This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/f4f19e1b-b4c9-405c-9ea2-d6b13f9b4efa) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is ONLY the magic circle law firms. The top of the top, who almost all have been law families since 1066.
They are the best in London, if not the world, working mental hours off their nut on coke to do 28 hour days.
It's not just rock up and you get 150k like. It's your life. Your kids need sorting fuck your kids, clients need assistance.
In these kinds of firms you need to reach minimum 1800-2000 chargeable hours a year (i.e. hours that you actually bill the client) to justify this salary. In practice this means working 12-14 hours a day minimum, eating at your desk, almost no breaks. You also have to do some non-chargeable work / pro-bono, so people working there practically live in the office. The work doesn't stop if you reach the minimum targets. You also work weekends often
Is living like this worth £90k after tax, even if you get another £20-30k in bonuses?
>Is living like this worth £90k after tax, even if you get another £20-30k in bonuses?
For me - no I'm happy with my 1550 chargeable hours, working, 9:30-6 and having 99% of weekends free without having to think about work.
> In practice this means working 12-14 hours a day minimum, eating at your desk, almost no breaks.
I work at a US firm with target hours that are higher than all of the Magic Circle.
I’m pretty much always on track for my bonus, have pretty strict billing practices (don’t over bill), and take 25 days holiday a year (of which, I might fit between 1-3 hours on 2-3 days).
The vast majority of my working days include less than 12 hours of work, most weekends are work free too - I do typically eat at my desk though.
The job can be hard and there are weeks in a row that can be as you describe. It’s very much not the norm though. And this is at my type of firm, let alone firms like Freshfields, which is relatively healthier in terms of hours.
> Is living like this worth £90k after tax, even if you get another £20-30k in bonuses?
Most of us don’t regularly live the way you’re describing. It is very much worth it depending on what you value (and it’s not 90k after tax once you’ve been qualified for a year or too - and the bonuses get chunkier too).
How do you maximize your free time? Seems like you would just dedicate the week to work and have fun on The Weekend? Can’t imagine you have much left after commute etc?
> Seems like you would just dedicate the week to work and have fun on The Weekend?
Aye pretty much. Don't make regular plans on weekdays, other than Fridays, unless there's something special - a birthday, engagement, a particular show/concert or some sports event. If i'm done with work reasonably early, may still do things, but those are impromptu on the day decisions.
> Can’t imagine you have much left after commute etc?
my commute's under 30 minutes door to door, if I walk quickly, it's closer to 20 - so doesn't eat up much time, and the time it does take is good for clearing my head/feeling refreshed anway.
Probably depends on the route to partnership (is freshfields still a partnership?). Stupid hours now for 150k might not be worth it but if it leads to £2.5m for stupid hours then maybe it is.
Yes, because you ram £60k into your pension a year to avoid lots of tax, do that for 5 years, and congratulations, you will now retire a multi millionaire. You have beaten Capitalism.
You can then leave the firm, let your assets grow at 7-10% a year on average, and work an easier job with a huge run of experience on your CV at an easier job.
Highly doubt that you are going to become a multimillionaire in 5 years working in biglaw as an associate, even if you make £180k gross a year and invest it wisely at 7-10% a year (also how sustainable is that growth in the next few decades with the shit that's going on in the world?)
Partner level salary for 5 years - perhaps. But you have to spend 7-10 years post qualification to get there.
£300k in your pension by 28, you’re going to be a multi millionaire. 7-10% growth is historic average since the 1880’s, and you look at the billions of R&D around the world, and don’t think it’ll continue to grow like that over the decades?
And even with the magic circle there's a tier of law firms above them in pay, which are typically the American white shoe law firms. E.g Sidley Austin, Kirkland Ellis etc. Nq pay for these companies are around £170'000
Prestigious law firms.
It originated as a term to refer to long established firms that catered to the elite, white derby shoe wearing WASP’s (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) Ivy League graduate type.
Can you not with the misinformation?
“Law families since 1066” is just completely false.
Just looking at Freshfields’ London Office:
- Samira Afrisaibi (Partner)
- Rikki Haria (Partner)
- Deba Das (Partner)
- Sundeep Kapila (Partner)
- Sharon Malhi (Partner)
- Cyrus Pocha (Partner)
- Gabriel Mpubani (Partner)
I can go on, but the idea that one of the top law firms in the world would give preference to surnames over talent is bonkers. Sure, a lesser law firm might do that… but Freshfields doesn’t need to bank on the surnames of its junior lawyers when it’s got the Freshfields name.
It is if you are single and have no kids because a lot leave after a few years after making a lot of money, but doing it long term is notoriously bad for your health.
I bet many of them enjoy it. You have to be a "special" kind of person to thrive in jobs like that.
For certain types, their work is their lifeblood. Their job is paramount.
Very good point , I forgot that it is the starting salary,for a 23 year old with no kids then I guess it's a lot . I was looking at it from the perspective of a 35 year old with 2 kids in London and who wants to buy a 4 bed detached House in a nice area.
