Weil Gotshal cuts NQ salary to £85,000

Readers' comments (61)

• Anonymous | 7-Jul-2009 3:34 pm

  playftse is a well-known "persona" on a lawyer chatboard and his assumed superiority complex should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. But the point he makes is entirely valid. If people are accepted by, and willing to put up with the pressure of working for, a top-flight firm ,and are able to command top remuneration for doing so, why do you begrudge them for it?
  I haven't noticed any associate at Weil actually complaining about this very modest pay cut or freeze -- it is just The Lawyer setting up its usual "straw man" to attack. This is, of course, the same publication that gleefully publishes league tables on profit per equity partner, etc. and has helped create the climate of "law is big business and the people who earn the most are the winners".
  More power to the people at places like Weil if they can command such remuneration. Nobody is forcing any of you to do the same.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Suzy Q | 7-Jul-2009 3:35 pm

  Un-bloody-believable. my NQ starting in 1992 was £18K. This gives a genuine problem to the rest of the market - I'm in-house and we simply cannot offer that kind of money. It's unrealistic, never mind plain stupid. Nobody is worth that after articles..nobody...not even the very best summa cum laude from Harvard.
  
  And yes..I vote Tory and I'm not jealous - I'm annoyed.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Partner in the know | 7-Jul-2009 3:41 pm

  I know playftseforme and can confirm they are not a "big hitter" on a mega salary but a big headed junior who needs to get on with their work or face up to the consequences. The attitude is something we are trying to change.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 7-Jul-2009 3:43 pm

  "Clients want educated, self-disciplined individuals advising them"
  
  Correct.
  
  But we don't want to be advised by, or even to find ourselves in the same jurisdiction as, jumped-up, self-impressed, tedious little bumptrumpets like you, thank you very much.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• dontliveinclaphamandhaventdoneasponsoredroadrun | 7-Jul-2009 3:44 pm

  I’m a capitalist as much as the next guy but please don’t pretend that it’s a level playing field out there. The majority of City workers have been shepherded zombie-like from private school to university to well-paying jobs, their passage along this well-travelled road smoothed by pushy parents, generous financial backing and a supportive network of upper middle-class contacts. Apart from the obligatory year out helping lepers with their knitting or washing elephants, 90% of them haven’t done anything with their lives and quickly reach the conclusion that anyone outside their cosy little privileged bubble is there because they were born stupid or didn’t work hard enough. Which, as we all know, is rubbish.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• playftseforme | 7-Jul-2009 3:48 pm

  "playftse is a well-known "persona" on a lawyer chatboard and his assumed superiority complex should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt. But the point he makes is entirely valid."
  
  The second sentence renders the first otiose.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• KB | 7-Jul-2009 3:49 pm

  As an in-houser at a FSTE 100 company who's about to embark upon my 8th year PQE, yet still earns appreciably less than £85,000, I can't deny that it's more than a little galling to see this amount of money thrown at NQs.
  
  And surely you cannot seriously argue that a newly qualified lawyer at any firm and regardless of "potential" ability (except maybe those few NQs who have qualified as lawyers following years of business experience, say) is actually worth £85,000?
  
  Yet, at the end of the day, if these firms consider these levels of pay to be justified, then it's presumably because they are able to bill their clients at equally exorbitant rates - I don't know what a NQ at Weil Gotshal commands per hour, but assuming it is commensurate with the remuneration they actually receive, surely we should really be saying: more fool the clients who choose to pay Weil Gotshal NQ rates when there are equally good firms out there charging a lot less for someone who has actually got some genuine experience?
  
  Oh yes: Am I bitter about the fact I have 7 years more post-qualification experience but haven't hit those lofty salary heights? Not really - I just look at it as me "buying" a good balance between my work and my family life in a way that suits me.
  
  Money really isn't everything.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Space Cash | 7-Jul-2009 4:07 pm

  Quite a good point - they wouldn't be earning this sort of salary if they weren't bringing the money in. Quite why anyone pays that sort of fee for an NQ is beyond me though.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 7-Jul-2009 4:11 pm

  Not really, playftse. You can make a perfectly valid point -- as you have -- but without doing so in a needlessly and superfluously insulting manner. It's all about style vs substance.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• current trainee | 7-Jul-2009 4:12 pm

  I went to law school with two current W&G trainees.
  Both of them obtained their contracts due to family connections.
  
  playftseforme if you believe that the free market just rewards the brightest and the best you are sadly mistaken.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment