Associate Base Salaries

base should be pretty standard.

it's really sad that someone coming out of harvard business only makes $100K base while someone out of harvard law will make $160K right after school.

It's true that the base is higher in law, but keep in mind that in IB, it's all about the bonus.

For corporate lawyers, bankers are their client.

you can get into ibanking any time with a JD from a prestigious school but you can't get into a law firm with an MBA

work as long or more hours, get paid comparable or less, and spent 3 yrs at law school spending money while their banking counterparts were making 6 figure salaries.

plus i dont see how looking through contracts all day is interesting at all.

How many times has this question been posted??

it's important to note that the $160k first year analyst in banking is far more expendable/replaceable than the $160k first year law associate. banking compensation is also far more volatile than law compensation and this is a phenomenon we've been seeing only in the last couple of years. i have heard that law firms have actually made substantial increases to associate comp to keep people from defecting to banking. anyone else agree?

They're still paid considerably less across the board than their banking colleagues, recent "phenomenon" aside. More expendable? I'd argue that first year law associate work isn't any more demanding than the work on the banking side. Not to mention, a 1st year law associate has spent an additional three years in school.

It was not too long ago that $160K was your expected comp as a first year I-Banking ASSOCIATE...that is with an MBA, so basically the same thing as a law degree. I would challenge anyone to find even a 1st year analyst, and maybe not even a 3rd year analyst, who got more than $50K bonus even back in the Tech bubble of the late 90's. It was even further away in 2002 when bonuses were around $20K to $35K (with a $40K or $45K base). It just amazes me how so many on this board think that $160K is "normal" pay for 1st year analysts! If you want a sure thing, get a law degree...if you want the upside potential become a banker.

You don't get involved in banking for the base salary or for long-term stability. We are all in this for the bonus and the upside. This is even more true in a PE/HF shop. While there has only been upside for awhile, it could always end. This is like equity, if the s-t hits the fan, you get nothing.

Law on the other hand is much more stable, the base/bonus has been fairly stable historically and grows much much slower. Bankers can easily expect (in the current market) 20% salary/base growth year over year and increasing as time goes on. This is not true in law. Top lawyers in corp fin firms after 20 years are still making $500k, bankers will make this in 4-6 years. Much more like debt, you always have a real skill and stable prospects to hang onto.

My two.

Partners get around $900k all in. Either way, you don't go into law to make money. You go into law because....well, I don't know why. I'm going into law because the law is probably one of the most universally useful things to know about-the law touches EVERYTHING in your life. There's no way a lawyer at a top firm after 20 years is making $500k, because according to Sullivan & Cromwell's payscale (which a lot of top50 firms match), a senior associate in their 8th year out of law school will make $310k base with approximately $100k in bonus. A junior nonequity partner makes around $500k. You usually make junior nonequity partner in about 8 years. And even if you do make $500k, so what? That's about $22k/month net of all applicable federal/state/city taxes. You could probably afford a decent house in Scarsdale for that money.

Also, as a lawyer, your JOB FUNCTION is to give GOOD LEGAL COUNSEL, not make money. Law is a quality-oriented industry whereas banking's a numbers-oriented industry. Your job function as a banker is TO MAKE MONEY FOR YOUR CLIENTS, unlike lawyers, whose job is to know the law and be able to apply it to a client's particular circumstances. Thus, as a banker, if you don't make money=fired. As a lawyer, if you don't make money=not fired, because your job is to give legal counsel, not make money.

Besides, MBA is a MASTERS in Business Administration. A JD is a Juris DOCTOR. A JD is technically a doctorate degree, even though most people consider it a professional degree.

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-

corporate lawyers are there to help clients avoid liability (losing money). Bankers are there to make money for clients. What makes you think that the former is holier than the latter? Is there a real difference?

You said that "Law is a quality-oriented industry while banking is a numbers-oriented industry"? Both aim to provide quality service, it's just that there's a numerical slant to the work of bankers. What are you trying to contrast?

A JD is not a doctorate degree. Ever heard of SJD? now that's a doctorate degree (PhD in law). Doctorates are awarded by research. JD is based on coursework. Just because JD stands for "Juris doctor" doesn't mean it's a doctorate. Tsk tsk.

haha, shitbag winey lawyers - you make half as much money, go to school for three years longer and have no glory.

In case you don't believe me, read this by the NY times - ain't life a bitch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/fashion/06professions.html?em&ex=1199…

As someone who was raised by lawyers, but chose finance, the key distinction, to me, seems to be that both work on transactions, but bankers have more of an equity-type compensation structure for which there is increased upside potential. The skills one learns as a banker are also more transferable to other more lucrative and interesting fields (PE, HF). A corproate law partner tries to churn fees just like a banker but they don't really seem to spend time pitching ideas, they want to be called when an idea, or problem arises.

To me, if you are entering coporate law to make money and have prestige, you've chosen a much less efficient route to getting there than banking as you'll probably do a lot more work (senior lawyers seem to work more than senior bankers, and retire much later in life) and will be paid less. Coporate law, especially transactional type law, is very cyclical too, though layoffs are less common and massive; if you are a senior associate who has somewhat specialized in M&A, in a downturn you become a pretty hefty expense for the firm to carry. At the same time, it is generally more stable and you are a real licensed professional, which is nice, if that means a lot to you.

There is a great anecdote, from Fooled By Randomness I believe, about a big-law corporate partner who had made it from Brooklyn through prestigious schools and into partnership at a firm and lived in a grand park avenue apartment, but felt essentially poor relative to many of the other people in his building despite the fact that this guy was a multi-millionaire at the top of his profession. He felt poor because he lived among financiers.

Whatever. Then I'll live among lawyers. I'm also the type that doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks about me.

Of course EVERYONE strives to provide high quality services. What I meant is that the benchmark bankers use to measure performance is numerical; i.e. you're a better financier if you make a 35% return while the guy next door makes 30%. The benchmark lawyers use to measure performance is, well, qualitative, and thus is fuzzier.

"We are lawyers! We sue people! Occasionally, we get aggressive and garnish wages, but WE DO NOT ABDUCT!" -Boston Legal-