22 13:23

It’s a marketplace.
 

If you’re thinking “these salaries are unsustainable” then it’s your business model which is unsustainable. 

James Marrco 18 February 22 13:30

It could be worse. You could be cilex qualified and have been qualified for 4 years but still be paid £5k + less than an NQ. Have the same job role as an solicitor, same targets, but definitely less reward. The 4 years before qualification, learning in the job, paid less than a secretary. 

Anon 18 February 22 13:39

I don't know an associate alive who wouldn't happily allow themselves to be covered in Elastoplast (other brands are available).

RPC Senior Associate 18 February 22 14:11

The wages at RPC are shocking. And yet they roll out the same old “we have a great culture”. Maybe they used to but not anymore. I see more people crying than smiling. 

Gary A 18 February 22 14:13

Come on you self-entitled bunch...if you're unhappy with your £80k p.a. then move to somewhere where you can earn more? Why the constant moaning....is it because (i) you know you're not worth more and couldn't get a job at a firm that pays better, or (ii) you just can't be bothered?

You sit at a desk in some lovely flash offices in the city, you go out for nice lunches and drinks, you gets lots of free perks, you probably don't work anywhere near as hard as you think you do.

I think the general public would cringe at the comments on this article.

Never lost a case 18 February 22 15:01

Ooooooop North, DWF put the NQ salary up to £46k a couple of years ago. At the time, that prompted DLA to go to £50k and others to rethink. Maybe old Andy L wasn't so bad! 

Anonymous 18 February 22 15:18

DWF used to pay well but around 2013 or so they stopped. Now its all about bottom line and offering shares instead of good salary.

Buster Gonad 18 February 22 15:53

This thread just shows how sick Law Firms, and the lawyers who work for them are. Moaning about only earning 70k as a whippersnapper who's only just learnt to wipe their own arse is very wrong. Over entitled and narcissistic.

Anonymous 18 February 22 16:14

Buster son - it's all relative to what the EPs are trousering... Why shouldn't the wealth be spread a bit? 

 

Where do you work and waht do you do?  

Bingus 18 February 22 16:35

Bingus from Slaughters here - I have had a pretty terrible week so how about I leak some information to make life slightly more annoying for the firm:

The full list of partners retiring this April: 

- Paul Stacey

- David Wittmann

- Steve Edge 

- Tim Boxell

- William Watson

- Ben Kingsley

ROF if you want to contact the firm for comment please do. Otherwise life would be a lot easier if there was an email I could easily leak stuff to.

Anonymous 18 February 22 17:02

Lawyers whingeing about their pay. Always makes my Friday. Doesn't anyone ever think how this looks to clients? Do you really think they'll keep on accepting higher bills to fund pay rises? Welcome to the real world 

Anonymous 18 February 22 17:02

Lawyers whingeing about their pay. Always makes my Friday. Doesn't anyone ever think how this looks to clients? Do you really think they'll keep on accepting higher bills to fund pay rises? Welcome to the real world 

Gary A 18 February 22 17:33

Why should EPs 'spread the wealth'? You NQs are amply (over) rewarded. You don't know much law, you have no experience and you haven't invested in the firm or taken on any risk.

Bugger off and do something else if you don't like it.

RoF-no more articles on this subject. It just brings out the worst in these spoilt brats.

Gary A 18 February 22 17:33

Why should EPs 'spread the wealth'? You NQs are amply (over) rewarded. You don't know much law, you have no experience and you haven't invested in the firm or taken on any risk.

Bugger off and do something else if you don't like it.

RoF-no more articles on this subject. It just brings out the worst in these spoilt brats.

Letsby Onnist 18 February 22 18:26

That list of slaughters retirees is actually just two partners innit, cos Wittmann, Boxell and Edge look like exactly the same bloke but aged 60, 65 (post lockdown) and 80, respectively and Kingsley, Watson and Stacey look like exactly the same bloke aged 45, 55 (post lockdown) and 65 (post working at Slaughters) respectively.

DtotheWhattheF 18 February 22 21:02

'Not all about the money' Nige (multi-millionaire) emphasises the importance of the work-life balance over remuneration.

In the same week, Nige authorises a firm wide email that bans all fee-earners from taking leave until the end of April.

Why? To ensure DWF meets financial targets promised to institutional investors. Which in turn ensure healthy dividends to top tier partners.

DWF struggling to meet financial targets due to numerous departures, caused by refusal to pay most fee-earners fairly against market standard.

