Typical In-House Salary Package for Junior Lawyer? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Do people usually include ESPP when considering their all in package? I'm looking at a position that will offer participation in an ESPP and I'm wondering if that should mvoe the needle at all?

Very anecdotal but I think many ESPPs are pretty limited in value. 20% off stock for the first $5k or whatever isn't going to really move the needle much. But 50% off the first $20k is basically a free $10k, assuming your stock price is at least relatively stable.

Thanks! I looked into it and it looks like there's some kind of statutory 15% limit on the discount they can give you. I agree, it's prob 3k at most a year.

[Anonymous User]

Current corporate M&A junior. Not sure if I want to stick it out in biglaw forever (definitely at least a few more years), but wondering what level/class year you need to get to in order to go in house with a total package around $275-300k, if that is even ever possible. Currently in CA if that matters, but would be willing to move to other locations if I didn't have to take another bar exam, and would obviously be fine with less pay in places that are cheaper to live.

This depends heavily. I got this offer as a third year (on the low end and only if you include stock awards vesting over time, which you need to typically to get to that kind of comp). This also depends what industry...tech and energy tend to pay more. Keep your eye out, it never hurts to look or apply to something you see.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

Current corporate M&A junior. Not sure if I want to stick it out in biglaw forever (definitely at least a few more years), but wondering what level/class year you need to get to in order to go in house with a total package around $275-300k, if that is even ever possible. Currently in CA if that matters, but would be willing to move to other locations if I didn't have to take another bar exam, and would obviously be fine with less pay in places that are cheaper to live.

At least in the bay area, I think you would have to be just about at least a sixth year to get that kind of comp (on an annual basis), if that. That's a pretty rich package for a first in-house job. I think that would be a killer package for a fifth year down in my area.

Caveat to this is that I have heard figures more like that at venture funds. I wasn't interested in venture funds though. I think it kind of limits you.

[Anonymous User]

Current corporate M&A junior. Not sure if I want to stick it out in biglaw forever (definitely at least a few more years), but wondering what level/class year you need to get to in order to go in house with a total package around $275-300k, if that is even ever possible. Currently in CA if that matters, but would be willing to move to other locations if I didn't have to take another bar exam, and would obviously be fine with less pay in places that are cheaper to live.

At least in the bay area, I think you would have to be just about at least a sixth year to get that kind of comp (on an annual basis), if that. That's a pretty rich package for a first in-house job. I think that would be a killer package for a fifth year down in my area.

Caveat to this is that I have heard figures more like that at venture funds. I wasn't interested in venture funds though. I think it kind of limits you.

Even when you factor in equity with a vesting schedule? I am only surprised because in TX that is extremely common for someone in years 3-5. Most the people from my class left between years 3-5 and all had in the 250-300 range, one was even (somehow) over 300 but I think that is extreme outlier.

[Anonymous User]

Current corporate M&A junior. Not sure if I want to stick it out in biglaw forever (definitely at least a few more years), but wondering what level/class year you need to get to in order to go in house with a total package around $275-300k, if that is even ever possible. Currently in CA if that matters, but would be willing to move to other locations if I didn't have to take another bar exam, and would obviously be fine with less pay in places that are cheaper to live.

At least in the bay area, I think you would have to be just about at least a sixth year to get that kind of comp (on an annual basis), if that. That's a pretty rich package for a first in-house job. I think that would be a killer package for a fifth year down in my area.

Caveat to this is that I have heard figures more like that at venture funds. I wasn't interested in venture funds though. I think it kind of limits you.

Even when you factor in equity with a vesting schedule? I am only surprised because in TX that is extremely common for someone in years 3-5. Most the people from my class left between years 3-5 and all had in the 250-300 range, one was even (somehow) over 300 but I think that is extreme outlier.

I've previously posted in this thread, but I'm in a non-coastal market and left during year 2/3 -- overall comp at current job initially was ~$250K, but after around 2 years, I'm up closer to $300K with salary bump, performance bonus, and slight bump in equity award. Since being in-house, I was offered another job (which I didn't take) that offered around more cash annually (~$250 between base, bonus, etc.), but didn't have an immediate equity component (would have needed to wait a year or two).

TL;DR: Anecdotally, I think $250-275K is the likely higher end of in-house comp for someone with only 3-4 years (or less) of experience.

[jagpaw]

Current corporate M&A junior. Not sure if I want to stick it out in biglaw forever (definitely at least a few more years), but wondering what level/class year you need to get to in order to go in house with a total package around $275-300k, if that is even ever possible. Currently in CA if that matters, but would be willing to move to other locations if I didn't have to take another bar exam, and would obviously be fine with less pay in places that are cheaper to live.

