Exclusive: Talwar Thakore & Associates (TTA) has hiked its starting graduate retainer salary to Rs 10.5 lakh alongside base pay-band increases of between 10 and 20 per cent across the board.
Newly qualified associates’ base pay has increased from Rs 8.4 lakh last year to Rs 10.5 lakh per annum this year, excluding the bonus element which is understood to range from between 0 and 40 per cent.
The most junior basic pay-bands have been increased by around 20 per cent, with more senior associates taking pay-hikes tapering down to roughly 10 per cent.
TTA partner Feroz Dubash commented: “We raised salaries across the board including newly qualified associates. It reflects our desire to share our growth with associates as well as what we think are market conditions.”
“We don’t see this as a retention tool,” added Dubash. “So far we’ve been pretty lucky. We actually haven’t lost a lot of associates and we’re not looking to aggressively recruit over the next year.”
TTA has hired only one newly qualified associate this from Symbiosis Pune following an internship.
Similar to the model followed by TTA’s best-friend firm Linklaters in the UK, associate salaries increase in a strict lockstep fashion at the firm year-by-year.
In the first three years of post-qualification experience (PQE), it is understood that associates salaries increase by relatively minor amounts.
But when becoming a four-year PQE the base salary increases by roughly 50 per cent again, with an increment a little below that in the fifth year, according to a lawyer at the firm.
The pay-hike takes TTA near the top of Legally India’s starting salary league table, with only S&R Associates, Khaitan & Co Mumbai, AZB & Partners Mumbai and Trilegal paying slightly higher base packages after significant hikes in August of last year.
It is understood that several firms are in the process of evaluating their base salaries over the coming months.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I chose money, a decision I regret.
Thanks for your comments @8, 9 and 10.
For one, making a fairly general criticism about a firm's salaries is fine and it is a fact that most law firms are tight lipped about revenues.
To say that a collection of 3 somewhat random firms are "third tier" and that the partners buy excessive property, is a bit more than just 'criticism' but sounds a little personal.
Best wishes,
Kian
Even average firms such as Trilegal bill time of fresh graduates at not less than 5000 per hour. these chaps are made to work at least 8 hours a day for 25 days a month. That gives you 10 lakhs - assuming the firm discounts that by half, it gets 5 lakhs. as against that the associate is paid less than a lakh or about 1.5 taking bonus into account. in other words the firm makes more than twice the amount the associate makes, and this is as conservative as it gets.
the big prob in india is that most firms still are too stingy in paying their non-partner staff. amss and azb pay relatively high but nothing warranting a debt of gratitude. khaitan used to be a miserly firm but they have recently made big payouts and raises. what the other firms dont realise is that in a growing legal market, unless you pay well, no one is going to stick around. meaning you cant develop a practice for the long run, thereby remaining confined to the B-grade clients.
In comparison, IIM alumni with comparable years of exp. can easily expect to earn twice an amss salary, in india.
Sir I am a resident of a 3 tier city of India(NE region) & studied law in a govt. law college(rather I should say 3 tier law college). I frankly don't have any idea about what the freshers do at a law firm. In my state there is not a single law firm. I am not trying to pull other people's earning but just want to know what do our counter parts in such bigshot law firms do so that they are highly paid. Do you ever could think in your dream that a fresher from a college as I have studied get a placement in such law firms with such extravagant packages?? that's why I said the brand name of college matters.
See, first year law associates are paid these amounts of money since, the "Big Law" firms bill in the range of Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 10,000 per hour of their time to their clients. Its only fair that the firm passes on a small fraction of their billings to these associates even if a lot of their hours need to be discounted they still bill lots on the basis of the manpower provided by first year law associates.
Brand names do matter but you can achieve anything you want including coming to a larger city and work for these firms. It only needs taking risk, hard work and a bit of luck. But honestly, in a 3 tier city you have been presented with a great opportunity to earn a name of your own, rather than work for the "Big Law" Firms, albeit for higher amounts of money. Best of Luck! Cheers.
Thanks for wishing me luck sir. now I hv understood to some extent what is the position. but I would like to be a a self-made man. nevertheless frustration comes as there is sometimes no pay or a meager pay like a NREGA worker, where I had to work 12-14 hrs a day for the senior !! but I believe in "no pain no gain".
fresher contributing.........billable hours etc.........even if it is true.....10 lakhs can only be given if that person has some rich business contacts that could fetch work for this law firm. not otherwise.
