Read 9 comments as:
Filter By
I always thought it was unfair how MBA graduates would get paid more than lawyers because of the large number of companies that offer managerial roles, but isn't that true for lawyer who perform in-house roles too. Going in-house broadens the pool of potential employers amd going by the recent article that was shared here, GCs seem to be earning 3-10 crores so at the fresher and partner/GC level in-house salaries seem to be the same (maybe even more) than Tier 1s?
In the initial stage, law firm folks make much much more than in-house lawyers but 20 years down the line; the ESOPs, senior management yields and other bonus components make a GC's portfolio way more flourishing than the former who will be stuck with a big variable quotient since the buck stops at how much business he/she brings to the firm. However, a GC's salary has much to do with the sector the company is affiliated with, his/her past experience (where a law firm exposure will be a bonus), business acumen and ability to take tough calls both in favour as well as against the board of management (which in most cases are questionnable creatures with high flying MBAs acting like they know the law inside out).
Even in the initial stage it's only the in-hand that would be more in tier 1s, I'd imagine the combined value of ESOPs and in-hand for in-house to be worth a lot more than what T1 As make.
true although going from a t1 to inhouse is always easier than going from in house to law firms, its a tough decision to take right out of college at 23-24. Hedge the risk, get a years exp in t1, get that bag, switch if its not for you
@AVP Legal at a Foreign Bank

The difference in initial years, is it because of the tax treatment of CTC v retainers?