•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 4-minute read

The curious case of the secret salary

 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in

 

Its that time of the year when suddenly the attendance sheets are almost perfect, the collars crisper, the spirits well guarded and the efficiency or the visuals of professional motion much more swifter. It’s the end of the financial year and thus the time for enhancements in the paypack. And this year, formally, there is no ‘economic downturn’ to cast a suspicious cloud on hopes and future plans. And especially now that the law firms are ‘openly’ boasting about their best performance through the ‘recession’, the young law firm aspirants know that it’s a recession proof sector.

 However, in most businesses, including that of law firms, salaries/ retainers/bonuses is kept secret. It is almost universally untested as to what exactly would ensue in a law firm if the fee earners knew what their colleagues, their bosses or – gasp – the Partners were making, officially.

Fundamentally, one of the most important reasons mooted as to why there should not be any such secrecy is that it creates an element of bitter frustration and any unfairness (real or perceived) can’t be addressed directly.  People talk, you know. And they would continue to do so whether the management likes it or not. And more so when it comes to lawyers, that’s all they talk about. Especially if they are not the court going types. As George Simmel (first generation of German sociologists) aptly states that Secrecy sets barriers between men, but at the same time offers the seductive temptation to break through the barriers by gossip or confession.

Well, secrecy is the enemy of efficiency and we all know it. The Right to Information Act , 2005 was brought about after so many years of concerted struggle by numerous lawyers and activists, among others, to break through the shield of secrecy wielded by the government against the exercise of fundamental right by a citizen. Thus, we all understand the element of efficiency in transparency.

  Getting back to the topic.

Opening up of salaries seems more dangerous in legal workplaces primarily because they may not be currently fair and therefore making them open seems even more dangerous.

The usual reasons cited for variations in paychecks , enhancements and bonus(es ) are X doesn’t do a better job, but because she simply drives a harder bargain when it comes time to negotiate salaries Or sucks up to the boss, Or is aromatic or has some censored pictures from the last christmas office party … never mind.

But that doesn’t seem fair, does it? More importantly, it doesn’t do any good to you and more importantly the Boss is least bothered about how you feel especially because

·        There are loads of people dying to take your place at half the price of your secret salary

·        No one is indispensable

·        Bitterness affects efficiency, don’t be bitter

Go ahead and wait endlessly to reply promptly to the firang client’s email which the Gora would type at his convenience in his time zone (GMT +whatever)

Thus the question remains is whether it makes much more sense to determine salaries/compensations based on people’s value to the organization. (A seemingly difficult proposition with suspicious, argumentative and desperate lawyers on board) Thus the scope of HR increases in law firms (beyond peeved cheesy and uber-stupid peer evaluation sheets)

To discuss HRs and their ‘job policies’ is yet another painful tale so lets not even get there.

But when people agree that openness is better than secrecy, in life, why not in law firm business. Every relationship between two individuals or two groups will be characterized by the ratio of secrecy that is involved in it. In the absence of any provision mandating partnership firms/ LLPs to disclose their profits and disbursements and the same being inaccessible to the public as a ‘public record’, the element of secrecy seems to be an impediment in choosing the law firm employer, be it for a fresher or a lateral. And Mr. Drucker is not of much help. And not all of us are good at ‘game theory at the work place’.

We agree that salaries are a sensitive subject, but whether open communication is important enough and that it should be tested, even if there is a price to pay? It’s at the very heart of a shared culture. If discussion of salaries is taboo, what else is off limits?

 In his book ‘The Seven-Day Weekend’ Ricardo Semler says ‘Making salaries open yet another pocket of information that the power-hungry would otherwise use to consolidate their positions – to the detriment of co-workers and the organization’

(it’s a different story whether your partners have ever heard of this book or imbibed the rays of sunlight contained therein, whether they desire to spread their Firm to 60 locations in 30 countries in a span of the next thirty years of their expected life span, create an institution and not just a few rich people.)

Jeremy Bentham said that Secrecy, being an instrument of conspiracy, ought never to be the system of a regular government and I think it ought not to be part of regular governance of law firms either.

 

As they say, Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

Click to show 8 comments
at your own risk
(alt+c)
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.