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
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
© 2024 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 AllCollectible Maker Funko Wins Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
How Tony West Used Transparency to Reform Uber's Toxic Culture
What Paul Grewal Has Learned About Advocacy as Coinbase's Top Lawyer
7 minute readShowered With Stock, Tech GCs Incentivized to 'Knock It Out of the Park'
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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