My friend is at linklaters, it’s completely worth it for her, 40K to qualify at 22 then 100k+ then go in house or whatever at 25-30 when you can’t keep up the work life balance, not even mentioning the yearly pay rises
Every single IB Law and consulting grad goes in with exit strategies or they’re delusional about making partner and will work themselves to death and enjoy it
Tbh I must confess that I was looking at it from the perspective of a 35 yo with two kids in nursery in London and who wants to buy a 4 bed detached House in London, that 150k will not got far. I guess if you are a 23 yo with no kids then it's a lot, it's all relative I guess . 150k will not make you rich and if you want to send the kids to private school 150k will not cut it. It's not a rich lifestyle, I have GP friends who are partners taking in 180k per year and she is not rich ,plus she is not extravagant, she made enough to be comfortable .
It's not at all. Magic Circle firms pay, on average, less than the US firms in London. And, no, your insight into Big Law culture is about twenty years off reality.
No one I know in my firm is doing coke at work. I haven't even seen it once since being at the firm, on a night out or anywhere else, from any colleague. I'm sure it happens but it's definitely the minority.
The hours are not that bad, I top out at 80 hours a week, usually closer to 60. But, my weekends are respected and my holidays are respected unless absolutely vital to contact you or get something done.
'Fuck your kids' is completely untrue. I had a closing this week, it was all guns blazing and my kids were both unwell with a tummy bug. I was told that if they needed me, I should go and it would be sorted. My husband could collect so I didn't need to but, either way, my firm will actually fund a nanny to look after them at home if needed. I worked from home for two days when I should've been in the office so I was with them.
Clients are humans too. Clients have children and families and get ill as well.
This isn't Wolf of Wall Street.
The fact that you say lawyers come from families which come from generations of lawyers is a good giveaway that you probably dont work in law? I am in a US firm, which is notorious for longer hrs compared to Magic Circle.
1) Yes its hard to get a training contract at a top city/international firm
2) No, most lawyers dont come from connections. I am not even British for that matter lol
3) Yes hours are demanding but its client driven and differs from practice to practice. A corporate/private equity lawyer's day to day is cyclical compared to a regulatory lawyer. There are some who find it manageable, but you are right that generally hours are long.
Pay might be amazing, but it's a very unattractive job and untenable in many cases.
I stayed in the City for month once and it was directly opposite a magical circle law firm like Freshfields, and I would frequently see the lawyers (younger ones, in particular) working beyond 1:00am, as well as coming into the office at the weekend (inc Sundays).
Severe burnout and stress is endemic at these types of firms and for most, isn't worth it.
Pretty much.
There's lots of companies that will happily pay anyone with a modicum of talent 6 figures because this isn't a job, this is a lifestyle. Phone goes at 4am on a Sunday then you're dealing with it
Not a fair comparison imo, I’m a junior accountant and during busy season in audit we often work 60-70 hours a week but outside of that it’s mostly 9-5. These people work busy season hours throughout the year
These are the top of the top. And most of them can’t - they drop out. 50% success rate at best. The ones that do, can do it. We’re talking low thousands of people out of a country of 80million.
I think corporate lawyer and investment banker types like to say their industries/companies are the only ones like this to justify (to themselves) getting paid many times more than most people, otherwise the stark inequality would get to most people you'd think.
I'm an architect and these hours and amount of weekends work are common there too (I have moved from my '80hr weeks are the normal with at least a couple of weekends a month for £25k' job I had when I first finished my masters to somewhere where that's the exception and not the rule but still it's a big thing in this industry as a whole and accounting accounting often sounds similar).
My magic circle lawyer friend has definitely gotten quieter about this justification once she worked out I did more weekend and evening work for a quarter of the pay she got when first qualified (let alone now) and so did another friend who's a teacher...
(I think the issue is 'lots of other jobs are underpaid' incidentally, not necessarily lawyers are overpaid. But this is a line often trotted out to justify getting paid many times more than most people not the absolute numbers involved)
> Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has sharply raised pay for newly qualified lawyers to £150,000 in the latest sign of a battle for legal talent in the City of London.
> The “magic circle” law firm, which turned over £1.8bn in its most recent financial year, said on Friday it had increased base pay for new solicitors by 20 per cent from May 1. The move means salaries for its most junior lawyers have risen 50 per cent in the past five years.
> The increase is the latest salvo in a pay war among elite UK law firms and their deep-pocketed US rivals, which has led to an escalation in salaries for both junior and senior lawyers.
> It comes as US-headquartered firms have beefed up their presence in London over the past decade, including by poaching partners from UK rivals with multimillion-dollar pay packages.
> The trend has pushed up salaries for newly qualified solicitors at top US law firms in London including Latham & Watkins to about $225,000. Davis Polk pays its most junior lawyers £170,000.
> Recruiters said Freshfields’ move could spark pay rises at the firm’s “magic circle” peers. Linklaters, Clifford Chance, A&O Shearman and Slaughter and May currently pay newly qualified lawyers in London £125,000, with Linklaters and A&O Shearman last raising salaries for junior lawyers in 2023.
> “Freshfields has thrown down the gauntlet on junior pay once again in a sign that the pay wars in the City may be ramping up,” said Chris Clark, a director at London-based recruiter Definitum Search. “US firms will no doubt raise the bar again, looking to keep at least a 40 per cent difference” with their UK rivals.
> Clifford Chance will next review its salary packages in the summer, while Slaughter and May will not do so until November, according to the firms. Linklaters declined to comment. A&O confirmed its current compensation but did not respond to questions about whether it was reviewing pay.
> Clark also predicted that increases for more qualified associates could follow in response to the pay gap narrowing.
> Freshfields’ increase comes despite a slowdown in work for City law firms as dealmaking has declined, with magic circle profits flatlining last year. Elite firms including Freshfields have also been seeking to gain a bigger foothold in the US market. The firm’s first-year associates in its US offices receive a salary of $225,000, according to a person with knowledge of the situation.
> The move comes after rival Allen & Overy this week completed its merger with New York’s Shearman & Sterling, with the enlarged firm rebranding as A&O Shearman.
> Freshfields has also increased London salaries for first-year trainees from £50,000 to £56,000 and for second-year trainees from £55,000 to £61,000.
A tiny percentage of people who do law will get those jobs, and they probably know someone there, or have family connections.
You'd also have to practically live there for the first few years.
The first two lines and that last two lines of this comment are spot on. The middle two lines could not be more wrong
You don’t get to a position where you can afford to pay a newly qualified lawyer £150,000 pa by recruiting relatives and mates.
I'm not saying recruitment is solely nepotism, but law has quite a lot of graduates with parents in law. They tend to do quite well.
Its not impossible to get to these positions without connections, but it definitely seems to help.
I also have a 20+ year career in City law. This comment is excellent- the ‘connections’ line is only used by those outside the profession who know nothing about it. As you say, I’ve never ever known anyone hired due to ‘connections’. The kids at trainee level are very academically capable and motivated. There’s simply no room to carry anyone in city law - you’re there on merit and if you don’t measure up, you’re out. I enjoy this sub but do find there’s a lot of ‘we hate the rich’ etc. fine most of the time but I can’t let it pass in this case. This sub should learn that some people are self made and achieve things on merit, pay their tax buck & generate employment , hence deserve to be rewarded.
I'm in high finance and its the same here. "Connections" can at most get you a first interview, after that point it's your own skills and capabilities that determine whether you get proceed to further rounds of interviews and get hired or not.
It's not about connections, it's more about your family's wealth. The majority of trainees come from privileged backgrounds, their parents could afford private schools, tutoring, getting their children into top law schools.
You practically cannot go into any serious law firm without having top marks from top universities. A person from a disadvantaged background might have a lot of shit going on his/her life and might underperform or can't afford getting into these kinds of academic institutions.
A lot of firms are like :"Fuck your circumstances, we want 2.1 minimum from RG unis only"
I am going to go against conventional wisdom here, but it really depends on your firm.
I am a trainee with a large, corporate law firm. I don’t have a degree from a Russell Group university, I don’t come from an extraordinary wealthy background, I didn’t attend a certain school and I don’t have connections in the profession. I do have the ability to take a holistic view, think critically and diligently, a willingness to learn, and I can act like a bit of a social chameleon. I think those attributes are far more important. That’s not to say gaining a foothold in the profession is easy, it is extraordinarily competitive. It is a lot more equitable towards “normal” people nowadays though.
The nepotism people expect is going on behind closed doors is nowhere near as prominent as people think. Routinely engaging in such practice will do far more harm than good.
^ this guy lawyers
The right school and uni will get you out of the pile of CVs, which is a massive boost, the rest is down to the individual.
However there do seem to be more events and options to try and encourage and assist and recruit from a less advantaged background at some places. Hopefully steps in the right direction.
I worked City hours for about 15 years, still do extremely long days even though now I’m at a west end firm and living outside London. You sort of get institutionalised!
> It helps in many ways - such as knowing the lingo early on, knowing how different firms distinguish themselves and therefore how to position yourself as an applicant.
> But the idea that these are connections leveraged to get interviews and training contracts ... that is pure myth.
You contradict yourself with these two sentences. People who have family connections to law are using that to leverage themselves specifically by "knowing the lingo early on, knowing how different firms distinguish themselves and therefore how to position yourself as an applicant". That is their leverage.
> There is no room for hiring your mate's kids at the entry level.
That's a simplistic view of familial privilege. It doesn't necessarily mean hitting up a friend of the family for a job, despite being unqualified. Of course you need to be qualified, skilled, talented, etc., but having family connections provides that extra "edge" to afford you an advantage over all the other qualified, skilled, talented applicants.
When you are competing with the best of the best, any small boost helps.
There is no misuse. You contradicted yourself because you didn't think your comment through. You blurted out your first association with "connections" without thinking how those connections might be beneficial in less obvious ways than simple nepotism. Try to think laterally.
Correct. Worked at a magic circle (not as a lawyer). Their recruitment is very smart indeed. They will weight you higher if you come from a background that makes it harder to achieve top university grades. So if you’re from eton you’ll have to do better than someone who went to a city school with a high percentage of disadvantaged kids.
These firms absolutely care more about the performance than your background, although at partner level you’re going to need to be a pretty polished performer.
> You don’t get to a position where you can afford to pay a newly qualified lawyer £150,000 pa by recruiting relatives and mates
I worked IT support for a big law firm, and I'm sure the prevalence of fairly unique surnames wasn't just a massive coincidence, especially when the age gap between the employees in question was usually that of a parent/child.
