Bingham shocks market with NQ salary of £100K
Bingham has emerged as one of the most generous US firms in London, paying its newly qualified (NQ) lawyers a salary of £100,000.
Natasha Harrison
The Boston-based firm topped the first-ever US salary survey carried out by The Lawyer’s sister publication Lawyer 2B.
The findings highlight the continuing gulf between the wages paid at leading City firms and those at their US rivals, even though some US firms, including New York’s Weil Gotshal & Manges, have slashed their salaries recently.
Lawyer 2B surveyed 23 US firms that offer training contracts in London. Latham & Watkins, Debevoise & Plimpton, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton and Kirkland & Ellis pay NQs £96,000, £94,250, £94,000, £92,000 and £90,000 respectively.
In contrast, magic circle NQ salaries range from £59,000 to £61,000.
Graduate recruitment partner at Bingham Natasha Harrison said: “We want to recruit the top talent and have therefore set our pay at a competitive rate to secure the best.”
The firm, which typically hires two trainees a year, denied that it sets chargeable hours targets for NQs and first- and second-year trainees, who get £40,000 and £45,000 respectively.
One graduate recruitment partner at a rival US firm in London slammed Bingham for setting its NQ rate so high.
“I don’t think it can be sustainable,” he said. “Even if Bingham isn’t setting targets for trainees and NQs the sub-context points to this. You simply can’t pay NQs £100,000 unless you charge an outrageously high hourly rate or they’re clocking up lots of hours.”
Another graduate recruitment partner concurred, arguing that no firm can justify such a high salary.
“It’s ridiculous,” said the partner. “Whenever a candidate mentions pay during an interview it makes me want to puke.
“Salary isn’t really an influential factor for the really good candidates, who are after the best-quality training.”
(Click here for a larger version)
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (40)
LawyerNot2b | 15-Feb-2010 11:48 am
£100,000 is just ridiculous. My nephew qualified as a doctor last Autumn and is earning £35,000...at least he's saving people's lives. What are Bingham associates doing for the good of the public?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
IHateBPP | 15-Feb-2010 11:48 am
Salary is a consideration for every candidate to varying degrees, as is the quality of training, prospects of retention and all the other usual considerations.
To suggest that someone doesn't care about salary if they're well trained is ridiculous.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Underpaid | 15-Feb-2010 12:29 pm
Does it matter? It's Bingham's money and if they want to spend it on higher salaries then let them. Pay must be related to profitability somewhere along the line and the fact US firms pay so much more indicates that they are better at squaring their figures than UK firms. UK firms are getting left behind and when/if the market picks up they will need to think hard about trying to bridge the gap or risk losing talent to credible US firms who are now establishing their brands in London and other key financial centres outside of the states. I do agree with the post about doctors earning less and it being unfair, however the salaries of medical professionals have never been a determining factor of private practice pay and I suspect that that will continue to remain the case!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2010 12:58 pm
A doctor's wage has nothing to do with what an associate is paid. People choose what career they want to embark on, and if one's choice pays less well then they can live with that having researched their options before hand. Anyway, thousands of people want to be doctors and can't because they don't have the ability; there's more to the role than cash and so the comment above is just a pointless and irrelevant attack. If £100k is too much then somewhere down the line it will show.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
HGR | 15-Feb-2010 2:48 pm
ching ching wid me
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2010 3:04 pm
Who cares how much they want to pay?
And yohoho to the partner that wants to 'puke'.
Presumably he's just on day release from the monastery and doesn't except anything but donations to the churchmouse cheese fund for his 4000hrs a year...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Feb-2010 3:15 pm
"expect", obviously.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
mags to riches | 15-Feb-2010 3:39 pm
@ LawyerNot2b: "good of the public"? Srsly, what planet? Public's not paying Binghams, so why populist outrage? Not dissin' your nephew, but my couz is a doc and he gets plenty more wedge than that. If youre offended at big money for socially-useless old rope, take a look at bonuses paid by financial institutions operating in system that our tax-moolah props up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mr Grumpy | 15-Feb-2010 4:02 pm
Calm down, calm down
Binghams have two trainees pa. Overpaying them represents good marketing as being the top paying firm.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
GBone | 15-Feb-2010 4:21 pm
“Salary isn’t really an influential factor for the really good candidates, who are after the best-quality training.”
Sure mate, keep telling yourself that.
“It’s ridiculous,” said the partner. “Whenever a candidate mentions pay during an interview it makes me want to puke.
Me too.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment