First - let us remind ourselves about a few basic assumptions. (1) Lawyers deal in market-driven commercial realities. (2) They are also highly independent and prefer to be paid according to the results of the effort and time they put into a job - as well as for the effort itself. (3) They also prefer a high level of transparancy as to how their compensation is calculated. Accordingly, it is preposterous to assume that lawyers in the bulge-bracket firms will be content with salaries and bonus structures that award equal pay for unequal results - much less with compensation structures which are opaque. How much simpler it would be - and how much easier it would be for firms to retain top associates (including those who want to scale back their hours commitments) if compensation schemes more closely responded to the above assumptions. And yet, for some reason, the "salary wars" persist, as does the annual "competition" amongst the top firms to establish the "top bonus range according to class year". Unfortunately, what also persists are the unpublicized "footnotes" to these announcements - the associates who do not meet "bonus criteria" and the like, and also the well-publicized rumours that its near-to-impossible-to-make-partner-anymore - all resulting in the inevitable misunderstandings and resentments - and all to the frustration of lawfirm recruiting managers and the delight of the legal recruiting community. All of which is to direct your attention to RollOnFriday's report, today, on how one law firm is attempting (publicly) to break its way out of this mess. It's a start...
Friday, March 31, 2006
Meaningless Terms Continued: "Salary Wars"
First - let us remind ourselves about a few basic assumptions. (1) Lawyers deal in market-driven commercial realities. (2) They are also highly independent and prefer to be paid according to the results of the effort and time they put into a job - as well as for the effort itself. (3) They also prefer a high level of transparancy as to how their compensation is calculated. Accordingly, it is preposterous to assume that lawyers in the bulge-bracket firms will be content with salaries and bonus structures that award equal pay for unequal results - much less with compensation structures which are opaque. How much simpler it would be - and how much easier it would be for firms to retain top associates (including those who want to scale back their hours commitments) if compensation schemes more closely responded to the above assumptions. And yet, for some reason, the "salary wars" persist, as does the annual "competition" amongst the top firms to establish the "top bonus range according to class year". Unfortunately, what also persists are the unpublicized "footnotes" to these announcements - the associates who do not meet "bonus criteria" and the like, and also the well-publicized rumours that its near-to-impossible-to-make-partner-anymore - all resulting in the inevitable misunderstandings and resentments - and all to the frustration of lawfirm recruiting managers and the delight of the legal recruiting community. All of which is to direct your attention to RollOnFriday's report, today, on how one law firm is attempting (publicly) to break its way out of this mess. It's a start...
