header-logo header-logo

How to make it as a corporate counsel

16 July 2018
Issue: 7802 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Report highlights key factors for in-house success

In-house counsel who want to earn a lot of money should work elsewhere first, move into an industry such as life sciences, and be a man.

That’s according to the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), which published its 2018 Global Compensation Report this week, a study of salary and benefits information from more than 5,000 in-house counsel and legal professionals in 65 countries.

It found a 22% gender pay gap for general counsel where men earn a median of $270,000 (£203,340) in total compared with $210,000 (£158,163) for women with similar experience and in a comparable role. However, the gap shrinks for those who received their degree more recently—for example, the gap is $85,000 (£64,010) for those who graduated law school before 2000 but $35,000 (£26,359) for those who graduated after 2015.

‘While it was not a surprise, it was certainly disheartening to see the extent of gender pay disparities in the in-house community,’ said Veta T. Richardson, president and CEO of ACC.

‘Yet we are optimistic that the gap appears to shrink for newer generations of corporate counsel leaders and hope the data in the survey will yield more transparency.’

The research showed that it pays to gain experience outside of a corporate legal department first—even two years in a law firm or government department equates to higher compensation.

In terms of sector, in-house counsel can expect to make more money if they work in biotechnology/life sciences, technical/research development or accommodation/food services.

It can also pay to work in a public company—median base salaries for all in-house legal positions are nearly $25,000 (£18,828) higher in public companies than in private ones, and there is a $48,000 (£36,154) difference when comparing total compensation.

Overall, however, salaries are expected to go up. Some 78% of in-house counsel expect a rise next year and more than a quarter of general counsel expect an increase of at least 5%.

More than three-quarters of respondents received a performance-related bonus in 2017, and the median amount was $33,000 (£24,856). Nearly half have 25 or more days paid holidays and 43% have flexible work schedules.

The three highest paying practice areas are capital markets/securities/finance, mergers and acquisitions, and antitrust/trade regulations.

Issue: 7802 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll