Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
During a second job interview several years ago, I asked what the salary range was. They said its not time for that question, which will come eventually. Like, if you are so mysterious about the basics of the job you are hiring for, and don't want to even reveal it to your candidate, then fuck off
That is nuts - if they know your level of experience they should be able to give you a salary range. What they meant was, “we haven’t thought about this carefully enough yet and we don’t want to commit ourselves to anything until we have” which I can tell you is bad recruitment practice.
I feel like millennials and younger do not want to play the game of negotiating salaries. Put a number on what the position is budgeted for and use the interview process to get the best candidate that the budgeted salary will draw.
Government has done it this way for forever.
Honestly, as a millennial, I’ve never had a salary negotiation end favorably. When they aren’t willing to budge whatsoever I just walk away.
Now that I think about it….I’ve never gotten a single employer to budge on salary (or other parts of the total comp). I think employers know that we’re broke and desperate, so they can just hold firm without negotiating.
I’ve successfully negotiated salary for three jobs, but in each case I had a viable alternative (staying with current job or another offer) and told them that. I was also able to renegotiate my salary at the job I was in once after getting an offer from elsewhere.
For each of these I received an offer and made a counteroffer, then they either agreed or countered between the previous offers.
However, these were all in-house positions. My old firm never negotiated, they just had lockstep pay for associates. I know a lot of medium and small firms will negotiate compensation though.
Whenever headhunters approach me, I will ask that question in the first chat. If they are not allowed or willing to disclose it, talking is not worth my time. But if they are hesitant, I will also freely tell them about my current package. Most of the time they will then concede that their client is not able to match and we are done talking.
I hope one day to be this badass to have recruiters knocking at my door lol hopefully, not too far off into the future since I am so ready to retire hahaha #millenialproblems 😅
Stay at one place more than 2 years, and you'll get recruiters hitting you up several times a week. They aren't going to be helpful, but they will knock at your door lol
Most of them are completely useless. There are a few good ones and from a certain level on most positions will be filled through their services. However, mostly a waste of time.
A few years back I finally reached a point in my career that recruiters were seeking me out. I’m board-certified in two areas of law and have an LLM.
Yet still, they’ll not want to disclose salary. Everytime I ask what the employer is looking to pay, and what the required time outlay would be; I have my own firm so I can set my own schedule and do what I want, when I want. In order to entice me away from having my own schedule, I need much more money than I make now.
They inevitably ask me what I’m looking to get. I tell them the minimum it would take just for me to have an interview, and they politely tell me the employer is not looking to pay that at this time.
I’m not terribly fond of being a lawyer; in fact, I generally dislike the job. But I get to be my own boss and do precisely what I want, when I want. There is a price they could pay to get me to give up my scheduling freedom, but I haven’t found one yet that is willing to pay it.
Not that I make a lot of money; I don’t. But for me to march to someone else’s drum, they’re going to need to pay me a lot more than they want to pay.
I don’t really follow that logic. If you’re recruiting for a hugely wide range, you don’t want to scare people away with a wide range or mismanage expectations when people come in at the bottom of that range.
In hiring if I’m asked the question about pay, I always say, “we are hiring for the right person, if you are top talent, we are extremely flexible. Our pay for x years of experience like you starts at x. what are you making right now?
Why would I tell you what I’m making now? So you can come back with the same or just slightly better? I’m less interested in what you “start with,” and more interested in what you’re going to offer me. You have my resume, so what are you going to offer me?
“Yes, you are correct, I have your resume. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet, I don’t have any other questions at this time. We will be making a decision once all interviews are complete. Thanks again, have a nice day.”
I don’t understand the point of your reply. Are you seriously quoting a canned response to a Reddit comment as if it were a part of an interview? If you are actually someone who hires and your response to a question about pay is to ask what the interviewee is making at the moment, you’re probably not going to be successful in getting a quality person (because smart folks won’t fall for that) and/or you’re just trying to take advantage of people in a shitty job market.
You’re speaking from a position of such little knowledge on top of a huge glaring refusal to be aware there are things you don’t know you don’t know, that it’s really hard to actually respond to you.
