Bingham shocks market with NQ salary of £100K

  • Print
  • Comments (40)

Readers' comments (40)

  • "Salary isn’t really an influential factor for the really good candidates, who are after the best-quality training"

    Heh. You heard it here, "really good candidates" - don't go to Binghams, accept half what they pay to work for this guy. You know it makes sense.

    It is is true that £100,000 is a ridiculous salary for an NQ, but then so are City law firm chargeout rates for work that is largely mindless churning. And I don't hear of any partner "wanting to puke" at his firm's absurd overcharging.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As Wilde might have put it, the only people who worry about exhorbitant salaries and the ones not getting them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re: Anonymous | 15-Feb-2010 5:52 pm

    Are your chums footballers by any chance?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The headline grabbing salary has done exactly what it set out to do. The thing to note is that only 4 trainees are taken on at £100k so it may not have a huge effect on the business model compared with larger user firms such as Baker & McKenzie and White and Case who take on 77 trainees and pay NQ at £59k and 59 trainees at £72k for NQ respectively.
    Prospective trainees should think about their long term career and likelihood of becoming an NQ. There seem to be quite a few redundant US NQ's on the forums these days. Think the MC would be a better place to start out with the option of switching over at a later stage once worth the £££.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Prospective trainees should think about their long term career and likelihood of becoming an NQ. There seem to be quite a few redundant US NQ's on the forums these days."

    - Statistics from the US-proper firms would suggest otherwise. Cleary, Skadden and Weil and Latham managed to retain 100%, 100% and 88% and 80% of its solicitors respectively in 2009. Compare this with Freshfields, Herbert Smith, A&O, Clifford Chance which managed 71%, 74%, 70% and 70% respectively.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Good luck to these trainees I say, if that's what they want and enjoy. I also agree that £100k is not a vast sum these days anyway for a London job. A lot of my banking mates earn (many) multiples of that. Good luck to them too.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Anonymous | 16-Feb-2010 1:49 pm
    Re: Anonymous | 15-Feb-2010 5:52 pm
    Are your chums footballers by any chance?"
    Just a guess here - someone who uses the word "chums" does not have any "chums" who are footballers.
    Presumably he means bankers - and we all know that 24 year old bankers are really worth the money.
    100K is a pathetic salary in London these days? What planet are you on?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If you pay 4 trainees £100k pa, I suppose there's more chance that they'll get billable work at the outset instead of James Roome's photocopying.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Freakonomics asseesment: you have to pay £100,000 pounds to attract trainees because the training is of low quality and other negatives.

    And to the puking partner, does your managing partner puke when you talk to him about money? How childish.

    And now we bring you the band you have heard of all these years: Bingham and the Puking Partners.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • “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.”
    Please tell me this guy isn't representative of most graduate recruitment partners. How delusional can you be?!

    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)