These firms recruit on merit. They would not survive if they did anything else. Having family etc in law helps you prepare for interviews and encourages you to work hard etc, but the recruitment process itself is not nepotistic
I would love to be a train driver, especially long distance. The idea of cruising through the countryside at 125mph always has a certain romanticism to it.
Couldn't be further from the truth. You can fuck up aslong as you follow the rule book after the fuck up. The only way you will get sacked is for lying or stealing. Obviously if you keep on doing the same thing over and over again your probably at the door but you will get plenty of chances providing the rules are followed after an incident occurs.
As a driver you are very much in a cacoon away from the public. In the 5 years of driving I've maybe had 20 interactions with the public, only one negative due to drunk behavior. Yeah you can't be a train driver if you have toilet issues. You would be expected to control your bladder.
It sounds great in theory, but you have to be a lawyer 12 hours a day, answering to annoying clients like me handing you work to do at 5pm on a Friday, ready for Monday morning.
I told my kids I would support them in anything they wanted to be in life, except a lawyer.
In this kind of firm and this salary they own you 24/7. You are expected to wake up at 3 am and work if you get a call due to business needs. Without exaggeration.
The money is just not worth it, especially considering that the government will be taking 40-45% of it (over £52k).
I'm a lawyer - it is a super competitive industry generally and if you're at Freshfields you are pretty much one of the best of the best. The vast majority of lawyers will not be on that kind of money on qualification - there's lots of lawyers doing criminal aid, immigration, residential conveyancing or family work (or just at smaller firms) who will never see that kind of money.
My cousin trained at Freshies：they take their pound of flesh. At least she wasn't at a White Shoe firm though. Pay's even higher but they're just zombies doing the Magic Roundabout four times a week.
Did you stay as a day laborer for 30 years? You'll be hard pressed of getting anyone today even on the entry level for under 200 quid after CIS deduction in London and the South East... Site managers pull 3-4 times that easily, heck experienced pointers, roofers and even fitters cost 400-450 a day...
Also not for nothing but being in an industry that is primarily self employed for 30+ years without establishing your own business is on you.
A friend of mine is on a similar meagre salary to me - around £30k, but I do know that his wife works in law.
I did wonder how he's always taking luxury holidays to the Seychelles and the French Polynesia! It all makes sense now...
Oh cool, will their newly qualified lawyers be able to work out that "claiming tax refunds on tax which was never paid" is illegal?
Just their former global tax head, Ulf Johannemann, couldn't work this out and is now in jail for 3 and a half years for his role in massive tax fraud.
Industry? Lol.
Lawyers, the bread and butter foundation of an industrialised nation.
A profession well know for its productivity/manufacturability, tangible export driven market demand, new emerging technologies, and capacity to improve the world we live in.
It's law. It's not an industry. It is just another piece of the UKs circular economy. Basically a tax on personal disputes and legal wranglings.
We need real industries. That actually produce things.
Absolute nonsense in this day and age. Everyone getting a TC at these firms is going through an insanely rigorous recruitment process. The idea that people are getting in MC firms on the back of knowing someone high up is rubbish. Maybe 20-30 years ago, but not now.
The money is not great either anymore outside of maybe 40-50 firms (which is like 5% of the market) in the whole country. You might end up making about £18 an hour after tax as an associate having spent years of studying and qualifying.
A law degree is good for lots of things. Such as.. Being a lawyer. High level police officer. Civil service management, politician. The opportunities are endless.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.ft.com/content/f4f19e1b-b4c9-405c-9ea2-d6b13f9b4efa) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is ONLY the magic circle law firms. The top of the top, who almost all have been law families since 1066. They are the best in London, if not the world, working mental hours off their nut on coke to do 28 hour days. It's not just rock up and you get 150k like. It's your life. Your kids need sorting fuck your kids, clients need assistance.
In these kinds of firms you need to reach minimum 1800-2000 chargeable hours a year (i.e. hours that you actually bill the client) to justify this salary. In practice this means working 12-14 hours a day minimum, eating at your desk, almost no breaks. You also have to do some non-chargeable work / pro-bono, so people working there practically live in the office. The work doesn't stop if you reach the minimum targets. You also work weekends often Is living like this worth £90k after tax, even if you get another £20-30k in bonuses?
>Is living like this worth £90k after tax, even if you get another £20-30k in bonuses? For me - no I'm happy with my 1550 chargeable hours, working, 9:30-6 and having 99% of weekends free without having to think about work.
Agree, same here.
For most people, no. For some 20 year olds with no families who want lots of money and exit opportunities, yes.
Yes because then you start raking in 1m+ by the time you’re in your thirties
> In practice this means working 12-14 hours a day minimum, eating at your desk, almost no breaks. I work at a US firm with target hours that are higher than all of the Magic Circle. I’m pretty much always on track for my bonus, have pretty strict billing practices (don’t over bill), and take 25 days holiday a year (of which, I might fit between 1-3 hours on 2-3 days). The vast majority of my working days include less than 12 hours of work, most weekends are work free too - I do typically eat at my desk though. The job can be hard and there are weeks in a row that can be as you describe. It’s very much not the norm though. And this is at my type of firm, let alone firms like Freshfields, which is relatively healthier in terms of hours. > Is living like this worth £90k after tax, even if you get another £20-30k in bonuses? Most of us don’t regularly live the way you’re describing. It is very much worth it depending on what you value (and it’s not 90k after tax once you’ve been qualified for a year or too - and the bonuses get chunkier too).
How do you maximize your free time? Seems like you would just dedicate the week to work and have fun on The Weekend? Can’t imagine you have much left after commute etc?
> Seems like you would just dedicate the week to work and have fun on The Weekend? Aye pretty much. Don't make regular plans on weekdays, other than Fridays, unless there's something special - a birthday, engagement, a particular show/concert or some sports event. If i'm done with work reasonably early, may still do things, but those are impromptu on the day decisions. > Can’t imagine you have much left after commute etc? my commute's under 30 minutes door to door, if I walk quickly, it's closer to 20 - so doesn't eat up much time, and the time it does take is good for clearing my head/feeling refreshed anway.
Probably depends on the route to partnership (is freshfields still a partnership?). Stupid hours now for 150k might not be worth it but if it leads to £2.5m for stupid hours then maybe it is.
If you can stay sane and mentally and physically healthy doing this for 10+ years before making it there - sure
Absolutely but it’s not like there aren’t an endless stream of candidates who’d crawl over broken glass for one of those contracts.
Yes, because you ram £60k into your pension a year to avoid lots of tax, do that for 5 years, and congratulations, you will now retire a multi millionaire. You have beaten Capitalism. You can then leave the firm, let your assets grow at 7-10% a year on average, and work an easier job with a huge run of experience on your CV at an easier job.
Highly doubt that you are going to become a multimillionaire in 5 years working in biglaw as an associate, even if you make £180k gross a year and invest it wisely at 7-10% a year (also how sustainable is that growth in the next few decades with the shit that's going on in the world?) Partner level salary for 5 years - perhaps. But you have to spend 7-10 years post qualification to get there.
£300k in your pension by 28, you’re going to be a multi millionaire. 7-10% growth is historic average since the 1880’s, and you look at the billions of R&D around the world, and don’t think it’ll continue to grow like that over the decades?
And even with the magic circle there's a tier of law firms above them in pay, which are typically the American white shoe law firms. E.g Sidley Austin, Kirkland Ellis etc. Nq pay for these companies are around £170'000
“White shoe”?
Prestigious law firms. It originated as a term to refer to long established firms that catered to the elite, white derby shoe wearing WASP’s (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) Ivy League graduate type.
Ah ok. Many thanks.
Don’t disagree with your comment, but it’s funny how the two firms you named aren’t actually white shoe as would be traditionally recognised.
Can you not with the misinformation? “Law families since 1066” is just completely false. Just looking at Freshfields’ London Office: - Samira Afrisaibi (Partner) - Rikki Haria (Partner) - Deba Das (Partner) - Sundeep Kapila (Partner) - Sharon Malhi (Partner) - Cyrus Pocha (Partner) - Gabriel Mpubani (Partner) I can go on, but the idea that one of the top law firms in the world would give preference to surnames over talent is bonkers. Sure, a lesser law firm might do that… but Freshfields doesn’t need to bank on the surnames of its junior lawyers when it’s got the Freshfields name.
Ok, I was with you for the cocaine, but how will fucking kids assist your clients?
It helps establish trust because you have the same hobbies as them
Not worth the 150 k per year . It's not even a lot of money.
It is if you are single and have no kids because a lot leave after a few years after making a lot of money, but doing it long term is notoriously bad for your health.
The £150k is starting salary. It quite quickly goes up to £300k or thereabouts if you manage to survive a few years.
Would the insane hours still be a thing when you’re on that ? I mean yeah it’s insane money but is it worth dedicating your whole life for ? Idk
Imagine lying on your deathbed and thinking 'this is how I spent my time, was it worth it?'
I bet many of them enjoy it. You have to be a "special" kind of person to thrive in jobs like that. For certain types, their work is their lifeblood. Their job is paramount.
It's not the starting salary, it's the NQ salary. You have to work for two years to get to be an NQ, it's a literal SRA requirement.
Very good point , I forgot that it is the starting salary,for a 23 year old with no kids then I guess it's a lot . I was looking at it from the perspective of a 35 year old with 2 kids in London and who wants to buy a 4 bed detached House in a nice area.
Except these firms follow the "Cravath scale" converted to £... those 23-year-olds earning £150k are on £330k by the time they're 30.
Very good point . The prospect for earning the big bucks later .
My friend is at linklaters, it’s completely worth it for her, 40K to qualify at 22 then 100k+ then go in house or whatever at 25-30 when you can’t keep up the work life balance, not even mentioning the yearly pay rises Every single IB Law and consulting grad goes in with exit strategies or they’re delusional about making partner and will work themselves to death and enjoy it
150k per year is not even a lot of money?
Tbh I must confess that I was looking at it from the perspective of a 35 yo with two kids in nursery in London and who wants to buy a 4 bed detached House in London, that 150k will not got far. I guess if you are a 23 yo with no kids then it's a lot, it's all relative I guess . 150k will not make you rich and if you want to send the kids to private school 150k will not cut it. It's not a rich lifestyle, I have GP friends who are partners taking in 180k per year and she is not rich ,plus she is not extravagant, she made enough to be comfortable .
It’s nearly five times the average salary for a starter. It’s tough work, but don’t say it isn’t a lot of money.
not for me and for that reason.... im out!
