Top Law Schools

NOW we're on topic!

Has your friend picked up a newspaper lately? Legal hiring's a buyer's market ITE. That said, the etiquette is to ask the firm's hiring manager (or hiring partner) is there is a possibility of negotiating salary terms and see what he/she says. It's not untoward, if done correctly, but it's just not very realistic IMO.

Not sure how analogous this is to the legal field, but when my brother came out of GTech and was looking for a job in aerospace, the first place that he wanted to work he just asked about the possibility of a higher salary and they rejected him b/c of that.

EDIT: just remembered what it was that they said to him; that they didn't think he'd be happy working there. lol

I understand the buyer's market argument, but what if someone has multiple options AND can cite the higher salaries of area firms?

At any other job, negotiation would be totally ok in that instance. Why not the law?

2011Law wrote:Not sure how analogous this is to the legal field, but when my brother came out of GTech and was looking for a job in aerospace, the first place that he wanted to work he just asked about the possibility of a higher salary and they rejected him b/c of that.

Did he have the offer already? If not, at what stage during the interview process did he ask?

Anonymous User wrote:I understand the buyer's market argument, but what if someone has multiple options AND can cite the higher salaries of area firms?

At any other job, negotiation would be totally ok in that instance. Why not the law?

Because she has no skills and is replaceable.

While I personally wouldn't try this, and I don't think it's likely to succeed, I don't think it's as insane of a move as people are suggesting. In all probability, OP's friend is going to ask for more than $160K, be told no, and that will be the end of the conversation. It's not like the firm's going to shitcan a potentially good employee (assuming they've just seen a summer of high-quality work product from her) for having the temerity to ask if there's wiggle room in the salary. I also expect that there is a better (if still low) chance that this might work with a smaller firm that pays below market. If they were only going to hire you for their year's expansion and planned to pay you $85,000, it might very well be worth another $5,000 a year for them to (1.) keep you and (2.) not have to do another recruiting effort on short notice.

You run the risk of pissing people off, of course, but a lot of this can be obviated by just being a generally polite and decent person about the whole thing. "What kind of negotiation can we do about compensation?" is a much better conversation starter than "I'm out the door unless you take NY to 190 in the next 5 minutes!"

People are generally surprised by my tendency to haggle about everything, but it's been generally quite an effective habit for me. I've been able to increase my pay through negotiation in 2 of the 3 full-time jobs I've held, I've lowered the asking price in every apartment lease I've ever signed, saved thousands on a car, and cut countless other deals, just by asking.

^ This is a good point that I think is lost on some ITT, esp those who've never had a FT job(s). Employers know that you don't go to work for funsies. If it's fulfilling and you enjoy it, that's great...but people work for paychecks, and being your own advocate in negotiations is not this off-the-wall concept that some people here are making it out to be. That said, in an industry as highly regimented as the law (and especially before you've had a chance to get in on a full-time basis and prove your worth), the reason for avoiding it's a matter of practicality, not taboos. It's just not gonna work, especially ITE.

Anonymous User wrote:

2011Law wrote:Not sure how analogous this is to the legal field, but when my brother came out of GTech and was looking for a job in aerospace, the first place that he wanted to work he just asked about the possibility of a higher salary and they rejected him b/c of that.

Did he have the offer already? If not, at what stage during the interview process did he ask?

Not sure, but I want to say yes.

...

dood wrote:big law salaries are completely different than aerospace or any other field. LOCKSTEP means just that, u start at 160K, 2nd years get 180K, etc etc. coming out of UG in a good economy with multiple job offers, i was able to negotiate a $15K signing bonus instead of the customary $5 for an engineering job. i wouldnt dream of asking a law firm, even if i had multiple higher offers (which, like i said, is highly improbable in big law due to lockstep).

now from OP's statement, i realize this could be a smaller firm, but even then, what r u gonna do, cite jones day cleveland pays $160k? the small firm's response: go work for jones day buddy. and if u spent 2nd year at a small firm, highly doubt u'd be able to land big law jones day in 3LOL OCI.

JD Cleveland is 145k, but 145 in The Mistake on the Lake is baller.

JPU wrote:

dood wrote:big law salaries are completely different than aerospace or any other field. LOCKSTEP means just that, u start at 160K, 2nd years get 180K, etc etc. coming out of UG in a good economy with multiple job offers, i was able to negotiate a $15K signing bonus instead of the customary $5 for an engineering job. i wouldnt dream of asking a law firm, even if i had multiple higher offers (which, like i said, is highly improbable in big law due to lockstep).

now from OP's statement, i realize this could be a smaller firm, but even then, what r u gonna do, cite jones day cleveland pays $160k? the small firm's response: go work for jones day buddy. and if u spent 2nd year at a small firm, highly doubt u'd be able to land big law jones day in 3LOL OCI.

JD Cleveland is 145k, but 145 in The Mistake on the Lake is baller.