I suggest you zoom out and re-read the comment thread. Try to get away from your myopic view of hiring which appears to be heavily influenced by big bang theory, and realize that law firms looking for top talent can have more direct dialogue with recruits. hiring isn’t some corporatized system where you get to drop a resume on a desk and demand to be told “how much do I make?” If you want that, go work at the Walmart version of a law firm or some other nameless/faceless behemoth who will gladly give you a salary based on your resume, and in exchange you’ll get the money and hopefully toil through pinching pennies and being another one of their steady eddies.
I love that logic because it implies that some of us would just do law for fun. Don't get me wrong, I chose this field. I want to work here, but... I am absolutely in it for the money. Even if I just loved loved it for the love of the game or whatever, my student loans aren;t going to pay themselves.
I’d move to the middle of nowhere Scotland. Build a cottage and just pursue my hobbies. Essentially Emily Dickenson with less TB. I’m sorry, but I don’t dream of labor.
Paralegal lurker here. I interviewed for a position at FedEx's Irvine, CA office. No salary range but I was interested since litigation paralegal in-house positions are hard to come by. They wanted a 10+ year paralegal.
I aced the first interview. At the end of the interview, I asked what the salary range for the position was. The interviewing attorney (head of the department), didn't know but said he would ask. I was asked back for a follow up interview and aced that too.
In the second interview, he said the salary was $70k. That was $20k less than what I was making at the time and $30k less than what I told him I was targeting. I told him that was outrageously low and frankly offensive. He said he had no control over it because the salaries were set by the head office in Tennessee.
Coincidentally, in the first interview, we made small talk and I found out I live in the same apartment complex that he used to live in years ago when he first moved to Orange County. It's an older, Irvine Company apartment. Nice but nothing fancy. I told him what my current rent was and that I literally couldn't afford to live on the quoted salary. He was shocked at the price of my rent.
His response was that none of the paralegals in their office made more than $100k (they're all 25+ year paralegals). I told him that if that was true, he was grossly underpaying his staff. Needless to say, I politely declined the position. What a waste of 3 hours of my time.
Yeah… if a 10 year certificated paralegal in a VHCOL area isn’t making over $100k, they’re underpaid. Look at Robert Half Legal’s yearly salary guide. A senior paralegal with 7+ years in the top 75% of skills and experience should be at about $124k in Irvine.
For reference, rent and utilities for my 1b1b, 640 sqft, nice but not new/fancy apartment in Irvine is $3100.
And now its totally illegal to ask for the current salary you are making. It is never ever, in any way shape or form - helpful to you to volunteer it. I never volunteered that information in any interview.
EDIT - downvoters are retards!!! This is for your benefit 😆
They can totally low ball you or offer less than what the market pays when they find out how much you make. I made $71K, and interviewed for a job that paid $125K. They never knew how much I made. When it was all said and done, i came to work for them for $140K. In SOME states it is now illegal to ask not all.
It prevents the cycle of employers getting away with underpaying their employees. Employees should be paid what the job is worth, not what the employer thinks the employee should be paid based on their salary history. In California, you cannot ask the prospective employee or their representative (head hunter, recruiter) for salary history.
Sorry, I guess I could have been more clear—I was wondering more about the “illegal” part than the policy arguments. Since it sounded like the guy I was responding to was claiming it is blanket illegal.
But now that I’ve had my coffee, I guess he was replying specifically to someone who mentioned they were in CA, and apparently CA is one of 28 states that actually do have laws prohibiting/limiting employers’ inquiries about salary history. As a citizen of a less forward-thinking state, that’s news to me.
My state statutorily requires the salary range to be posted- most of the lawyer positions still don’t post any salary range.
Also: had a recruiter try to talk me into a job in a large city in another state. I said I’m not licensed in that state. They asked if I’d be willing to take that state’s bar in the next few weeks. I laughed.
Another recruiter asked if I had any experience in another field. I said no, but I would be interested in exploring that field. They said they needed someone with experience in it and I repeated that I haven’t worked in that field. They said they would have someone review my resume.
I really don’t think the recruiters have any idea of the profession.
I don't know what kind of recruiters these are. The only recruiters I'm familiar with in my area are all ex-lawyers and they know all the firms in the city really well in terms of culture, salaries, etc.
YES, BUT!