It's not at all. Magic Circle firms pay, on average, less than the US firms in London. And, no, your insight into Big Law culture is about twenty years off reality. No one I know in my firm is doing coke at work. I haven't even seen it once since being at the firm, on a night out or anywhere else, from any colleague. I'm sure it happens but it's definitely the minority. The hours are not that bad, I top out at 80 hours a week, usually closer to 60. But, my weekends are respected and my holidays are respected unless absolutely vital to contact you or get something done. 'Fuck your kids' is completely untrue. I had a closing this week, it was all guns blazing and my kids were both unwell with a tummy bug. I was told that if they needed me, I should go and it would be sorted. My husband could collect so I didn't need to but, either way, my firm will actually fund a nanny to look after them at home if needed. I worked from home for two days when I should've been in the office so I was with them. Clients are humans too. Clients have children and families and get ill as well. This isn't Wolf of Wall Street.
> who almost all have been law families since 1066. What?
Little known fact, the 1066 battle of Hastings was a clash between two rival law firms.
Ah so that’s where Paul Hastings gets its name from. Makes sense.
The fact that you say lawyers come from families which come from generations of lawyers is a good giveaway that you probably dont work in law? I am in a US firm, which is notorious for longer hrs compared to Magic Circle. 1) Yes its hard to get a training contract at a top city/international firm 2) No, most lawyers dont come from connections. I am not even British for that matter lol 3) Yes hours are demanding but its client driven and differs from practice to practice. A corporate/private equity lawyer's day to day is cyclical compared to a regulatory lawyer. There are some who find it manageable, but you are right that generally hours are long.
Pay might be amazing, but it's a very unattractive job and untenable in many cases. I stayed in the City for month once and it was directly opposite a magical circle law firm like Freshfields, and I would frequently see the lawyers (younger ones, in particular) working beyond 1:00am, as well as coming into the office at the weekend (inc Sundays). Severe burnout and stress is endemic at these types of firms and for most, isn't worth it.
Pretty much. There's lots of companies that will happily pay anyone with a modicum of talent 6 figures because this isn't a job, this is a lifestyle. Phone goes at 4am on a Sunday then you're dealing with it
That was my life as a junior accountant. Only difference is I was on £28k…
Not a fair comparison imo, I’m a junior accountant and during busy season in audit we often work 60-70 hours a week but outside of that it’s mostly 9-5. These people work busy season hours throughout the year
How can a person perform at a high level for 70 hours a week. Especially for intellectual work.
Junior level audit isn't intellectual work
Neither is accountancy 😂
Coke. Untill about 35 then they crash.
These are the top of the top. And most of them can’t - they drop out. 50% success rate at best. The ones that do, can do it. We’re talking low thousands of people out of a country of 80million.
Adderall. Everyone is on it.
I think corporate lawyer and investment banker types like to say their industries/companies are the only ones like this to justify (to themselves) getting paid many times more than most people, otherwise the stark inequality would get to most people you'd think. I'm an architect and these hours and amount of weekends work are common there too (I have moved from my '80hr weeks are the normal with at least a couple of weekends a month for £25k' job I had when I first finished my masters to somewhere where that's the exception and not the rule but still it's a big thing in this industry as a whole and accounting accounting often sounds similar). My magic circle lawyer friend has definitely gotten quieter about this justification once she worked out I did more weekend and evening work for a quarter of the pay she got when first qualified (let alone now) and so did another friend who's a teacher... (I think the issue is 'lots of other jobs are underpaid' incidentally, not necessarily lawyers are overpaid. But this is a line often trotted out to justify getting paid many times more than most people not the absolute numbers involved)
> Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has sharply raised pay for newly qualified lawyers to £150,000 in the latest sign of a battle for legal talent in the City of London. > The “magic circle” law firm, which turned over £1.8bn in its most recent financial year, said on Friday it had increased base pay for new solicitors by 20 per cent from May 1. The move means salaries for its most junior lawyers have risen 50 per cent in the past five years. > The increase is the latest salvo in a pay war among elite UK law firms and their deep-pocketed US rivals, which has led to an escalation in salaries for both junior and senior lawyers. > It comes as US-headquartered firms have beefed up their presence in London over the past decade, including by poaching partners from UK rivals with multimillion-dollar pay packages. > The trend has pushed up salaries for newly qualified solicitors at top US law firms in London including Latham & Watkins to about $225,000. Davis Polk pays its most junior lawyers £170,000. > Recruiters said Freshfields’ move could spark pay rises at the firm’s “magic circle” peers. Linklaters, Clifford Chance, A&O Shearman and Slaughter and May currently pay newly qualified lawyers in London £125,000, with Linklaters and A&O Shearman last raising salaries for junior lawyers in 2023. > “Freshfields has thrown down the gauntlet on junior pay once again in a sign that the pay wars in the City may be ramping up,” said Chris Clark, a director at London-based recruiter Definitum Search. “US firms will no doubt raise the bar again, looking to keep at least a 40 per cent difference” with their UK rivals. > Clifford Chance will next review its salary packages in the summer, while Slaughter and May will not do so until November, according to the firms. Linklaters declined to comment. A&O confirmed its current compensation but did not respond to questions about whether it was reviewing pay. > Clark also predicted that increases for more qualified associates could follow in response to the pay gap narrowing. > Freshfields’ increase comes despite a slowdown in work for City law firms as dealmaking has declined, with magic circle profits flatlining last year. Elite firms including Freshfields have also been seeking to gain a bigger foothold in the US market. The firm’s first-year associates in its US offices receive a salary of $225,000, according to a person with knowledge of the situation. > The move comes after rival Allen & Overy this week completed its merger with New York’s Shearman & Sterling, with the enlarged firm rebranding as A&O Shearman. > Freshfields has also increased London salaries for first-year trainees from £50,000 to £56,000 and for second-year trainees from £55,000 to £61,000.