A vicious, but entirely self-made circle, Nige.

Jane 18 February 22 21:37

People would be a lot happier if they just accepted that the salaries of 10 years ago are no longer achievable unless you are willing to do the mega hours. The days of 7 hours work for 150k a year are gone. The profession is not what it once was because clients have realised that the bills back then were outrageous.  Those, like me, in insurance are lucky to have a job the way it’s been with the rates... 

M&R PA 18 February 22 22:11

What about the regional lawyers still working 6/7 MRHPD and being paid less than most City NQs even in Cambridge with spiralling costs virtually on par with London. Most SAs/PAs are paid less than £80k and that’s as a result of a review of salaries in 2021. 

MC firm pay 19 February 22 06:37

MC firm SA here - happy to share the current rate for reference: 

1 PQE: £115k

2 PQE: £120 - £125k

3 PQE: £130 - £135k

4 PQE: £135 - £140k

5 PQE: £140 - £150k

6 PQR: £145 - £160k (generally lev fin or PE teams)

Bonus - wholly discretionary, generally between 10-20%

Anonymous 19 February 22 07:09

Gary, if knowing the law is the criterion then some of the EPs I know would be in trouble.

This is not about associates grumbling about pay in absolute terms. The fact is that they could get better paid elsewhere. If you’re happy for them to bugger off, then that’s what the good ones will do.

Recruiters dream 19 February 22 07:27

DWF is a good firm to recruit from because;

1.  Decent lawyers

2.  Poorly paid

3.  Know what makes lawyers tick and more importantly, what doesn’t 

4. Grateful to anybody who takes them out of DWF

DWF is a recruiters dream.  Snige, keep up the good work and keep ‘em coming.  

Anonymous 19 February 22 08:50

Gary, Junior Associates and NQs are an important part of every firm and even though they don't know "any law" yet (emphasis on yet) they work long hours and are on a steep learning curve which would be stressful for anyone. Those NQs are the future of any firm and to refer to them as brats (or anyone as brats for that matter) for having an open conversation about the pay bands and disparity in our sector is unfair and unnecessary. There is very little transparency in the legal sector above NQ level and people are going to ask the question to consider their options and assess whether they are being paid their market value.

Money isn't everything, but when you are sat working at 2am on a Friday for significantly less money then others in the same role and at the same level, it would make anyone consider their options. Being open about satisfaction with pay isn't a crime.

Anon 19 February 22 10:01

Am I alone in thinking that some junior lawyers' sense of entitlement is over-developed?

 

Fact seeker 19 February 22 10:22

Could not agree more with 08.50 about the comments made by Gary A. Gary A is wrong. 

Canary Worf 19 February 22 14:29

The squabble between alleged EPs and Associates is unseemly. But to answer the question “why are salaries no longer a third of billings?” I think you need to point to a number factors but increased compliance and other overheads is a very large part of it.

Firms are now struggling with the explosion of compliance and other politicial initiatives. Much of this wasnt necessary 20-30 yrs ago and these take up time and money.

I also suspect that its driven the cost of advice higher for clients as the law and related regulation is now so complex. That delivering basic advice on “can I do [x] and how much will it cost” is now much harder to actually get right. Not all of this cost can be shifted onto clients or obfuscated with “risk-based” approaches. Some of it is being swallowed by law firms (and in particular their fee earners as the old trick of getting ‘paid to learn’ is no longer feasible, save at the very top of the market).

This puts everyone under pressure from top to bottom, but naturally rhe demands of capital prevail so most of the pressure goes onto the worker.

Ofc this complexity has driven demand for legal services as well - and at the top of the market where budgets are big its great. But from middle down regulation and other complexities just erode profitability or generate low profit work.

That is what is lot of lawyers in the mid market are suffering from.

P d 19 February 22 15:05

Very surprised by the disagreement on Jane’s comment. Does everybody not accept that the reduced rates/profits are the cause of the lack of salary increases? If not, I am lost for words. 

Observer 19 February 22 15:14

The average wage in the UK is 32k.  A NQ aged around 24/25 can earn 3 times this, often without much expertise, any ownership risk, or business development skills.  The debate here needs a little perspective.        

Anon 19 February 22 18:11

I'm willing to bet not many lawyers at DWF have ever been working at 2am - they just don't handle those types of deals. 

Anon 20 February 22 11:09

Anon 10.01 "Am I alone in thinking that some junior lawyers' sense of entitlement is over-developed?"

