<p>Yea my mistake, the actual salary is at 160k, but when you include their generous bonuses it usually comes out at around 250k. I should have clarified a bit more, but in addressing the questions of how much lawyers make, you have to include those bonuses as they make up a large portion of your overall income. In regards to the NY CA cost of living I have also heard NY can in fact be a slight loss, especially when you consider their infamous taxes, but with CA I do believe it is a net increase, their taxes are a bit more lenient than NY and their housing market is falling faster than anywhere else in the country, a cause for cheap housing if nothing else. Also consider that it is a bit easier to find a well paying job in NY or CA, so while you would have a net gain if you were working in an identical firm in say Durham than that same type of firm in NY, such jobs aren't as readily available in those areas.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The general understanding I've gotten from these boards is that NY and CA are NOT, in fact, net gains. Their increases in salary do NOT offset their increased costs of living and therefore you actually get a NET loss of disposable income. But this is a fairly minor point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I suppose I'm lucky, then, to live in NY (although I would, of course, have to get my own place at some point).</p>
<p>But if NY and CA are not net gains for lawyers (a relatively high salary job), that'd means it's even worse off for many other jobs... And in that case, why would so many live in these regions?</p>
<p>Where would you say provides a net gain, then?</p>
<p>People live in NY and CA because they like the area. They therefore pay very high rents/mortgages in order to do so, losing money in the process. Since gain/loss is relative, anywhere that is not a loss is a gain.</p>
<p>They lose money because they "like the area"? I know a few people who work in NYC but strongly dislike the atmosphere.</p>
<p>And maybe I should've been more specific, but I was asking where (what region) provides a net gain?</p>
<p>That goes back to the "harder to find similar jobs elsewhere" reasoning, then.</p>
<p>And: everywhere else.</p>
<p>Ah, okay.
Fortunately, then, I'll be able to commute back and forth.</p>
<p>Thank you for your insight!</p>
<p>Cartera45, if you dont mind asking what law firm is that?</p>
<p>Sorry - these are my clients so no name dropping - except to say who it isn't in case someone assumed I was referring to Cravath. I can tell you that it could be one of many firms - pretty much any of the "biglaw" firms pay that range. There is not a huge amount of difference among the "biglaw" salaries - more of a difference in bonuses but some of the highest bonuses are in cities that have the highest cost of living so that may balance out.</p>
<p>I think Houston is one of the sweetest deals for BigLaw--housing is CHEAP compared to most cities and the biggest firms still pay $160k. </p>
<p>Bonuses and raises are probably lower than in more expensive cities, though, and, well, you have to live in Houston (which isn't for everyone).</p>
<p>Charlotte can be pretty sweet if you can land a job there.</p>
<p>NORTHEAST baby, all-day, err-day</p>
<p>im surprised no1 has mentioned wachtell lipton rosen and katz yet, bc they pay investment banker money. they are legendary (even moreso than cravath) for paying 100% bonus's on the initial salary over the last 5 years. in addition, base salaries increase yearly until you're the equivalent of middle management and you're either shuttled onto a partner track, put into a high-paying council position, or let go. if any of u think 320k in new york doesnt offset 190 in richmond va, ur full of it. </p>
<p>on another note, law offers alot more job stability than ibanking ever will at the highest levels.</p>
<p>The top firms have out of control employee turnover. By the highest level do you mean the highest firms, or do you mean being senior partner at a firm? The top firms hardly have much in way of job stability, same with IBanking, neither is a thing to brag about. Obviously a senior partner would have stability, but now your talking about 0.02% of law graduates that go on to these loftiest of positions, hardly a relevant point. Also, while I said earlier that an initially high paying job would be easier to find in NY/CA than elsewhere, I believe it would also be harder to rise to the top in those firms. So while 320k in NY may be nicer than 190k elsewhere (and still not as much as you think, take a closer look at their tax system in comparison to Virginia's), rising to the 190k would be easier to do if you were able to find a job after all.</p>
<p>basically i just take issue with the idea that people work in new york bc they "like the area" my previous post wasn't very well thought out or specific or practical haha so i'll clarify</p>
<p>i think any1 would agree that people go to new york for A- prestige B- the fact that it's easier to get a lateral hire in corporate law from new york bc you have huge experience working in a high deal-flow environment and most importantly C- profits per partner, no matter what the taxes and living rates are in ny, they are out of this world in new york, 1.5-3 million dollars at about 30 firms in new york, now i'm not saying this isn't just 0.2% of law students, but americans want to live the dream so i would say this is the biggest reason people live in new york, in addition, partners and councils and senior associates at new york law firms often garner business board positions with lucrative (understatement) stock options.</p>
<p>on stability, turnover rates are not unemployment, and law firms don't generally layoff or fire people the first 3 years they work there, a large portion of turnover's origins can probably be found in simply looking for different standards of living, different jobs bc a law degree is basically a warrant to do alot of different things whereas mba's are very specific and really more along the lines of honorific as exemplified by the fact that 2/3 of upper management in forbes 500 companies don't have mbas, u r given a learning curve in law of 3-5 years whereas in ibanking from day 1 ur performance is ranked against ur competition and ur given 2 years to succeed or move to a lower paying position</p>
<p>i know this is a long post, but i will end by saying that ur law salaries go up very much over the course of 5 years at a top 20 firm in new york such that on average a corporate lawyer of 5 years makes around 300k there and at cravath and wachtell 500k. in smaller markets you're salary stagnates to a large extent, law firms are business's too, they know that talent will move away from new york if employees aren't given more incentives than a partner pipe dream.</p>
<p>So can it be said then that all the money is in corporate law? I had a political science teacher (who was a lawyer) that described his work as "family law"...he said he made $360 an hour just for appointments seeking advice..i remember thinking, damn, i want $360 an hour to talk to somebody!</p>
<p>No not all the money is in corporate law, it's just that all the easy to get money is there, given you're coming from a T25 school.</p>
<p>Of course an occasional lawyer here or there can rake in gigantic money. The HUGE money is in filing lawsuits, if you're talented enough to win. (John Edwards.) But the majority of high-paying law jobs are in the corporate sector.</p>
<p>Nailed it!! When you up grow up watching your parents struggle to meet the mortgage every month, how could money not dominate your thoughts and hugely motivate your career goals??</p>
<p>It does for a lot of law school applicants, but it shouldn't be the one deciding factor. I suggest reading page 2 of this thread if you haven't already.</p>
<p>I thought not all JDers go on to become lawyers.. some go on to management consulting/Ibanking.. are there people who go to law schools to become consultants?</p>