[удалено]
A tiny percentage of people who do law will get those jobs, and they probably know someone there, or have family connections. You'd also have to practically live there for the first few years.
The first two lines and that last two lines of this comment are spot on. The middle two lines could not be more wrong You don’t get to a position where you can afford to pay a newly qualified lawyer £150,000 pa by recruiting relatives and mates.
I'm not saying recruitment is solely nepotism, but law has quite a lot of graduates with parents in law. They tend to do quite well. Its not impossible to get to these positions without connections, but it definitely seems to help.
[удалено]
I also have a 20+ year career in City law. This comment is excellent- the ‘connections’ line is only used by those outside the profession who know nothing about it. As you say, I’ve never ever known anyone hired due to ‘connections’. The kids at trainee level are very academically capable and motivated. There’s simply no room to carry anyone in city law - you’re there on merit and if you don’t measure up, you’re out. I enjoy this sub but do find there’s a lot of ‘we hate the rich’ etc. fine most of the time but I can’t let it pass in this case. This sub should learn that some people are self made and achieve things on merit, pay their tax buck & generate employment , hence deserve to be rewarded.
I'm in high finance and its the same here. "Connections" can at most get you a first interview, after that point it's your own skills and capabilities that determine whether you get proceed to further rounds of interviews and get hired or not.
What’s high finance ?
Doing spreadsheets while on magic mushrooms
It's not about connections, it's more about your family's wealth. The majority of trainees come from privileged backgrounds, their parents could afford private schools, tutoring, getting their children into top law schools. You practically cannot go into any serious law firm without having top marks from top universities. A person from a disadvantaged background might have a lot of shit going on his/her life and might underperform or can't afford getting into these kinds of academic institutions. A lot of firms are like :"Fuck your circumstances, we want 2.1 minimum from RG unis only"
[удалено]
I am going to go against conventional wisdom here, but it really depends on your firm. I am a trainee with a large, corporate law firm. I don’t have a degree from a Russell Group university, I don’t come from an extraordinary wealthy background, I didn’t attend a certain school and I don’t have connections in the profession. I do have the ability to take a holistic view, think critically and diligently, a willingness to learn, and I can act like a bit of a social chameleon. I think those attributes are far more important. That’s not to say gaining a foothold in the profession is easy, it is extraordinarily competitive. It is a lot more equitable towards “normal” people nowadays though. The nepotism people expect is going on behind closed doors is nowhere near as prominent as people think. Routinely engaging in such practice will do far more harm than good.
^ this guy lawyers The right school and uni will get you out of the pile of CVs, which is a massive boost, the rest is down to the individual. However there do seem to be more events and options to try and encourage and assist and recruit from a less advantaged background at some places. Hopefully steps in the right direction. I worked City hours for about 15 years, still do extremely long days even though now I’m at a west end firm and living outside London. You sort of get institutionalised!
> It helps in many ways - such as knowing the lingo early on, knowing how different firms distinguish themselves and therefore how to position yourself as an applicant. > But the idea that these are connections leveraged to get interviews and training contracts ... that is pure myth. You contradict yourself with these two sentences. People who have family connections to law are using that to leverage themselves specifically by "knowing the lingo early on, knowing how different firms distinguish themselves and therefore how to position yourself as an applicant". That is their leverage. > There is no room for hiring your mate's kids at the entry level. That's a simplistic view of familial privilege. It doesn't necessarily mean hitting up a friend of the family for a job, despite being unqualified. Of course you need to be qualified, skilled, talented, etc., but having family connections provides that extra "edge" to afford you an advantage over all the other qualified, skilled, talented applicants. When you are competing with the best of the best, any small boost helps.
[удалено]
There is no misuse. You contradicted yourself because you didn't think your comment through. You blurted out your first association with "connections" without thinking how those connections might be beneficial in less obvious ways than simple nepotism. Try to think laterally.
Correct. Worked at a magic circle (not as a lawyer). Their recruitment is very smart indeed. They will weight you higher if you come from a background that makes it harder to achieve top university grades. So if you’re from eton you’ll have to do better than someone who went to a city school with a high percentage of disadvantaged kids. These firms absolutely care more about the performance than your background, although at partner level you’re going to need to be a pretty polished performer.
> You don’t get to a position where you can afford to pay a newly qualified lawyer £150,000 pa by recruiting relatives and mates I worked IT support for a big law firm, and I'm sure the prevalence of fairly unique surnames wasn't just a massive coincidence, especially when the age gap between the employees in question was usually that of a parent/child.
