Revisiting California Associate Compensation
This article explains that prominent California law firms (including many OCIP participants) are revising their lock-step salary models. While salaries and bonuses aren't expected to change immediately, the way they're doled out might, as California firms consider switching from a lockstep associate compensation model to others based on skill level. Why would they do this? Because, according to the article, associates are becoming more savvy to the realities of the economy and its attendant layoffs (read: vulnerable), and firms are beginning to tinker with compensation plans and other intangible aspects of the job.
"I hear . . . more and more from partners that they can't give first-year associates work," said one recruiter in Los Angeles. "Clients can talk to a young associate and figure he or she doesn't know what he or she is talking about, and they say, 'We don't want to be serviced by younger associates. We don't want them going to school on our nickel.'"
The plan strikes me as a perfectly reasonable way to address non-performers, and to curb a sense of salary entitlement among recent grads: once a firm pays $160,000 to first year associates it may be hard to go back. That doesn't require the firm to pay a penny more at year two. (Am I insensitive?)
On a side note, the article is based in part on a polling of compensation plans at California's 25 top-earning firms. The results are of that poll are locked away behind a "premium subscription," which costs over $200 per year. If you have access, I'd be grateful for a peek. Please e-mail me.
"I hear . . . more and more from partners that they can't give first-year associates work," said one recruiter in Los Angeles. "Clients can talk to a young associate and figure he or she doesn't know what he or she is talking about, and they say, 'We don't want to be serviced by younger associates. We don't want them going to school on our nickel.'"
The plan strikes me as a perfectly reasonable way to address non-performers, and to curb a sense of salary entitlement among recent grads: once a firm pays $160,000 to first year associates it may be hard to go back. That doesn't require the firm to pay a penny more at year two. (Am I insensitive?)
On a side note, the article is based in part on a polling of compensation plans at California's 25 top-earning firms. The results are of that poll are locked away behind a "premium subscription," which costs over $200 per year. If you have access, I'd be grateful for a peek. Please e-mail me.
Labels: OCIP/Employment
posted by Patrick Bageant at 8:49 AM
2 Comments:
Off topic, but just short of a month later, we got an update on the building.
I suppose that's one way to keep costs down without lay-offs. But in lots of firms the problem seems to be that there's just not enough work to go around. So the firm gets to couch it as a "lack of experience" - which may technically be correct - but it's not like the associate has any control over it. They may be brilliant and may have done excellent work when there was work to do. If the associate is just a slacker, that should be pretty easy to ascertain, but if not, why should associates be punished when the partners aren't bringing in the work? It seems like the associates are just easy targets and will have to suck it up, because they're going to have a really hard time finding another job in this economy.
I can see why firms want to cut costs if they aren't busy, but I hate it when they paint the problem to look like the associates are underperforming. It's dishonest. They give the associates a complex about their intelligence and abilities, and then when all the associates jump ship as soon as the opportunity presents itself they wonder what happened.
It's funny how a lack of experience didn't stop these firms from paying first years $160k straight out the gate. It also didn't stop most of them from giving lock-step raises to weaker performers in healthier years. Whatevs.
Post a Comment
<< Home