What's Market-Rate Compensation for a Midlevel Associate Heading In-House?
Moving in-house is an alluring proposition that has been a major driver for the exodus of today's young law firm associates.
June 15, 2018 at 01:22 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
When moving from a law firm to in-house at a technology startup you can expect an experience like no other. The pace, the excitement, the passion, the innovation, the highs and the lows. Anything goes … and usually does. It's an alluring proposition that has been a major driver for the exodus of today's young law firm associates.
As law firms work feverishly to retain their best and brightest, they have historically tried to play—what they perceive—as their best card to retain associates and stay attractive: more money. Consequently, associate salaries in big law firms are in the stratosphere. Surely this big money is keeping associates happy and sitting tight, right? Wrong. Associate attrition is at an all-time high. Why? Because associates don't just value the money. They value other things as well: Time. Family. Autonomy. Flexibility. Broader experience. Mentoring. Working closer to the business. And the desire to be part of something bigger—like being at a startup. So until law firm brass understands these values, and I mean truly understands, and starts creating effective solutions, associate attrition will continue and lawyers will continue to yearn for a legal life in-house for the foreseeable future.
The high salaries at law firms have traditionally created some obstacles for associates and partners seeking to transition to the corporate world. Priced out of the market, as some employers see it. So in order to overcome these potential hurdles, lawyers are required to be flexible on compensation when making the transition. While law firm lawyers today are socialized around taking a pay reduction when moving in house, many don't know just how much of a hit they will have to take. So there can be a bit of a shock once the actual numbers roll in. With this said, the compensation gap has narrowed significantly over the last three to five years due to the flourishing private company activity, fierce competition for top talent and companies like Google, Amazon, Netflix and Apple driving the market by paying premium bucks to fill their empty seats. Base salaries have risen roughly 10 percent to 15 percent—and when combined with an also rising target bonus and stock grant, law firm associates aren't faced with such daunting economic choices.
So what is the market compensation range at a technology startup for a lawyer with four to six years of legal experience? The base compensation range for a later-stage emerging growth company is $170,000 to $185,000. Bonus range is 10 percent to 5 percent. An earlier-stage startup may offer slightly less on the base salary—roughly $160,000 to $175,000 with a similar target bonus range. The stock grant will be relatively modest due to the junior level of the role and will usually be in the form of options (a very small percentage of startups will offer a mix of options and restricted stock units (RSUs)). The stock grant will vary from company to company and will align with the company's internal comp grid. So there are no “predictable” option ranges, but general dollar valuation numbers are between $50,000 to $150,000. Of course there are outliers, but these are the prototypical numbers in today's market.
Another important point to note: Early-stage startups have small legal departments. So execs tend to hire lawyers with more experience than fourth-years because the roles require a broader and deeper level of experience with greater responsibility. So if you want to maximize your odds of successfully transitioning in-house, I encourage you to cast a fairly wide net and apply for opportunities with late-stage private tech companies with larger legal departments as well as public companies, which can offer a robust number of opportunities for junior lawyers. The public company option may not be your ideal choice, but it will provide the opportunity to move in-house and provide the experience to become more competitive for startup positions in the future.
As you transition in-house, you will encounter learning curves as far as the eye can see. So it's good that you are asking questions now. Knowing what to expect on the compensation disparity is an important part of the education process and will help prepare you for the numbers that lie ahead when it comes time to talk turkey.
Julie Q. Brush is the founder and author of The Lawyer Whisperer (www.thelawyerwhisperer.com), a career advice column for legal professionals, also found on LinkedIn. She is co-founder of Solutus Legal Search, a legal search/consulting boutique firm, serving as a strategic adviser to lawyers, law firms and corporations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigation Involving Failed Banks: What Litigators and In-House Counsel Should Be Thinking About
5 minute readCoinbase CLO Paul Grewal Blasts SEC for 'Enforcement-First' Crypto Crackdown
Los Angeles Lakers Ex-General Counsel Jim Perzik Dies From COVID Complications
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250