Are lawyers in USA UK Singapore etc also this underpaid? Even corporate lawyers makes way lesser money in comparison to their peers in other professions.
Lawyers in US, UK , Singapore earn way ahead of our peers in India. This can be seen even with trainees earning 50-55,000 pounds in their first 2 years of traineeship. A starting A0 in UK tier-1 firm (Like HSF, Sidley, Dechert etc) earns approx 140,000-160,000 pounds. This is basically what counsels in India earn.
These statistics can be verified at Chambers Student profile of each firms
That's not what he meant by the question. He meant to ask whether lawyers of UK/US/1st world countries earn lesser than doctors/engineers/managers/consultants, etc of UK/US/first world countries
Bro no, Firms like HSF (Google: hsf nq) , Links (Google: linklaters nq) and CC (Please just open their website) only pay around 125k starting. Also taxation (https://www.gov.uk/estimate-income-tax) in London is about 45% cumulatively. Counsels/ PAs at tier 1 firms make 75-80 Lakhs depending on team and the tax regime is helpful (Considering the 40ADA range is increased, but there are ways around it).
150k (which is with US Firms in their UK offices like Sidley, Kirkland, Skadden which never hire from Indian Law schools) with taxes is 96,193 UK Pounds after taxes (https://www.gov.uk/estimate-income-tax), which is approximately 40 Lakhs in PPP. (Please consider the exorbitant rents in London).
However if you play your cards right and make even R/ S Partners in these firms you can make huge bonuses. But again, this is very hard for an Indian unless they have coupled it with a Harvard Law (or similar standing) Masters (Just check the statistics).
Also I'm so sorry if I come across as pedantic, but I am only a junior law student. Just did a little too much useless research considering the large number of upvotes on this misguided statistic.
This is such a childish comment. You are simply not taking into account PPP ratio at all. 50000-55000 pounds for the first two years in London (and you don't even know if you'll ever convert your TC and actually become an A0) is barely anything. A T1 A0 can live a much better life in India (and save more) in the 16-20 LPA salary range which is just the starting point.
OP of the first comment here, I know I'll get the whole omg "pay parity" etc nonsense. Even if you do do the pay parity convertor and tax - the pay will be significantly higher than India. You will basically be the same level of work in India for a higher pay. This is as :
A. Foreign jurisdiction have a robust rule of law seen through legislations and judgements that are not that technical
B. The judicial system is much more independent and the judgements do not run into hundreds of pages. Judgements are simple and not verbiose. This makes your life so much easier
C. Legal research itself is more speedy since governmental website (almost always) contain delegated legislation.
D. The outreach of foreign firms easily surpasses domestic ones in terms of quality of work, clients and money.
Foreign firms do understand that the quality of work here (eg CAM's which has been discussed substantially in Legally India) are not upto international standards. This is why even senior associates if they move abroad are designated first as trainees.
1. quality of lawyers is strictly managed - not anyone and everyone can become a lawyer, failure rate in bar exam is quite high, law college studies very rigorous. In India CAs earn much better than average lawyer because of this quality control
2. as a result of 1, general public has no faith in lawyers, and avoid going to lawyers where possible. Our legal market could be much bigger, but because people do not expect results from lawyers and courts they often avoid legal jhamela. In other countries, people trust the legal system so they approach lawyers and lawyers make more money in the process
3. lawyers are not allowed to run their practices like proper business. No marketing, no ads. Also lawyers do not think like entrepreneurs. This is now how it is in UK or USA. people are clear that legal services is a business, they need to be competitive and need to provide a solution. So focus is different, culture is different, and lawyers are usually millionaires because lifting tides lift all boats.
To be honest, Indian lawyers who are entrepreneurial, and focus on:
1. building a brand 2. developing their network/ lead gen strategies 3. hire people for leverage 4. build solid processes 5. look at their practice as a business
end up making a lot of money in India as well just that it is very rare
I'm not sure the basis of this argument but tier 1 and high paying boutiques do pay alot in India. I'm the first person in my smart friend group to get a job in six figures at 23 whereas they're making 40k even after attending tier 1 delhi university colleges. The in hand pay is very high due to low tax and no deductions.
Is it the case in other countries too?
These statistics can be verified at Chambers Student profile of each firms
150k (which is with US Firms in their UK offices like Sidley, Kirkland, Skadden which never hire from Indian Law schools) with taxes is 96,193 UK Pounds after taxes (https://www.gov.uk/estimate-income-tax), which is approximately 40 Lakhs in PPP. (Please consider the exorbitant rents in London).
However if you play your cards right and make even R/ S Partners in these firms you can make huge bonuses. But again, this is very hard for an Indian unless they have coupled it with a Harvard Law (or similar standing) Masters (Just check the statistics).
Also I'm so sorry if I come across as pedantic, but I am only a junior law student. Just did a little too much useless research considering the large number of upvotes on this misguided statistic.
Regards
A. Foreign jurisdiction have a robust rule of law seen through legislations and judgements that are not that technical
B. The judicial system is much more independent and the judgements do not run into hundreds of pages. Judgements are simple and not verbiose. This makes your life so much easier
C. Legal research itself is more speedy since governmental website (almost always) contain delegated legislation.
D. The outreach of foreign firms easily surpasses domestic ones in terms of quality of work, clients and money.
Foreign firms do understand that the quality of work here (eg CAM's which has been discussed substantially in Legally India) are not upto international standards. This is why even senior associates if they move abroad are designated first as trainees.
2 reasons
1. quality of lawyers is strictly managed - not anyone and everyone can become a lawyer, failure rate in bar exam is quite high, law college studies very rigorous. In India CAs earn much better than average lawyer because of this quality control
2. as a result of 1, general public has no faith in lawyers, and avoid going to lawyers where possible. Our legal market could be much bigger, but because people do not expect results from lawyers and courts they often avoid legal jhamela. In other countries, people trust the legal system so they approach lawyers and lawyers make more money in the process
3. lawyers are not allowed to run their practices like proper business. No marketing, no ads. Also lawyers do not think like entrepreneurs. This is now how it is in UK or USA. people are clear that legal services is a business, they need to be competitive and need to provide a solution. So focus is different, culture is different, and lawyers are usually millionaires because lifting tides lift all boats.
To be honest, Indian lawyers who are entrepreneurial, and focus on:
1. building a brand
2. developing their network/ lead gen strategies
3. hire people for leverage
4. build solid processes
5. look at their practice as a business
end up making a lot of money in India as well just that it is very rare
Thats why people always suggest to surround one woth smart people..