RPC to scrap NQ flat rate salary for performance-based pay

  • Print
  • Comments (40)

Readers' comments (40)

  • How can you fairly assess the performance of a trainee given the nature of most of the work they do? In my experience, generally speaking, a trainee is as good and as useful as their supervisor and/or department allows them to be.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why should trainee solicitors be paid so much? There are very few places left where graduates can expect a salary of £50k plus that will rise automatically every year regardless of how much effort they put in. Does this really offer value for money? For a firm to continue to bring in trainees it must remain profitable, it can only do this with the support of clients. Surely overcharging for an underqualified lawyer is the surest way to lose clients?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I really don't get this! Merit-based pay is very appropriate once a solicitor has achieved the basics i.e. above 2PQE. Before that is the trainee or NQ isn't performing you give them a chance to develop and if they don't you fire them. Pay differentiation at this level is just another useless task for already over-worked HR functions!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "over-worked HR functions". Thanks for that. Made me laugh.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • EA - I think it's probably fair to say HR staff have been earning their quids recently - and few of them starting out will be on £58k...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Fair play to RPC for introducing the idea of "merit" to NQ pay but if you read between the lines then the least deserving NQs are still going to be paid about £55,000. If I was an RPC client then I'd love to know which sort of NQ I was getting for my money!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Kathy,

    This is a common false assumption when discussing trainee/lower level associate salaries. The fact of the matter is this. Most firms that run sucessful trainee programs churn healthy profits. Fee structures these days may discount the trainee rate, or eliminate a trainee from charging on the matter at all (billing partner may also cut out some of the trainee's hours). Of course, one may argue that charging £200+ an hour for a trainee is absurd. But the fact of the matter is, the current market allows for it. When a client hires an MC name, white shoe firm, etc...their concern isn't money. If it was, they would no doubt be going to mid-level firms. Often major law firms act merely as insurance policies for when things go tits up. Cost for this insurance policy isn't really a relevant factor. So take a trainee, bill him/her out at £250 for 1600 hours a year and the firm nets £400,000. Deduct office space, his/her salary, cost of LPC, etc and you still have a healthy sum leftover for the partners. But wait! This is only one angle to approach it.

    Perhaps firms such as RPC will struggle to consistently charge £200+ an hour for a trainee, as their client base is likely to be more penny pinching. In this instance, the profitability of a trainee isn't about what appears on the bill at the end of the month. Those trainees will make up the associate workforce of the firm. How else are you going to fill those ranks? Organic growth. Even if the firm can't break even on a trainee (highly unlikely), the returns will be enormous once they're billing 'em out at NQ, 1+ PQE, etc. Now, how else are you going to retain/attract the talent when the MC/White Shoe firms (those who undoubtedly will get immediate returns on their trainees) are paying £40k+ for a trainee?

    Complaining about "high salaries" is just undirected anger. The market demands and can support these salaries. So deal with it. That's the way of the city.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • yes Kathy, deal with it!

    Grasshopper, that is the way of the city!

    the force is storng in anonymous of 5.07

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This move is not only counter intuitive it is potentially foolish and will, in all probability, increase indirect costs through higher staff mobility and consequent training costs. Pay for performance is to some extent an abrogation of management responsibility. Staff should be paid according to skills, responsibility, experience, knowledge, client satisfaction, timeliness and the ability to work as part of a team. If those attributes are properly managed a fair and reasonable salary should be paid. Any additional emolument for exceptional discharge of one or other obligation can be covered by a financial reward/bonus but once a firms starts on linking pay to fees billed, cohesion/firm loyalty is lost and staff and partner mobility goes through the roof. It shouldn't be necessary to point this out but sadly it is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Different pay for different departments is one thing, but I think grading on performance for NQs is idiotic. Not only does it make seat selection, performance reviews and every other aspect of the training contract even more fraught, it also places more pressure on partners etc. to deliver a meaningful performance review process that is consistent across departments. That would be great if it happens, but much better firms (i.e. better resourced and better run) than RPC struggle to acheive that, and I can't see that changing overnight.

    What's next from Watmough - variable trainee starting salaries based on your LPC scores?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (40)