CLOC Survey Shows In-House Legal May Rethink Staffing After Associate Raises—Or Maybe Not
A recent survey from the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium took its members' temperature on associate pay. There was frustration expressed about the Milbank raises, but some indicated they'd be understanding—as long as the costs didn't land on the corporate legal balance sheet.
June 15, 2018 at 04:27 PM
3 minute read
Since an associate raise announcement from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy set off a chain reaction of further pay increases across other law firms, some on the client side have expressed frustration with what one in-house ops director called the “tone deafness” of such moves.
According to a new Corporate Legal Operations Consortium survey, in-house legal leaders may soon start pushing back against the raises with more than just words. But the survey also provided some evidence that anger isn't necessarily universal, particularly if costs of giving raises aren't getting passed along to legal departments directly.
The streak of raises began June 4 when Milbank announced its associates would get across-the-board pay boosts, bringing first-year associates to a salary of $190,000 a year. Other large firms have matched these rates and Cravath, Swaine & Moore, has exceeded them. Even midsize firms are joining in.
The CLOC survey, which was distributed between June 6 and June 8, prompted responses from 71 members.
Some 72 percent of respondents said they would be more likely to move work in-house or to an alternative provider, if their own law firms mirrored the salary increases seen recently. Eighty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they believe that the salary hikes “will” or “may” impact which firms get their business.
CLOC also gathered written responses from members, who remain anonymous in the survey, about associate pay raises. Some responses were negative:
“The decision to raise first year salaries to $190K is further proof that some law firms missed the lesson in 2008,” one respondent said.
Jeffrey Franke, who has multiple roles at CLOC and serves as its general counsel, said he understands why those who responded think that $190,000 for a first-year associate is a high salary and that he believes legal departments will push back on having first-year associates work with them as a result of recent raises.
However, Franke cautioned that given the fact that CLOC has roughly 1,500 members, and didn't get a response on the survey from the vast majority of those professionals, the raises might not be as much of a hot-button topic as many believe.
He said that the amount of debt first-year lawyers carry is understood by others in the industry and that companies will “begrudgingly” accept the raises, as long as the costs are not passed on to them.
“As long as it does not change the rates I am charged, they are free to overpay whomever they like,” one survey respondent told CLOC.
Another noted, “In the San Francisco Bay Area where the cost of living is unbelievably high, this increase is likely warranted simply to allow younger attorneys to live a decent life.”
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 AllLegal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
4 minute read'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Once 'Unheard Of,' $20M Partner Pay Becomes Standard to Meet at Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher
Wilmer Joins Kirkland, Sidley in Racking Up 8-Figure Fees From a Single Client
Trending 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