There were some pretty stellar scores in the pay category. But it was Gilbert + Tobin which topped the leader board with a magnificent score of 92%.
Despite complaints from G+T staff that the firm's Friday drinks are "down to once a month", it seems the penny pinching is at least translating to healthy salaries. Lawyers may be "worked like slaves" but "yes, we're well paid for it". But with others praising the "high levels of responsibility" and "open structure" there were plenty who seemed more than happy to work hard for their dollars.
Coming a close second with 92%, Fox Tucker lawyers were very satisfied with their financial lot, claiming that the firm's split from DLA Phillips Fox meant there was now "more money" flying around. There was quite a drop off to the third-placed firm, Mills Oakley, which scored 79%. Most of the comments on the firm centred around the hectic social scene and the plethora of "partners buying rounds of shots for the staff out of their own pocket", so maybe staff are too busy getting drunk to worry about stellar salaries.
At the other end of the spectrum, staff at DLA Phillips Fox awarded their paymasters a woeful 29% complaining that the firm "did not invest in its staff". Faring little better were Mallesons (38%) and Corrs Chambers Westgarth (42%), where "partners on ridiculous, fairly risk-free, salaries talk about the need to show fiscal restraint in relation to the dollars you earned them at 3am that morning..."
For a full list of all the winners and losers, click here.
Tip Off ROF
Despite complaints from G+T staff that the firm's Friday drinks are "down to once a month", it seems the penny pinching is at least translating to healthy salaries. Lawyers may be "worked like slaves" but "yes, we're well paid for it". But with others praising the "high levels of responsibility" and "open structure" there were plenty who seemed more than happy to work hard for their dollars.
 |
A G+T lawyer yesterday |
Coming a close second with 92%, Fox Tucker lawyers were very satisfied with their financial lot, claiming that the firm's split from DLA Phillips Fox meant there was now "more money" flying around. There was quite a drop off to the third-placed firm, Mills Oakley, which scored 79%. Most of the comments on the firm centred around the hectic social scene and the plethora of "partners buying rounds of shots for the staff out of their own pocket", so maybe staff are too busy getting drunk to worry about stellar salaries.
At the other end of the spectrum, staff at DLA Phillips Fox awarded their paymasters a woeful 29% complaining that the firm "did not invest in its staff". Faring little better were Mallesons (38%) and Corrs Chambers Westgarth (42%), where "partners on ridiculous, fairly risk-free, salaries talk about the need to show fiscal restraint in relation to the dollars you earned them at 3am that morning..."
For a full list of all the winners and losers, click here.