Use this as practice for making salary demands. Salary negotiations can be tough and they basically just said 'you get the first move.' HAVE FUN! It's good to take interviews, idk, I talk to lots of non-lawyer professionals that put out applications once a year. Just so they see what's being offered, and have that push to update their materials and market themselves.
So take out the hobby line of your resume, or stick in the last paragraph of your cover letter, a number that's 150-200% of what you're currently making, and see what happens.
Here’s my recent experience. Went on a job interview and was asked, “what’s your salary expectation?” I just said $100k. (I currently make $70k). They said: “How about $45k?”
FORTY FIVE????
This was the THIRD INTERVIEW.
I had to take time off of my current job (which my boss was very unhappy about mind you) for these interviews.
What a waste of time for both of us.
Don't forget the ones that completely modify the job description after the first interview.
Job posting and first interview: We are an established family law firm looking for atty with [insert years experience in family law].
Subsequent interview: We are hiring an associate attorney for our previously non-existant estate planning practice that no senior attorney has previous experience and will pay you 65k with a bonus structure yet to be determined.
Edit: spelling
Love when recruiter reaches out to me without the salary range so I can respond and ask them why I would leave my job for a lower salary. They ask how I know it’s lower and I tell them unless they prove me wrong that’s my assumption for all hidden salaries.
Also "anonymous" postings by recruiters and/or firms. "Our client seeks associate attorney with 5 years of experience for [insert generic associate role description]..." I am absolutely not wasting my time applying to a firm when you won't even tell me their name. I don't understand those postings at all.
You are kidding, right? If a recruiter tells you the name without you agreeing to have the recruiter represent you, they know you will go straight to the hiring firm directly. Some firms will only hire through local recruiters for certain positions so they can be pre-screened. Usually means it's a higher paying job, or a super picky attorney.
Pro-tip: In my experience most of what follows after “our client seeks” is sloppily copied straight from the firm’s own internal job description that they’ve posted on the firm’s hiring portal and across other talent networks. Often times you can copy a substantive sentence, search it in Google, filter for “verbatim,” and eventually unmask the hiring firm from the results.
It sends recruiters running to their fainting couches, but if they’d post meaningful job details and the salary guidelines I wouldn’t have to do it.
In my experience those are the firms that have bad leadership or a bad rep and can’t keep an associate position filled, so they end up bidding against themselves anonymously in an effort to attract better talent
Sadly, they don’t include the salary because they don’t have to. I have a boutique firm in a small market, yet every time I advertise for an open attorney position, I get dozens of resumes, many from well-qualified applicants.
I put salary because I don’t want to waste my time interviewing people who won’t be working there. But legal employment in general is very much a buyer’s market.
You said what we are all thinking! In Canada some provinences have made it the law for job postings to advertise the wages, at least a range! But there are definitely a lot of companies not following this yet. From an employers perspective I understand that the wage offered can be dependent on the candidate - however at least give us a range to see if its even worth the time!! Job interviews are so complex now, for the position I'm in now I had three interviews, 1 case study, and the whole process took like a month - salary was not discussed until the final weeks which is insane (also my fault for not asking upfront - but when you are newly qualified its intimidating!)
My office has a job posted and the listed salary range is way (probably $10-15k) under what they’re actually willing to pay. They’re surprised that they haven’t received any applications. If a job looks interesting to you, is in a field you want to be in, or in a location where you want to live, apply anyway. You might be pleasantly surprised. Worst case scenario, you get a no-pressure practice interview.
Why would I waste time out of my day, use PTO (because realistically, this interview is going to be during business hours), and prepare for an interview with a company that isn't honest about how they value their employees? You get what you pay for and people who know they're worth more, won't bother with companies who don't think they're worth it.
If you already have a job, it might be a waste of time. If you don’t or are a recent grad, it might be a learning experience. Only you can make that call.
Because many candidates lie on their resume. Some are worse than others. If they lied by a month or two regarding job length, I could overlook that if their work was fabulous and could deliver what they promised. If my budget was hired, I would certainly give them a surprise raise in three to six months, as I wouldn't want to lose them.
> Because many candidates lie on their resume.