At least in the bay area, I think you would have to be just about at least a sixth year to get that kind of comp (on an annual basis), if that. That's a pretty rich package for a first in-house job. I think that would be a killer package for a fifth year down in my area.

Caveat to this is that I have heard figures more like that at venture funds. I wasn't interested in venture funds though. I think it kind of limits you.

Even when you factor in equity with a vesting schedule? I am only surprised because in TX that is extremely common for someone in years 3-5. Most the people from my class left between years 3-5 and all had in the 250-300 range, one was even (somehow) over 300 but I think that is extreme outlier.

I've previously posted in this thread, but I'm in a non-coastal market and left during year 2/3 -- overall comp at current job initially was ~$250K, but after around 2 years, I'm up closer to $300K with salary bump, performance bonus, and slight bump in equity award. Since being in-house, I was offered another job (which I didn't take) that offered around more cash annually (~$250 between base, bonus, etc.), but didn't have an immediate equity component (would have needed to wait a year or two).

TL;DR: Anecdotally, I think $250-275K is the likely higher end of in-house comp for someone with only 3-4 years (or less) of experience.

That's a pretty impressive comp package. I assume you were in corporate?

[dabigchina]

Current corporate M&A junior. Not sure if I want to stick it out in biglaw forever (definitely at least a few more years), but wondering what level/class year you need to get to in order to go in house with a total package around $275-300k, if that is even ever possible. Currently in CA if that matters, but would be willing to move to other locations if I didn't have to take another bar exam, and would obviously be fine with less pay in places that are cheaper to live.

At least in the bay area, I think you would have to be just about at least a sixth year to get that kind of comp (on an annual basis), if that. That's a pretty rich package for a first in-house job. I think that would be a killer package for a fifth year down in my area.

Caveat to this is that I have heard figures more like that at venture funds. I wasn't interested in venture funds though. I think it kind of limits you.

Even when you factor in equity with a vesting schedule? I am only surprised because in TX that is extremely common for someone in years 3-5. Most the people from my class left between years 3-5 and all had in the 250-300 range, one was even (somehow) over 300 but I think that is extreme outlier.

I've previously posted in this thread, but I'm in a non-coastal market and left during year 2/3 -- overall comp at current job initially was ~$250K, but after around 2 years, I'm up closer to $300K with salary bump, performance bonus, and slight bump in equity award. Since being in-house, I was offered another job (which I didn't take) that offered around more cash annually (~$250 between base, bonus, etc.), but didn't have an immediate equity component (would have needed to wait a year or two).

TL;DR: Anecdotally, I think $250-275K is the likely higher end of in-house comp for someone with only 3-4 years (or less) of experience.

If you don't mind my asking, were u in texas? It seems like these kinds of eye-popping comp packages are really only a thing in Texas for O&G.

[Anonymous User]

Something weird has to be going on here. Current third year, about to be fourth year, and I've interviewed extensively in both CA and TX markets and nothing has even come close to $200k all in.

Corporate at a v100.

[Anonymous User]

I've previously posted in this thread, but I'm in a non-coastal market and left during year 2/3 -- overall comp at current job initially was ~$250K, but after around 2 years, I'm up closer to $300K with salary bump, performance bonus, and slight bump in equity award. Since being in-house, I was offered another job (which I didn't take) that offered around more cash annually (~$250 between base, bonus, etc.), but didn't have an immediate equity component (would have needed to wait a year or two).

TL;DR: Anecdotally, I think $250-275K is the likely higher end of in-house comp for someone with only 3-4 years (or less) of experience.

That's a pretty impressive comp package. I assume you were in corporate?

Yes - transactional/corporate, pretty even mix of M&A and CapM, primarily for public companies and mostly on issuer side. My particular experience made the transition in-house relatively seamless.

If you don't mind my asking, were u in texas? It seems like these kinds of eye-popping comp packages are really only a thing in Texas for O&G.

Not in O&G, but I am in Texas. Can PM if you want more details.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have anecodotal stories and in house salaries for lawyers who do do biglaw debt capital markets (banking/HY bonds) work for mostly lender/underwriter side?

[oblig.lawl.ref]

Current corporate M&A junior. Not sure if I want to stick it out in biglaw forever (definitely at least a few more years), but wondering what level/class year you need to get to in order to go in house with a total package around $275-300k, if that is even ever possible. Currently in CA if that matters, but would be willing to move to other locations if I didn't have to take another bar exam, and would obviously be fine with less pay in places that are cheaper to live.