WTF. How are biglaw salaries in Cleveland higher than Sacramento (130-140)?

JD is the biggest game in town at 145, then baker at 135, then vorys/squire/can't remember the others all around 120, then another ~5 firms at the 100-110 level.

Because Cleveland be ballin' yo

If you're talking biglaw, this absolutely will not fly.

If it's a smaller firm, it's not COMPLETELY out of the question, but you have to ask yourself why the firm should want you bad enough to pay you more when you have yet to demonstrate any useful skills.

SBL wrote:

JPU wrote:

dood wrote:big law salaries are completely different than aerospace or any other field. LOCKSTEP means just that, u start at 160K, 2nd years get 180K, etc etc. coming out of UG in a good economy with multiple job offers, i was able to negotiate a $15K signing bonus instead of the customary $5 for an engineering job. i wouldnt dream of asking a law firm, even if i had multiple higher offers (which, like i said, is highly improbable in big law due to lockstep).

now from OP's statement, i realize this could be a smaller firm, but even then, what r u gonna do, cite jones day cleveland pays $160k? the small firm's response: go work for jones day buddy. and if u spent 2nd year at a small firm, highly doubt u'd be able to land big law jones day in 3LOL OCI.

JD Cleveland is 145k, but 145 in The Mistake on the Lake is baller.

WTF. How are biglaw salaries in Cleveland higher than Sacramento (130-140)?

5K wouldn't convince me to live in Cleveland over Sacramento. Hell, 50K might not get me there.

Renzo wrote: 5K wouldn't convince me to live in Cleveland over Sacramento. Hell, 50K might not get me there.

You obviously have never been to Cleveland. I will admit I am biased but it is a really fun and cheap town with great sports fans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZzgAjjuqZM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysmLA5Tq ... re=related first one

JPU wrote:

Renzo wrote: 5K wouldn't convince me to live in Cleveland over Sacramento. Hell, 50K might not get me there.

You obviously have never been to Cleveland. I will admit I am biased but it is a really fun and cheap town with great sports fans.

I've been to Cleveland and I lived 13 years in Davis which is near Sac and 50k would NOT be enough to get me to go there...

edit: there = Cleveland

Cleveland's not that bad at all. It's liveable, and you can live every well for $145k. Very well. I've never lived in Sac, but all the Cleveland hate's unwarranted.

MrKappus wrote:Cleveland's not that bad at all. It's liveable, and you can live every well for $145k. Very well. I've never lived in Sac, but all the Cleveland hate's unwarranted.

Cleveland at 145 >>>>>> NY at 160

Kohinoor wrote:

MrKappus wrote:Cleveland's not that bad at all. It's liveable, and you can live every well for $145k. Very well. I've never lived in Sac, but all the Cleveland hate's unwarranted.

Cleveland at 145 >>>>>> NY at 160

I love CA, but IMO by FAR the best balance of income/low COL/high QOL is 160K for biglaw in Houston, Dallas or Austin.

SBL wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:

MrKappus wrote:Cleveland's not that bad at all. It's liveable, and you can live every well for $145k. Very well. I've never lived in Sac, but all the Cleveland hate's unwarranted.

Cleveland at 145 >>>>>> NY at 160

I love CA, but IMO by FAR the best balance of income/low COL/high QOL is 160K for biglaw in Houston, Dallas or Austin.

For me, low COL generally correlates with low QOL. There's a reason certain cities are more expensive--they're better. It's not true across the board, and I'm not one of those people who hates on everyplace but NY or SF or LA (or pick your city). But, unlike many folks around here, I think that the COL in those big cities buys you something.

SBL wrote:I love CA, but IMO by FAR the best balance of income/low COL/high QOL is 160K for biglaw in Houston, Dallas or Austin.

This is true, but between the great COL/QOL and the few positions available, securing BigLaw in Austin ranks on the unlikelihood scale somewhere between winning the lottery and getting a unicorn that poops rainbows for your birthday.

.

Renzo wrote:

SBL wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:

MrKappus wrote:Cleveland's not that bad at all. It's liveable, and you can live every well for $145k. Very well. I've never lived in Sac, but all the Cleveland hate's unwarranted.

Cleveland at 145 >>>>>> NY at 160

I love CA, but IMO by FAR the best balance of income/low COL/high QOL is 160K for biglaw in Houston, Dallas or Austin.

For me, low COL generally correlates with low QOL. There's a reason certain cities are more expensive--they're better. It's not true across the board, and I'm not one of those people who hates on everyplace but NY or SF or LA (or pick your city). But, unlike many folks around here, I think that the COL in those big cities buys you something.

Eh, for me QOL is about being able to buy a house, a nice car, and most importantly: eventually retire. I don't understand how anyone who isn't a ceo/lotto winner can own a (big/nice) home in a nice area of LA/SF, even on biglaw partner money. I can build a castle in Cleveland for 1/8 of the price of a house in the OC or equivalent bay area location.