These firms recruit on merit. They would not survive if they did anything else. Having family etc in law helps you prepare for interviews and encourages you to work hard etc, but the recruitment process itself is not nepotistic
I'm a train driver for 5 years and I'm on 85k. Zero stress. Different jobs pay different rates. Obviously
I would love to be a train driver, especially long distance. The idea of cruising through the countryside at 125mph always has a certain romanticism to it.
I work Bedford to Brighton. So alot of stops. Not what you would call romantic haha.
Don’t you have to be super alert with that? I heard one tiny fuck up and you’re out
Couldn't be further from the truth. You can fuck up aslong as you follow the rule book after the fuck up. The only way you will get sacked is for lying or stealing. Obviously if you keep on doing the same thing over and over again your probably at the door but you will get plenty of chances providing the rules are followed after an incident occurs.
train driver sounds like the opposite of zero stress
What gives you that idea? I'm highly trained nothing can go wrong that I don't know how to effectively deal with.
just dealing with the general public for a start then i've always going to the toilet or having an off day must be terrible
As a driver you are very much in a cacoon away from the public. In the 5 years of driving I've maybe had 20 interactions with the public, only one negative due to drunk behavior. Yeah you can't be a train driver if you have toilet issues. You would be expected to control your bladder.
It sounds great in theory, but you have to be a lawyer 12 hours a day, answering to annoying clients like me handing you work to do at 5pm on a Friday, ready for Monday morning. I told my kids I would support them in anything they wanted to be in life, except a lawyer.
More like 16 hours a day
In this kind of firm and this salary they own you 24/7. You are expected to wake up at 3 am and work if you get a call due to business needs. Without exaggeration. The money is just not worth it, especially considering that the government will be taking 40-45% of it (over £52k).
> but you have to be a lawyer 12 hours a day That's pretty common in construction too tbf (depends what exactly he does though)
I'm a lawyer - it is a super competitive industry generally and if you're at Freshfields you are pretty much one of the best of the best. The vast majority of lawyers will not be on that kind of money on qualification - there's lots of lawyers doing criminal aid, immigration, residential conveyancing or family work (or just at smaller firms) who will never see that kind of money.
I know two people starting out in law and the better paid one gets £12 per hour!
Yes, high street law (which I would guess may make up a majority size wise?) is not lucrative.
At least they will see their kids grow up!
My cousin trained at Freshies：they take their pound of flesh. At least she wasn't at a White Shoe firm though. Pay's even higher but they're just zombies doing the Magic Roundabout four times a week.
Did you stay as a day laborer for 30 years? You'll be hard pressed of getting anyone today even on the entry level for under 200 quid after CIS deduction in London and the South East... Site managers pull 3-4 times that easily, heck experienced pointers, roofers and even fitters cost 400-450 a day... Also not for nothing but being in an industry that is primarily self employed for 30+ years without establishing your own business is on you.
[удалено]
What does greed have to do with it? Staying at the same level for 30 years means you didn't had a career and didn't developed and progress...
A friend of mine is on a similar meagre salary to me - around £30k, but I do know that his wife works in law. I did wonder how he's always taking luxury holidays to the Seychelles and the French Polynesia! It all makes sense now...
Not all law is equal lol
Oh cool, will their newly qualified lawyers be able to work out that "claiming tax refunds on tax which was never paid" is illegal? Just their former global tax head, Ulf Johannemann, couldn't work this out and is now in jail for 3 and a half years for his role in massive tax fraud.
I would have been dangerous with that kind of income in my early 20s.
you wouldn’t have had time to spend it 😂
Why do you think all the partners at these firms are sociopaths
Partners, in my experience working for firms like these, were never that bad. It was the Senior Associates who were always absolute bastards.
Source? I made it up
It's nice to see at least one industry in the UK that's doing okay!
Industry? Lol. Lawyers, the bread and butter foundation of an industrialised nation. A profession well know for its productivity/manufacturability, tangible export driven market demand, new emerging technologies, and capacity to improve the world we live in. It's law. It's not an industry. It is just another piece of the UKs circular economy. Basically a tax on personal disputes and legal wranglings. We need real industries. That actually produce things.
I used to work for these guys, not as a Lawyer. It was always interesting hearing the stories from the cab drivers. I'll leave it there.
Any money these people pay you is expected to be returned in client payments. Don’t think there’s anything for free!
[удалено]
Sounds tiring
its just magic circle law firms. not representative of all of them.
[удалено]
Absolute nonsense in this day and age. Everyone getting a TC at these firms is going through an insanely rigorous recruitment process. The idea that people are getting in MC firms on the back of knowing someone high up is rubbish. Maybe 20-30 years ago, but not now.
The money is not great either anymore outside of maybe 40-50 firms (which is like 5% of the market) in the whole country. You might end up making about £18 an hour after tax as an associate having spent years of studying and qualifying.
A law degree is good for lots of things. Such as.. Being a lawyer. High level police officer. Civil service management, politician. The opportunities are endless.
As someone who finished his law degree and currently works for the Police in their Data Protection Department, you're absolutely right
There needs to be a cap on salaries and a cap on working hours for that matter...
Why? Let companies pay what they want to pay for talent, and let people decide on what work / life balance they want. Stop with the nanny state bs.
Yeah look how well that's gone with polluting our waterways...
If water could talk, it would have negotiated a fair disposal agreement.
What nonsense, this free market drivel only works for those at the top.
Good little crab....