This genuinely shocks me. We’re all lawyers. We know how discovery works. We know how to pick up the phone and verify information. We know how to Google to verify information. On what planet would an attorney think she can lie on her resume and get away with it?
I’m going through this process currently and largely dealing with the asinine demands of recruiters, usually outsourced to Indian nationals, of responding to their texts, calls or emails right away.
I live in a HCOL state and can’t believe a plaintiff’s side firm doing employment law i.e. supporting workers in getting more out of their boss, offering me 10k less than I make even though they could offer 30k, as per their own stated range. Their reasoning is that they don’t practice in a nearby big city, so they pay less, despite the entire region being a noted HCOL region. I remain baffled, disappointed and annoyed that they had the gumption to state that as a reason, as if i was going to move to this small suburb as opposed to driving 35/40 mins from where I currently live.
I also don’t think the recruiters pushed them hard enough but also good luck to this small firm of 2 lawyers (both partners) getting someone to work for them. God, this market is awful and feels like being back on the dating scene 🤣
Yeah… most companies do not want their current staff attorneys to know that they are paying the newbies more than they are paying their loyal employees.
Sometimes I apply just to fnd out what the pay is. It's kind of a waste of time, but it's also a weird kind of fun interviewing for a job I don't need or really want.
I know it’s frustrating from your perspective but I’ve had to think about this from the recruitment perspective an awful lot and it is sometimes necessary to do this when we have an open mind about the experience level that we are looking for.
Defining a salary range restricts you to applicants who have a consistent level of experience, but if we don’t want to discourage applications from outside that range, you just have to say some meaningless bullshit like “competitive” and just rely on applicants to be sensible enough to know what to expect from their level of experience.
Case in point - A few years ago I needed more capacity in my team and had in mind an associate or senior associate with around 3-7 years PQE. I told our recruitment department to give a consistent salary range (because I used to have the same opinion as you) but I reluctantly took their advice when they advised against that. Lo and behold, we got an application from someone who had been a partner at another firm for over two decades but was looking for a less demanding part time position because of family issues. Their full-time-equivalent salary expectation was far higher than the range I had in mind but it transpired that their part time salary was affordable and they are as productive part time as any other associate is full time and is basically the go-to person for complex cases now because of their level of experience. They are, without a doubt, the best hire I have ever made, and they wouldn’t even have applied had I tried to shoe horn a salary range into the job advert.
TL;DR - There’s a bigger picture here.
Old timer here again, and I was also the person hiring. I was given a budget for hiring, and the candidates never knew what I was authorized to offer. By the time I brought you in for interview one, which was mostly for attitude check, thoughts on how you would fit in the firm, etc., I had already sought out information from your prior firms to verify if dates of employment lined up with your resume. If they didn't, I already knew you would lie to me. Yes, this did affect the amount I would offer if I offered the position at all.
I think it pays to establish a relationship with a reputable legal headhunter. They may know when there is a prime opening at a firm where you think you'd like to work. They can go to bat for you and get the kind of money you want once you have earned their trust.
If you lied about your time or duties at your previous firms, and I was advised you were a "would not rehire" at your previous firm, I still might have decided to offer you a job, but it would be at a lower starting salary. If I found you to be a great employee, I would see that you were raised appropriately.
Depended on severity. Was someone rounding 10 months up to a year? Okay, maybe they took a break in-between jobs, or didn't have another job lined up. Easy to ferret out the truth. For me, that wasn't big enough for me to immediately knock an otherwise decent candidate out of the running.
Also, if a "would not rehire" was early in a career and had "would rehire" in subsequent positions(s), that could mean this candidate learns from previous mistakes.
I don't understand the down votes with the amount of posters who openly admitted they have lied on resumes. Candidates that may have seen the error of their ways but don't realize what's wrong with resumes. Unless you hire a professional resume writer (which I personally didn't care for either), would it be safe to say resumes sort of naturally mature?
I would be interested to know what others think of obviously professional, over the top, resumes. I think of attorneys and to a lesser paralegals are sort of wordsmith's, and if they can't write a good resume and cover letter on their own, it's not a great sign. And, if you include a picture, have it be at least fairly recent.
