Firm Spy cannot guarantee the veracity of the figures quoted in this post
Last week we published the first installment of the Firm Spy Salary Survey – revealing top-tier graduate salaries across Australia. Today brings the second installment of in this series. We turn to the top-tier first years; the lowly workers who can now finally do some trolley-pushing delegation of their own!
As we move up through the year bands, the figures we report will likely become less accurate. Performance bands within year levels emerge even at the first-year stage, so lawyers at the same firm with precisely the same handful of months of experience may, nevertheless, be remunerated differently. This doesn’t mean that the figures below are necessarily incorrect, just that as we move forward through year bands, the figure you’re looking at might be at the high-end or low-end (or even the median) of a salary band .
From the perspective of junior employees, the existence of discrepant pay levels within a year salary band is a major nuisance. Moreover, when a junior lawyer at firm 1 compares their paltry new salary to a higher salary that is paid to an equivalently experienced employee at firm 2, and the lawyer from firm 1 thereafter communicates that information to their partner, the partner is simply able to dismiss the discrepancy by saying “the lawyer at firm 2 is obviously paid at the ‘high-end’ of the salary band’. Once partners have deflected this initial barrage of underpayment criticism in this way, their hope is that the issue will “go away”. And it usually does.
However, the Firm Spy is informed (by an anonymous source, as well as in the comments to yesterday’s post) that the Mallesons partnership has had less than its usual success this year in using this strategem to deflect pay concerns of junior lawyers. It is rumoured that partners have in recent weeks moved to stem the losses of junior lawyers moving elsewhere for higher salaries by embarking upon another salary review. A number of junior lawyers are believed to have had their salaries adjusted as a result.
Now, onto the figures! As you will note below, we still need more help. If you know any other salaries that are missing, please either email us at news@firmspy.com or fill in the survey here.
Top Tier First Year Salaries 2010
Melbourne
- Freehills – $72,000
- Mallesons Stephen Jaques – $72,000
- Allens Arthur Robinson – $71,000
- Clayton Utz – $72,000
- Blake Dawson – $74,000
- Minter Ellison – $68,500
Sydney
- Clayton Utz – $73,000
- Mallesons Stephen Jaques – $78,000
- Freehills – $80,000
- Minter Ellison – $75,000
- Blake Dawson – $77,000
Brisbane
- Blake Dawson – $70,000
- Freehills – $71,000
- Allens Arthur Robinson – $68,000
Perth
- Mallesons Stephen Jaques – $74,000
- Blake Dawson – $70,000
The figures we have quoted are inclusive of super but exclusive of bulk-discounted items that the firm pays for (and attributes the RRP value to) like gym memberships and miscellaneous benefits.
How does your firm stack up? Is it time to put more pressure on?
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
Interesting… Aar doesn’t have an office in the ACT. That lawyer is doing really well in the circumstances…
If the grad program lasts for 2 years in Sydney, when is a lawyer a 1st year? Do these figures apply for the first year after completion of the grad program, a graduate’s 3rd year at their respective firm?
We love you FS!
FS – allens has no office in Canberra. Either the individual who reported that is currently seconded to our nation’s capital, or Chris Fogarty and his dastardly subordinates have deliberately infiltrated your survey. Either way, the figure is close to the mark and the other ones I have seem and know of are correct
Interesting to see Brissie so far behind already. What could account for the difference paid to Freehills’ grads & 1st years up here?
@ Anonymous
I would assume this means 2009 grads (both intakes).
Good job FS. Would Firmspy consider doing a mid-tier survey to compare pay differences between 1st and 2nd tier firms?
we have deleted the reference to a first year in Canberra from AAR. Although it is true that it could have been a secondee, or a person who incorrectly entered their city, it could also be HR at AAR. If it is the latter, we would imagine this is a great way to build morale among juniors and to overcome the growing distrust they appear to be feeling toward partners and management…
From review of these salaries, I think I would rather that FS doesn’t publish Adelaide lawyer salaries. I’m rather embarassed about them. It also explains the ‘brain drain’ of talented lawyers to Perth or the Eastern states.
so freehills grads earn more than 1st years in Brisbane..?
Does the Canberra A(AR)berration mean that FS takes a sample size of one as sufficient for their survey?
Can FS please publish Adelaide salaries? We need more comedy on this site
Wow, Melbourne’s Minters grads are getting screwed over by the partners!
I am not quite sure about the Firm Spy theory re the AAR Canberra salaries. Why would HR from AAR put in a Canberra salary when they know there is no office there? As if that is going to achieve anything!
Further to Cyril’s point, perhaps you should only publish salaries when you have a sample size of least 3… particularly at the junior levels.
all lawyers gross up their salary to include super to make themselves feel better about themselves. oh and dont forget the fruit that would cost you $100 a year! so now your “package” is $80,100!