Erica Watson – How fair can this be? Two senior partners earning vast amounts of money complaining about the somewhat lesser vast amounts being paid to junior lawyers?
But true it is as two senior lawyers make their views on current salary levels in London law – prompted by US law firms stepping up their pay rates – go public over the eye-watering pay levels that have been reached.
Pinsent Masons’ senior partner Richard Foley was quoted in the Financial Times saying salary levels had reached “unsustainable levels” and he hit out at one US firm is offering its junior lawyers £142,000 a year.
And Michael Chissick managing partner at Fieldfisher said his “heart drops when I see newly qualified lawyers in US firms earning more than some of our partners”.
Firms like FieldFisher have taken steps to cut staffing and pay levels although most of the large law firm partnership earnings have largely continued unabated in terms of their pay levels.
NQ pay packets for both firms sit at £67,500 and £72,500, respectively although the work hours at the US law firms are generally longer.
But the pressure from US law firms has placed even more pressure on the local UK practices to compete on the pay front.
Kirkland & Ellis — the highest grossing law firm in the world with revenue of $4.15bn last year — started with its payment to junior lawyers of £142,000 a year.
And New York-based White & Case this month announced pay for newly qualified lawyers in London would be increased by £25,000 to £130,000, starting from January, according to the FT.
Lawyers with two-years of experience will receive a £30,000 rise. In August, fellow US firm Dechert increased its London salaries for newly qualified lawyers to £120,000, a 3 per cent increase.
And so it goes. But it seems the London-based law firms are choking on the increases in a world that has continued to change with the pandemic.
- The Law Firm Traffic Apocalypse Keeps Being Announced. Someone Should Check On The Traffic
- Former Ashurst Startup Lawyer Joins Pillsbury in Austin
- Behind on Taxes in Savannah? A First-Steps Guide to the IRS and the Georgia DOR
- Lawfront Hits £175m As Private Equity Legal Roll-Up Adds Two More Firms
- Top 5 Custom AI Development Companies for Growth in 2026
- Slaughter And May Still Rules London’s Listed Market. The Problem Is The Market Is Shrinking
- Big Law Firms Have Been Keeping the AI Savings – Now Wall Street Wants Them Back
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citi are asking a rather uncomfortable question of their outside lawyers: if AI is making legal work faster, why aren’t the bills getting smaller? Power Points Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are pushing major law firms to demonstrate how AI efficiencies are being reflected in their legal bills. Citi has begun asking firms bidding for work to explain their AI-related savings, while Morgan Stanley is moving much of its outside legal work toward competitive bidding and alternative fee arrangements. The pressure goes directly to the BigLaw leverage model, where armies of associates traditionally generated large volumes of billable hours. New LexisNexis research shows 94 per cent of lawyers now use AI for legal work and 55 per cent expect AI to change law firm billing. The battle is shifting from whether lawyers should use AI to a much more interesting question: who gets the financial benefit? For the past few years BigLaw has been enthusiastically telling anyone within PowerPoint range that artificial intelligence will transform legal practice and clients have been listening.