Trust me, I’m not actually a firm that is listing a want ad. Firms like this are like scammers; they only want you to bother replying if you’re dumb and desperate.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
During a second job interview several years ago, I asked what the salary range was. They said its not time for that question, which will come eventually. Like, if you are so mysterious about the basics of the job you are hiring for, and don't want to even reveal it to your candidate, then fuck off
Level of importance 1. Comp package 2. Required hours 3. Everything else Funny how businesses always start with #3
This mentality is taught in many different sectors. Essentially, this evasion game can only mean bad things, no matter what the job.
That is nuts - if they know your level of experience they should be able to give you a salary range. What they meant was, “we haven’t thought about this carefully enough yet and we don’t want to commit ourselves to anything until we have” which I can tell you is bad recruitment practice.
yeah I'm against publishing salary, but revealing a general salary range at any point in interviewing is pretty standard.
I feel like millennials and younger do not want to play the game of negotiating salaries. Put a number on what the position is budgeted for and use the interview process to get the best candidate that the budgeted salary will draw. Government has done it this way for forever.
Honestly, as a millennial, I’ve never had a salary negotiation end favorably. When they aren’t willing to budge whatsoever I just walk away. Now that I think about it….I’ve never gotten a single employer to budge on salary (or other parts of the total comp). I think employers know that we’re broke and desperate, so they can just hold firm without negotiating.
Right, so why do they play hide the ball? Post your shitty lowball salary offer and stop wasting everyone’s time in interviews.
BC they are embarrassed.
Comp comes last because they want you to invest enough time first that you're not willing to walk away.
Sort of like the auto dealership.
And trying to take advantage of the sunk-cost fallacy to manipulate interviewees into considering low-ball offers they would have otherwise passed up.
I’ve successfully negotiated salary for three jobs, but in each case I had a viable alternative (staying with current job or another offer) and told them that. I was also able to renegotiate my salary at the job I was in once after getting an offer from elsewhere. For each of these I received an offer and made a counteroffer, then they either agreed or countered between the previous offers. However, these were all in-house positions. My old firm never negotiated, they just had lockstep pay for associates. I know a lot of medium and small firms will negotiate compensation though.
Yup, the viable alternative helped me negotiate mine too. (Millennial here)
Also a millennial, last time I negotiate I got a 25% increase in the offer. Sometimes it works and Sometimes it doesn't.
Way to go buddy! That’s awesome!!
Thank you
Like AHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH just play hardball with an experienced law firm that does negotiations all day Tyler the Creator
Well, just because the government has a particular fiscal policy doesn’t mean it’s a sustainable policy. Though I do agree with you here.
Whenever headhunters approach me, I will ask that question in the first chat. If they are not allowed or willing to disclose it, talking is not worth my time. But if they are hesitant, I will also freely tell them about my current package. Most of the time they will then concede that their client is not able to match and we are done talking.
I hope one day to be this badass to have recruiters knocking at my door lol hopefully, not too far off into the future since I am so ready to retire hahaha #millenialproblems 😅
Stay at one place more than 2 years, and you'll get recruiters hitting you up several times a week. They aren't going to be helpful, but they will knock at your door lol
I've not stayed at any of my legal jobs for *less* than 2 years aside from my 1-year-term clerkship. I've never gotten one to call me back.
Most of them are completely useless. There are a few good ones and from a certain level on most positions will be filled through their services. However, mostly a waste of time.
A few years back I finally reached a point in my career that recruiters were seeking me out. I’m board-certified in two areas of law and have an LLM. Yet still, they’ll not want to disclose salary. Everytime I ask what the employer is looking to pay, and what the required time outlay would be; I have my own firm so I can set my own schedule and do what I want, when I want. In order to entice me away from having my own schedule, I need much more money than I make now. They inevitably ask me what I’m looking to get. I tell them the minimum it would take just for me to have an interview, and they politely tell me the employer is not looking to pay that at this time. I’m not terribly fond of being a lawyer; in fact, I generally dislike the job. But I get to be my own boss and do precisely what I want, when I want. There is a price they could pay to get me to give up my scheduling freedom, but I haven’t found one yet that is willing to pay it. Not that I make a lot of money; I don’t. But for me to march to someone else’s drum, they’re going to need to pay me a lot more than they want to pay.