I am a DU graduate -- so that's not some obscure law school, and have been practicing for 8 years in Delhi. I have worked with a Senior counsel as well as a reputed law firm and I can say that unfortunately while freshers today are getting paid more than me thanks to the branding of their colleges they are more interested in payscales than work. I am not making a sweeping statement here but kindly consider that people in your own firms who are far more senior and have slogged their butts off on 24x7x365 basis have now reached some level of comfort.
While I agree that most companies remain stingy as hell in paying their associates the fact is that freshers today are getting scales that people with vast amount of experience are only beginning to get today.
So please the next time you feel that a fresher is being undervalued you might want to look up at the people who have put in years of work and are yet to make it to a good pay scale.
"freshers today are getting paid more than me thanks to the branding of their colleges they are more interested in payscales than work."
- there is nothing wrong in being interested in pay first and work second. work satisfaction is good but it can't pay the rent, buy a car, take care of retired parents or support a family.
- It is stupid to expect well-informed law schoolites to accept the disrespectful m anner in which practising counsel throw some loose change at them and expect them to live on that. If these younbg lawyers find better paying jobs it is to their credit.
- Branding of colleges is in part a reflection of the type of students they produce. No college can maintain a branding for too long unless it can substantiate this. Firms and Companbies are not fools to pay large salaries to incompetents. They have obviously evaluated these graduates and found their worth equal to the salaries they offer. If an AMSS does not offer a DU graduate such a high starting salary, it means that AMSS has found through experience that the average DU student is not equal to the average NLS student (and I don't blame them).
- it is not uncommon for freshers to get paid more than existing staff (upto 3 yrs senior to them) in all sectors across all organisations. As demand for staff grows, the entry level salaries rise and people who joined in the previous 1-3 years may actaully be paid the same. It's regrettable but a function of demand. Nothing unique to the legal profession. An IIM MBA of 2009 was given a starting salary at a bank of 50k, his junior three years down the line has an offer of 70k while the former himself gets about 80k today - it's unfair yes but such is the law of supply and demand.
Dear Dear #26 its not the contents of your blog that I object to but the tone. I completely agree that its a good thing that people graduating from law colleges are not settling for loose change "thrown at them" and I've said in my earlier post that changing pay scales is a rather belated and slow change in most Indian companies, as most continue to remain stingy. Also freshers need to earn money and I'm very aware of that. You might first like to correct the record that I'm not against freshers getting a paycheck in consonance with the rank of their employer.
What Urban myth you might be referring to I'm not sure of. What I am saying is this- there is nothing wrong with aspiring to a paycheck, but unfortunately that should not come at the cost of work quality and ethics.
Not being a holier than thou here, but in the couple of years of my experience in the law firm sector I've seen loads of Law school students coming in to graduate who have a rather strange attitude to work. Most are about the money and wanting it with least amount of work.If you can call that healthy...well then we are certainly not on the same page.
Its a fact that even today Litigation is mostly employing from the rather as you understand sad quality of students from DU and other as I'm sure you believe lesser universities which have actually been responsible for all the seniors of the profession today. The reason I point this out is that most students from law schools are simply unwilling to put in the kind of quality time and work for lesser pay (compared to corporate firm or corporate department of a firm) and that is not a choice based on interest but simply money. That is the kind of attitude that will not get you far though initially it gives the fresher a good start monetarily no doubt.
As for your argument of freshers getting paid more than the seniors, I agree its not unique to the legal profession alone. However I'd like you take a look beyond the three year period that you seem to have set. You might want to compare a freshers salary with a person having put in about 8-10 years across the board and kindly don't keep looking at an AMSS alone. That one law firm is not a mirror of India's legal profession.
If you truly believe that freshers deserve to be paid and are justified by the laws of demand and supply to be paid more than more experienced professionals, then I hope you remember this argument when you've been in the profession for about 10 years.
i completely agree with 27 and 28 above - law firm graduates are being paid astronomical salaries by firms to retain talent, which has led to some kind of warped sense of "entitlement" among the law skool graduates. this is not only bad for the recruiting firms but also for the profession at large.
contrast situation..........but this is the fact with many law institutions. when one get paid 10lakhs ctc, the other strive to make a living.
@29 - Btw even if DDs are fixed fee matters, the point I am making is that the associate is contributing...You cant have a Partner go to a DD data room and review documents right? And FYI, being in a top tier law firm I can tell you from experience even in fixed fee matters, the fee is decided by the number of hours expected to be put in multiplied by the normal or slightly discounted hourly rate of the associates. Most fixed fee matters have caps on the number of hours put in. I don't know why people who don't have an understanding of bigger law firms choose to comment on things like billing and "work ethic"!!
There is nothing wrong in making money. So get it out of your head that I believe in making less money. Nobody does. Its a question of parity in terms of work experience that I am talking about.
That you are paid in consonance with your employer is not only fine but desirable. My point is that a lot of freshers are coming with an unhealthy attitude to work which is all about the money and not the work.
I find it amusing how you assume that you alone are working for a top law firm while those espousing work ethics must be sad cases crying sour grapes. Not one to brag bit I'd like to set the record straight and tell you that I've worked in a top law firm for 5 straight years so I do know what I am talking about. So the next time you want to call someone judgmental you might want to lok at your personal biases.
I reiterate- understand the post in its letter and spirit. No one says that associates don't work. For heaven sakes we all start as associates and spend a very long time of our professional lives as an associate (junior/senior/principal etc.etc). What people need to do is get a grip and understand that its not only about the money. I can't speak for you or others but only from my experience. I personally find that there are an alarming number of people who have adopted an attitude where they believe that there is only so much that they need to do in terms of work despite the fact that they get fat paychecks...and just to avoid confusion I am not talking of situations where people are exploited and given a pittance. After all that does not happen in big law firm according to you but only to the sad types on the outside.. Right!!!
Work is all about learning and making yourself a better professional so there are times when you are called upon to do more than even you fair share. Its at times like these where if you only think money I believe its wrong.
So lets just focus and accept that while there needs to be a reform in the salary scales in the legal sector, people also have to inculcate a healthy attitude to work where choices are not made simply on the basis of money. If money is their only driving force then I do have serious doubts about their commitment to work quality.
Also I have nothing against associate getting paid big money if he/she is a transaction lawyer. There is never a comparison in payscales between corporate and litigation because litigation in most cases cannot afford to bill by the hour..why..because the client will go broke!! Corporate transactions I agree are as a rule billed by the hour and I do agree that most (though not all) firms incorporate the rule of billing by the hour even in a fixed bill.
Lastly but not the least for someone who believed I was judgmental kindly do look within before you call and classify and imply that anyone from a non 5 year programme is unworthy. Personally I never take offense at such comments because it just shows what the person making the comment is all about. But you might want to keep in mind that the best judicial minds today come from Law schools (Yes that nomenclature existed before the 5 years schools) which you might never even know exist, least of all DU. DO take some time out and look up the schooling records and universities attended by the Ex-CJI's of India and the Senior advocates. It might surprise you that many have govt. school/college education.
That many such universities are in dire need of help and need to take a serious note of declining calibre is not even a point of argument, its an admitted fact. However for you to run down people coming from such universities in general I think is a bit low...but then what would I know..I'm probably just being judgmental.
Insofar as the NLS, NALSAR "cream" are concerned, they better start working on why it is that most relatively senior legal professionals appear to hate them.
Or why there is the perception that they are the most "ehsaan faramosh" dogs ever to have been given professional license.
Case in point many 96/97 "creamy" layer kids... most of them are seen to have carefully and deliberately spat on the very plates that gave them their first morsels (that too at a time when all they knew was spouting some inane academic rubbish and perhaps wearing short skirts, hoping to seduce senior lawyers).. one such 'runaway" i know has been banished by her rescuer to the South of India to do "capital markets" work (Ha HA!) and who continues to be kept away from that Firm's central think-tank because of her "i will cut, take from you and run" demonstrated tendency in the past.
You may say that "every one is a chor in the practice of law" --- but hello, the ones that are truly respected (even from amongst the creamy layer) are the ones who have demonstrated true diligence, intelligence and ETHICS...
So, this goes to all the lawyer here, young or old:
The practice of law is supremely multi-faceted and even the top 1 percentile in terms of burning intelligence will take 20 years or more, to fully grasp its nuances - so relax and get some real skills...
Surprise, surprise, ethics and values DO matter when you have a true sense of responsibility to your clients and to building a good legend yourself. and more importantly, when you feel that you as a lawyer are socially responsible to society at large and not merely to your own wild fantasies of material acquisitions or your list of "to do" items...
a Very senior.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first