In-house lawyers reconsider careers as salary gap widens
Company lawyers are getting restless over the widening pay gap with advisers, but the majority still believe corporate counsel are well paid. Michelle Madsen reports on the latest findings of The Verdict survey
August 29, 2007 at 08:09 PM
4 minute read
Company lawyers are getting restless over the widening pay gap with advisers, but the majority still believe corporate counsel are well paid. Michelle Madsen reports on the latest findings of The Verdict survey
More than half of general counsel concede they have considered moving back into private practice in the light of recent massive salary rises at law firms, according to Legal Week research.
The results of this month's The Verdict survey, conducted in association with Davies Arnold Cooper, suggest that the growing disparity between in-house and private practice salaries is causing corporate counsel to weigh up their options, with 42% saying that they were evaluating their career and a further 16% saying that they were reassessing their situation to a 'considerable degree'. Only 40% said that rises in private practice pay had no impact on their career path.
The findings come after a summer of sharp rises in associate pays and partner profits at leading City law firms that has put clear blue water between in-house and private practice compensation.
However, despite the growing gap in pay, only 44% of respondents said that they considered compensation for corporate counsel to be low, while a further 2% said that pay levels were 'very low'. Forty-six percent of respondents said compensation was 'about right' while a further 8% said it was either 'high' or 'very high'.
According to the results, 36% of senior in-house lawyers take home a basic salary of £80,000-£100,000 a year. A further 29% of company lawyers are earning between £100,000 and £200,000 in base salary, with a further 8% receive more than £200,000.
However, many senior company lawyers can count on substantial non-salary compensation, with 26% of respondents reporting that their benefits nearly doubled their basic pay (see table).
Other types of compensation include individual discretionary cash bonuses, which 38% of respondents said they received, and company-wide cash bonuses, which 26% said they received. Stock options and share grants, on the other hand, are popular forms of compensation for in-house counsel in the US, which only a handful (12%) of UK corporate counsel receive.
Counting all compensation, total earnings in the survey found that one in four respondents earned upwards of £200,000 a year, including 12% who earned more than £250,000 (see table).
Financial incentives were not the only forms of compensation named by respondents as salary considerations. Car allowances and final salary pensions were also cited as important aspects of compensation by in-house lawyers, alongside flexibility and more challenging work.
Anthony Armitage, head of the In-house Lawyers' Association, said that the widening gap between in-house pay and private practice compensation could lead to strained relationships between external lawyers and their in-house counterparts.
"What I sense is that it irritates general counsel when there is a big discrepancy for similar levels of responsibilities," said Armitage. "That sort of irritation can fuel a need in corporate counsel to drive down external legal costs."
"The plateau effect of salaries in-house is more marked than in private practice," said one respondent. "The divide can appear to simply get bigger the more senior you get, and yet the more senior you get in-house, the greater the workload and the pressure. I am not sure how a corporate can attract good junior talent from City firms with the increasing gulf in salaries."
National Grid general counsel Helen Mahy conceded that lawyers who are genuinely driven by money may not find what they are looking for in-house.
"There are lots of other benefits besides salary to working in-house," said Mahy. "Some in-house lawyers who are particularly money-motivated may think about going back in to private practice, but I am not aware of any. Associates are expected to work very hard for the money they earn. I personally do not think that clients are going to bear their rate hikes."
Rachael Monaghan, in-house recruitment consultant at Garfield Robbins, said: "While top general counsel might not consider the widening pay gap to matter too much, to those lawyers who really want to go in-house who are further down the ladder it makes more of a difference. Bright lawyers who are in the formative stages of their career may well be wavering in such circumstances, I just do not think that corporates and industry has decided to listen to them yet."
Talkback: Are corporate counsel being paid enough? Click here to have your say.
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 AllWill a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to This Dark Horse US Firm in China?
Big Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Dominated by Small Cap Listings
X-odus: Why Germany’s Federal Court of Justice and Others Are Leaving X
Mexican Lawyers On Speed-Dial as Trump Floats ‘Day One’ Tariffs
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
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