At least in the bay area, I think you would have to be just about at least a sixth year to get that kind of comp (on an annual basis), if that. That's a pretty rich package for a first in-house job. I think that would be a killer package for a fifth year down in my area.

Caveat to this is that I have heard figures more like that at venture funds. I wasn't interested in venture funds though. I think it kind of limits you.

Even when you factor in equity with a vesting schedule? I am only surprised because in TX that is extremely common for someone in years 3-5. Most the people from my class left between years 3-5 and all had in the 250-300 range, one was even (somehow) over 300 but I think that is extreme outlier.

I'm not sure what you mean by with a vesting schedule. I wouldn't count an equity grant that vests over four years all in the comp package. I would think of it on an annual basis. I was only talking about base + cash bonus + equity value vesting in that first year. In the bay area, if you're a fifth year or down, I would say a base of $200K and a cash bonus of 20% of that is very rare and I would say generally the very top of the range at companies.

I have heard details on a fair number of first in-house job packages around here and have not actually heard anyone getting exactly that (around the 3-5 year range) but have heard $195K base and 20% bonus (can't remember if that was even the same company though). I hear google and facebook, followed by amazon, pay scales more like what you're describing to 3-5th year associates but they're about the only ones. They're also very difficult to get hired at (maybe with the exception of amazon, I don't know), especially as a first job. I can tell you with certainty many of the most successful tech companies behind them do NOT pay near the ranges you mention, in cash, as a hard rule.

Also I don't know how equity works in oil and gas but equity is nothing to bank on much of the time. I knew someone who got RSUs at a stock peak, which then dove, and never recovered before the company was bought out a couple years later. Often times equity works out even worse. These things happen frequently in the bay. Equity, IMO, at least in tech, should barely be considered comp. Huge success stories notwithstanding.

I had heard something like $220-240K base plus 20-25% bonus at a very top venture fund for a 4-5 year associate. I don't think there was any kind of profit sharing. I also think they were overpaying at that.

Seems they may pay more in Texas and oil and gas. I would think most other markets, other than NYC, pay less than the bay area though.

[BrainsyK]

I've previously posted in this thread, but I'm in a non-coastal market and left during year 2/3 -- overall comp at current job initially was ~$250K, but after around 2 years, I'm up closer to $300K with salary bump, performance bonus, and slight bump in equity award. Since being in-house, I was offered another job (which I didn't take) that offered around more cash annually (~$250 between base, bonus, etc.), but didn't have an immediate equity component (would have needed to wait a year or two).

OP, please PM me. Thank you.

[Anonymous User]

Current corporate M&A junior. Not sure if I want to stick it out in biglaw forever (definitely at least a few more years), but wondering what level/class year you need to get to in order to go in house with a total package around $275-300k, if that is even ever possible. Currently in CA if that matters, but would be willing to move to other locations if I didn't have to take another bar exam, and would obviously be fine with less pay in places that are cheaper to live.

At least in the bay area, I think you would have to be just about at least a sixth year to get that kind of comp (on an annual basis), if that. That's a pretty rich package for a first in-house job. I think that would be a killer package for a fifth year down in my area.

Caveat to this is that I have heard figures more like that at venture funds. I wasn't interested in venture funds though. I think it kind of limits you.

Even when you factor in equity with a vesting schedule? I am only surprised because in TX that is extremely common for someone in years 3-5. Most the people from my class left between years 3-5 and all had in the 250-300 range, one was even (somehow) over 300 but I think that is extreme outlier.

I'm not sure what you mean by with a vesting schedule. I wouldn't count an equity grant that vests over four years all in the comp package. I would think of it on an annual basis. I was only talking about base + cash bonus + equity value vesting in that first year. In the bay area, if you're a fifth year or down, I would say a base of $200K and a cash bonus of 20% of that is very rare and I would say generally the very top of the range at companies.

I have heard details on a fair number of first in-house job packages around here and have not actually heard anyone getting exactly that (around the 3-5 year range) but have heard $195K base and 20% bonus (can't remember if that was even the same company though). I hear google and facebook, followed by amazon, pay scales more like what you're describing to 3-5th year associates but they're about the only ones. They're also very difficult to get hired at (maybe with the exception of amazon, I don't know), especially as a first job. I can tell you with certainty many of the most successful tech companies behind them do NOT pay near the ranges you mention, in cash, as a hard rule.

Also I don't know how equity works in oil and gas but equity is nothing to bank on much of the time. I knew someone who got RSUs at a stock peak, which then dove, and never recovered before the company was bought out a couple years later. Often times equity works out even worse. These things happen frequently in the bay. Equity, IMO, at least in tech, should barely be considered comp. Huge success stories notwithstanding.

I had heard something like $220-240K base plus 20-25% bonus at a very top venture fund for a 4-5 year associate. I don't think there was any kind of profit sharing. I also think they were overpaying at that.

Seems they may pay more in Texas and oil and gas. I would think most other markets, other than NYC, pay less than the bay area though.

Anon here who said 250-300 is common. Those base salaries are high. The typical package I was walking about was something like a 180 base, 25% cash bonus target and then 25% stock grant vesting over 4 years. The total comp there would be $270k. But then the equity might vest 25% a year for 4 years. So year one you may get $225k cash (180 base and 45 bonus) and $11,250 of stock vesting. Then year two, you would have $22,500 stock vest (one from year one and one from year 2). So really, until you get to year 4, you are not seeing that $270k. Also, as mentioned, stock could very well fall (but it could also rise). So cash comp is still lower than it sounds, but I feel like you can't exclude equity otherwise going in-house would rarely be worth it.

[Anonymous User]

These packages are all super high. I have 3-4 years experience and I just went in house in a small market (think Richmond, Charleston, Asheville) and I'm making 165k with a 50k bonus target, 6% matching 401k and some other perks. I calculated total comp at $220-230k.

[almondjoy]

These packages are all super high. I have 3-4 years experience and I just went in house in a small market (think Richmond, Charleston, Asheville) and I'm making 165k with a 50k bonus target, 6% matching 401k and some other perks. I calculated total comp at $220-230k.

If you’re at 220-230k all in in Richmond/Charleston/Asheville I don’t think it’s that far off to say a comparable job in NYC/SF etc would net you 275-300 all in.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

Anon here who said 250-300 is common. Those base salaries are high. The typical package I was walking about was something like a 180 base, 25% cash bonus target and then 25% stock grant vesting over 4 years. The total comp there would be $270k. But then the equity might vest 25% a year for 4 years. So year one you may get $225k cash (180 base and 45 bonus) and $11,250 of stock vesting. Then year two, you would have $22,500 stock vest (one from year one and one from year 2). So really, until you get to year 4, you are not seeing that $270k. Also, as mentioned, stock could very well fall (but it could also rise). So cash comp is still lower than it sounds, but I feel like you can't exclude equity otherwise going in-house would rarely be worth it.

That makes sense. I think often the equity component can get confusing when talking all in comp. I had heard bonuses are often better in oil and gas. Not sure if that's what you're talking about but in the bay area I would say that is a common but good package for 3-5 years, with the caveat that the bonus will be much less and the equity may be much more.

Also re the other posts also noting these numbers are high. I agree. I at least was talking about the absolute top that I've heard. It's generally less than that, sometimes much less.

[Anonymous User]

Something weird has to be going on here. Current third year, about to be fourth year, and I've interviewed extensively in both CA and TX markets and nothing has even come close to $200k all in.

Corporate at a v100.

Interviewed for in-house corporate (M&A/Securities/SEC/Finance/etc.) at a non-online tech company (think hardware or components) in SV area for a mid-level to senior role. Quoted range was $120-175K base, based on experience and fit, 20/25% annual cash bonus, small cash/equity sign-on award, and annual equity award (20% of base, 4-year vest)

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Something weird has to be going on here. Current third year, about to be fourth year, and I've interviewed extensively in both CA and TX markets and nothing has even come close to $200k all in.

Corporate at a v100.

Interviewed for in-house corporate (M&A/Securities/SEC/Finance/etc.) at a non-online tech company (think hardware or components) in SV area for a mid-level to senior role. Quoted range was $120-175K base, based on experience and fit, 20/25% annual cash bonus, small cash/equity sign-on award, and annual equity award (20% of base, 4-year vest)

This is in line with my experiences in LA as a third year except the base is closer to $170k+

[shock259]

These packages are all super high. I have 3-4 years experience and I just went in house in a small market (think Richmond, Charleston, Asheville) and I'm making 165k with a 50k bonus target, 6% matching 401k and some other perks. I calculated total comp at $220-230k.

Agree that the packages in this thread seem to be skewing high. I know a lot are in the big markets, but even taking that into account, this all seems a little high.

[Anonymous User]

Mid-level here, going to a Fortune 500 and had to negotiate to break $200k all-in. The partners I trust thought it was a fair offer. I think most data points here are people in NYC / SF, getting lucky with really sweet packages, or perhaps counting multiple years' worth of equity grants and not just 1 year of vesting.

[dabigchina]

or perhaps counting multiple years' worth of equity grants and not just 1 year of vesting.

