Morrison on Metrics: Salary Comparisons
Comparative compensation data is often the most important metric to in-house lawyers.
January 30, 2011 at 07:00 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
What's by far the most important metric to in-house lawyers? The amount on their paycheck. How much you make and how that pittance compares to your peers consumes most of the thoughts on metrics and quantification of the average corporate attorney. Everyone wants to know how their salary and bonus stacks up to others. At the management side, the top lawyers need to know comparative compensation data so that they can decide fair offers and focused raises and fitting bonuses.
Comparative compensation data for law department lawyers and other members comes from surveys that you can purchase at costs of $600 to $2,000 or more, which puts them out of the reach of individual lawyers. HR departments can invest in those offerings but not Chris Lawyer. To the Internet they must go to forage around for online salary data. Fortunately, at least three sites give such data. Here are some top-level summaries of them.
One example is the Internet Legal Research Group site. It provides data on salary ranges for in-house lawyers, paralegals and legal secretaries. Each of those groups has three or four breakdowns by years of experience. At the bottom of the webpage there are multipliers for how to convert the national figures into those that are closer to your regional figures. If you multiply the range by the adjustment most appropriate for you, the result is a range more likely to fit your own situation.
The website MySalary.com also presents compensation data for in-house lawyers in the United States. This site provides a bell curve chart for base salaries with 10th percentile; first quartile, third quartile and 90th percentile figures along with medians. Its basic grouping is by title, such as Associate General Counsel.
The Robert Half Salary Calculator provides a third set of salary figures. Its calculator shows salary ranges and “midpoints” for the zip code and level that you enter. Finally, at one time, Salary Wizard provided data about in-house compensation and there may be other sources online at no cost.
Let me make four observations to close this column:
1. Each site has considerable gaps in terms of the granularity of its data. None of them, for example, show differences by practice area and their years of experience tend to be wide ranges. But they are free. An in-house lawyer could pull data from several of them and average the results.
2. If this data is as accurate as it appears to be, why should Law and HR departments spend money on expensive compensation surveys of law departments if this level of detail can be had online at even a modest cost?
3. None of the sites are very clear about their sources, freshness or representativeness of their data. However, some quick comparisons reveal fairly similar data, so there is likely to be underlying data that is correct.
4. Bonus information is much harder to find, and rightfully so. Bonuses depend significantly on corporate performance or the performance of the entire department.
What's by far the most important metric to in-house lawyers? The amount on their paycheck. How much you make and how that pittance compares to your peers consumes most of the thoughts on metrics and quantification of the average corporate attorney. Everyone wants to know how their salary and bonus stacks up to others. At the management side, the top lawyers need to know comparative compensation data so that they can decide fair offers and focused raises and fitting bonuses.
Comparative compensation data for law department lawyers and other members comes from surveys that you can purchase at costs of $600 to $2,000 or more, which puts them out of the reach of individual lawyers. HR departments can invest in those offerings but not Chris Lawyer. To the Internet they must go to forage around for online salary data. Fortunately, at least three sites give such data. Here are some top-level summaries of them.
One example is the Internet Legal Research Group site. It provides data on salary ranges for in-house lawyers, paralegals and legal secretaries. Each of those groups has three or four breakdowns by years of experience. At the bottom of the webpage there are multipliers for how to convert the national figures into those that are closer to your regional figures. If you multiply the range by the adjustment most appropriate for you, the result is a range more likely to fit your own situation.
The website MySalary.com also presents compensation data for in-house lawyers in the United States. This site provides a bell curve chart for base salaries with 10th percentile; first quartile, third quartile and 90th percentile figures along with medians. Its basic grouping is by title, such as Associate General Counsel.
The Robert Half Salary Calculator provides a third set of salary figures. Its calculator shows salary ranges and “midpoints” for the zip code and level that you enter. Finally, at one time, Salary Wizard provided data about in-house compensation and there may be other sources online at no cost.
Let me make four observations to close this column:
1. Each site has considerable gaps in terms of the granularity of its data. None of them, for example, show differences by practice area and their years of experience tend to be wide ranges. But they are free. An in-house lawyer could pull data from several of them and average the results.
2. If this data is as accurate as it appears to be, why should Law and HR departments spend money on expensive compensation surveys of law departments if this level of detail can be had online at even a modest cost?
3. None of the sites are very clear about their sources, freshness or representativeness of their data. However, some quick comparisons reveal fairly similar data, so there is likely to be underlying data that is correct.
4. Bonus information is much harder to find, and rightfully so. Bonuses depend significantly on corporate performance or the performance of the entire department.
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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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