 

Yes, you are.

Aristotle 20 February 22 12:01

When one decides to enter into a lion’s den, he should accept that baptism of fire ensues. Thou cannot sensibly accept a generous salary package, in some cases in excess of £150,000 as a NQ, whilst not work hard to earn that cash. Whinger cannot be winner.  One cup cannot hold two girls. 

Dwf employee 20 February 22 18:20

Dwf wants to pay lower wages for junior lawyers. but to give them increased targets and to stop them taking annual leave to the end of April as the firm is behind on target 

Bolton boy 20 February 22 20:37

Aristotle. We may not earn much in Bolton but Keoghs give us great quality of life. Lots of working from home means lots of leisure time and that’s good. 

Gary supporter 20 February 22 23:30

While normally I would say calling 20 something year old adults ‘brats’ in a work context is inappropriate, the sheer deluded self-importance of many NQs coming through the ranks in the last few years makes the use of the term here absolutely spot on (despite the mass of NQs downvoting, as they no doubt will with this comment). Their value to a firm is certainly not at the NQ or even mid-level.  Their employment is purely to cultivate the smaller numbers that will come through as strong lawyers who will make money at 4, 5, 6 + PQE.  And for those truly valuable folks, you can bet a strong PEP at the firm is a massive driver in them staying or going.  So no, there will never be a model where the babies being paid to learn on the job will “share the wealth” in a significantly different way. They haven’t earned it in any way.  Partners and SAs simply wouldn’t keep feeding them their work, and without that work generation the NQs would soon figure out that they are no more special than the average high street solicitor busting a gut on £30k.

LOL-er 21 February 22 08:43

@aristotle was referencing the infamous clip of “two G one cup” that went viral during the mid-20s, in his critique of the salary package of a NQ. This is epic.

That aside, I’m of the opinion that the government should intervene and place a ceiling on all professional practitioners and forbid them from earning over £100k in their first four years of practice (traineeship included). This is to avoid creating a false impression on the kids that because they earn £140k+ as a NQ they are somehow better practitioners. I work at an East Midlands firm for many years now, and having dealt with some heavily remunerated kids in the city I can confidently and respectfully enunciate that they do not deserve to be paid that much. If city firms think that overpaying juniors is the solution, they should instead look into remunerating the 4PQE+ more handsomely - even pay them £300k+. 

Anonymous 21 February 22 11:30

With all due respect I wish people would stop comparing NQ rates to average salaries across the UK or with respect to NQs' age. Personally I was not 24 when I qualified and I am sure I am not alone in that, but age should not be a factor in any event. Comparisons in the legal sector need to be considered with regard to the disparity between firms in that sector. 

In terms of Aristotle's comment above, I don't sense that anyone here is talking about the US firms paying £120k upwards. Lawyers who accept that salary are well aware they will work excessive hours for it. The issue here is non-US firms (or at least non-East Coast US firms) who increasingly expect their staff to work US firm style hours but without offering the same benefit, which is why many junior lawyers are moving to US firms. If you work the hours, why not get paid for it? 

Ultimately NQ increases are causing issues for firms. If they are competing over a high NQ salary this needs to be matched higher up the PQE levels but firms aren't increasing charge out rates or hours targets to allow them to do this. 

I'm sure nobody reading this article would consider £95k a bad salary, but the discussion is on disparity. Anyone who thinks City lawyers swan around at client lunches or don't work hard clearly haven't got first hand experience or knowledge.

Finally, I agree that perhaps non-legal employees would look at these comments and think that complaining at such a high number is ridiculous. But I don't know anyone working in a non-legal role who regularly works 14 hour days (at a non US firm), weekends, through holidays, under immense pressure, cancelling plans at the last minute etc. so some acknowledgement of the fact that the legal profession is demanding and, dare I say it, deserves competitive remuneration wouldn't go amiss.

Anonymous 22 February 22 13:36

@Gary supporter calling anyone a brat in any context is inappropriate. To call newly qualified professional lawyers "kids" or relate salary or attitude to age in any sense is inappropriate.

To assume you know somebody's professional value or attitude from a few professional dealings is ignorant. Nobody here has insight into anybody else's work life, if we are being realistic. I've worked in both the regions and the city and whilst people may not want to hear it, from my experience alone it is different. Not worse or better, but different.

I'd suggest regions stop slamming the city and everyone stops slamming the age of NQs and focus on the importance of transparency with regard to pay and disparity between like firms/areas. 