This.

[Anonymous User]

or perhaps counting multiple years' worth of equity grants and not just 1 year of vesting.

This.

One anon above who was in the 250-300k all in range. I think (at least in my case), the equity grants come every year. So while they vest 1/4 a year, I get another year two, etc. It is hard to think about how to calculate equity which vests over time other than to count it all. Sure, if you leave, you will be leaving a good portion on the table, but often if you are fired without cause or retire after a certain age it vests. So not sure how else to count the 50k in equity grants I get each year, even though they vest 25% a year. Now, in 4 years, I will effectively be making that since I will have 4 grants vesting each year.

[nealric]

These packages are all super high. I have 3-4 years experience and I just went in house in a small market (think Richmond, Charleston, Asheville) and I'm making 165k with a 50k bonus target, 6% matching 401k and some other perks. I calculated total comp at $220-230k.

Agree that the packages in this thread seem to be skewing high. I know a lot are in the big markets, but even taking that into account, this all seems a little high.

There's always going to be a bit of selection bias in a public thread like this. People who are underpaid aren't as likely to volunteer salary as people who are happy with their comp package.

RE equity: I think it's helpful to note structure when providing a datapoint. Once you've been at the company for 3-4 years (whatever the structure is), you generally have an amount vest every year equal to the equity award, so I can see including it as part of the package. The valuation of that equity depends so much on the company. A blue chip stock that is not very volatile has to be treated differently from startup stock in your mental evaluation. That's one reason why comparing in-house packages is not always apples to apples.

[Anonymous User]

These packages are all super high. I have 3-4 years experience and I just went in house in a small market (think Richmond, Charleston, Asheville) and I'm making 165k with a 50k bonus target, 6% matching 401k and some other perks. I calculated total comp at $220-230k.

Agree that the packages in this thread seem to be skewing high. I know a lot are in the big markets, but even taking that into account, this all seems a little high.

There's always going to be a bit of selection bias in a public thread like this. People who are underpaid aren't as likely to volunteer salary as people who are happy with their comp package.

RE equity: I think it's helpful to note structure when providing a datapoint. Once you've been at the company for 3-4 years (whatever the structure is), you generally have an amount vest every year equal to the equity award, so I can see including it as part of the package. The valuation of that equity depends so much on the company. A blue chip stock that is not very volatile has to be treated differently from startup stock in your mental evaluation. That's one reason why comparing in-house packages is not always apples to apples.

I'm one of the anonymous posters who happened to land a job @ $300 k+ after 3 years of biglaw. There was a huge luck factor. When I was searching, most of the other lifestyle (vs. bank jobs) or interesting positions that considered someone with my experience landed at around 60% of my current comp. And I wasn't rolling in offers from those. Another discounting factor is that my "high comp" is attached to the NYC area and its great CoL.

[Anonymous User]

These packages are all super high. I have 3-4 years experience and I just went in house in a small market (think Richmond, Charleston, Asheville) and I'm making 165k with a 50k bonus target, 6% matching 401k and some other perks. I calculated total comp at $220-230k.

Agree that the packages in this thread seem to be skewing high. I know a lot are in the big markets, but even taking that into account, this all seems a little high.

There's always going to be a bit of selection bias in a public thread like this. People who are underpaid aren't as likely to volunteer salary as people who are happy with their comp package.

RE equity: I think it's helpful to note structure when providing a datapoint. Once you've been at the company for 3-4 years (whatever the structure is), you generally have an amount vest every year equal to the equity award, so I can see including it as part of the package. The valuation of that equity depends so much on the company. A blue chip stock that is not very volatile has to be treated differently from startup stock in your mental evaluation. That's one reason why comparing in-house packages is not always apples to apples.

I'm one of the anonymous posters who happened to land a job @ $300 k+ after 3 years of biglaw. There was a huge luck factor. When I was searching, most of the other lifestyle (vs. bank jobs) or interesting positions that considered someone with my experience landed at around 60% of my current comp. And I wasn't rolling in offers from those. Another discounting factor is that my "high comp" is attached to the NYC area and its great CoL.

Does this include equity and if so how are you calculating that in the $300K+ number? If I count my full equity grant, which vests over 4 years, I would say my package was $340K all-in. But if you include only equity vesting annually it is only $235K all-in. Obviously a lot of daylight between those two numbers.

I'm also not counting any kind of health benefits, 401(k) matching here, fringe benefits, etc., which would push that a little higher. I just think those are hard to value and best left out. Sometimes the ambiguity of these reported figures (i.e., how they are composed) makes this thread of dubious value to lurkers.