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
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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