Gary A 22 February 22 13:50

Bolton boy 20 February 22 20:37

Your comment did make me laugh...brilliant.

But back to the issues in hand.

NQs on mega salaries need to stop embarrassing themselves by moaning about having to 'work hard'.

NQs who don't earn as much should equally stop moaning about being underpaid and find a better paid job-if they can. If they can't they have reached their natural ceiling of what an employer is willing to pay for their 'skills and experience'.

Parsnip 22 February 22 17:47

The associate body at DWF should say "no" to the cancelling of leave.  DWF have mission statements that include preserving mental health - here are some snippets from their website

"Our mission is to create a healthy work environment where our people feel supported in their wellbeing and are comfortable to speak openly about it. Looking after our people's health and wellbeing is an essential part of ensuring we are all able to be the best versions of ourselves. If we are feeling our best, we can continue to give you the best."

and another

"

It’s about whether our people feel well and happy. When looking at overall wellbeing, we take into account how someone feels about various aspects of their life, such as:

  • Their home life
  • Their health
  • Their relationships with others
  • Their job and other activities

People spend a lot of time at work, up to 48 hours a week. This makes it an important area of wellbeing, which is why we're committed to promoting healthy workplace wellbeing."

That's not consistent with a culture of telling people to cancel their holidays because the shareholders might not get what someone in management promised them. 

Irwin Mitchell 22 February 22 19:57

NQ salaries at Irwin Mitchell are dire to the point where they are losing juniors left right and centre. They have just done a small pay rise to try to appease us (which hasn’t worked) and will be quaking in their boots now at this news 

Another RPCer 23 February 22 12:10

Won't be here very much longer as a 2pqe given pay in the regions and London is better at other firms with similar expectations. I don't buy the "culture" argument past a certain point. Be a collegiate and diligent person and you'll get on just fine wherever you go. I know other RPC associates both on and off this forum feel the same...

Aristotle 23 February 22 13:37

I’m back, again, for the reason that I’m rather exasperated by Anonymous’ recent comment. My learned friend suggested that there needs to be transparency in pay across firms, but I digress. You cannot sensibly compare a luxury Bentley to a pedestrian Ford, and conclude that Ford should be worth more because Bentley comes with a steep price tag, because they are simply two vastly different products. By analogy, whether Kirkland is paying £200k for a 4 PQE is of no relevance to how Brown Jacob LLP should remunerate its lawyer and the later may well decide to continue paying £40k for a 10+ PQE. 
 

City lawyers are paid more because living expenses in London are expensive. The money needs to be there to stay financially viable and to spend on necessities such as £4000/month luxury apartment in Canary Wharf and a £150/pp + 12.5% tips degustation with the most ravishing lady or dashing gent as your company.  To say that a lawyer in the “woop woop”, using a fitting antipodian phrase here, should deserve the same pay as the city chaps, is a complete disregard for the upside of a capitalist country.
 

Notwithstanding the above, I stress that city lawyer must not complain under any circumstances.  You earn good money and the cost you have to pay is to sacrifice your soul.  My two cents. 

Anon 23 February 22 19:17

I am starting to suspect Gary A is a bitter and twisted paralegal who failed to get a TC.

Gary A 23 February 22 21:07

DWF associates and NQs....why should you defer your hard earned holidays for a few weeks just so the firm can meet financial target? Ask not what you can for your firm but what your firm can do for you! And as Turnip says don't forget about the horrific impact of working 9-5 relentlessly for 9 weeks will have on your mental health!! Sir Nigel has lost the plot!!

Gary A 23 February 22 21:13

Yes I am sure Irwin Mitchell are quaking in their boots and [email protected] themselves 'at this news'. 

Juniors leave the firm. What shall we do? Oh yes let's hire some less expensive juniors to replace them. Sorted!

Salary hikes at a handful of top US / City law firms has zero relevance to Irwin Mitchell.

Gary A 23 February 22 21:15

DWF associates and NQs....why should you defer your hard earned holidays for a few weeks just so the firm can meet financial target? Ask not what you can for your firm but what your firm can do for you! And as Turnip says don't forget about the horrific impact of working 9-5 relentlessly for 9 weeks will have on your mental health!! Sir Nigel has lost the plot!!

Anonymous 24 February 22 13:54

Vote with your feet and stop working for crap firms.

If you do then it's your fault. Do something or shut up.

Related News

X

Don’t miss your best career move. Receive approaches from top law firms and in-house employers when they want someone just like you.