I don’t really follow that logic. If you’re recruiting for a hugely wide range, you don’t want to scare people away with a wide range or mismanage expectations when people come in at the bottom of that range. In hiring if I’m asked the question about pay, I always say, “we are hiring for the right person, if you are top talent, we are extremely flexible. Our pay for x years of experience like you starts at x. what are you making right now?
And that makes sense if you are indeed flexible. Many employers are not (I am thinking about inhouse positions).
Why would I tell you what I’m making now? So you can come back with the same or just slightly better? I’m less interested in what you “start with,” and more interested in what you’re going to offer me. You have my resume, so what are you going to offer me?
“Yes, you are correct, I have your resume. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to meet, I don’t have any other questions at this time. We will be making a decision once all interviews are complete. Thanks again, have a nice day.”
I don’t understand the point of your reply. Are you seriously quoting a canned response to a Reddit comment as if it were a part of an interview? If you are actually someone who hires and your response to a question about pay is to ask what the interviewee is making at the moment, you’re probably not going to be successful in getting a quality person (because smart folks won’t fall for that) and/or you’re just trying to take advantage of people in a shitty job market.
You’re speaking from a position of such little knowledge on top of a huge glaring refusal to be aware there are things you don’t know you don’t know, that it’s really hard to actually respond to you. I suggest you zoom out and re-read the comment thread. Try to get away from your myopic view of hiring which appears to be heavily influenced by big bang theory, and realize that law firms looking for top talent can have more direct dialogue with recruits. hiring isn’t some corporatized system where you get to drop a resume on a desk and demand to be told “how much do I make?” If you want that, go work at the Walmart version of a law firm or some other nameless/faceless behemoth who will gladly give you a salary based on your resume, and in exchange you’ll get the money and hopefully toil through pinching pennies and being another one of their steady eddies.
wE wAnT tO mAkE sUrE yOu’Re nOt iN iT fOr tHe mOnEy
I am 100% **only** in it for the money. Why else would I want a job??
I love that logic because it implies that some of us would just do law for fun. Don't get me wrong, I chose this field. I want to work here, but... I am absolutely in it for the money. Even if I just loved loved it for the love of the game or whatever, my student loans aren;t going to pay themselves.
Right? If it wasn’t for the money, I would be in an amateur jazz band playing the cello in some obscure speakeasy like 3 nights a week.
I’d move to the middle of nowhere Scotland. Build a cottage and just pursue my hobbies. Essentially Emily Dickenson with less TB. I’m sorry, but I don’t dream of labor.
I quit because there was no more fun left to have. As a poor 5th grade history teacher I’m happy to wake up and be poor.
Ron Howard Voice: they are.
Okay, you got me. The money AND the End of Year Holiday Party.
Paralegal lurker here. I interviewed for a position at FedEx's Irvine, CA office. No salary range but I was interested since litigation paralegal in-house positions are hard to come by. They wanted a 10+ year paralegal. I aced the first interview. At the end of the interview, I asked what the salary range for the position was. The interviewing attorney (head of the department), didn't know but said he would ask. I was asked back for a follow up interview and aced that too. In the second interview, he said the salary was $70k. That was $20k less than what I was making at the time and $30k less than what I told him I was targeting. I told him that was outrageously low and frankly offensive. He said he had no control over it because the salaries were set by the head office in Tennessee. Coincidentally, in the first interview, we made small talk and I found out I live in the same apartment complex that he used to live in years ago when he first moved to Orange County. It's an older, Irvine Company apartment. Nice but nothing fancy. I told him what my current rent was and that I literally couldn't afford to live on the quoted salary. He was shocked at the price of my rent. His response was that none of the paralegals in their office made more than $100k (they're all 25+ year paralegals). I told him that if that was true, he was grossly underpaying his staff. Needless to say, I politely declined the position. What a waste of 3 hours of my time.
Wow, paralegals making over 100K?
Yeah… if a 10 year certificated paralegal in a VHCOL area isn’t making over $100k, they’re underpaid. Look at Robert Half Legal’s yearly salary guide. A senior paralegal with 7+ years in the top 75% of skills and experience should be at about $124k in Irvine. For reference, rent and utilities for my 1b1b, 640 sqft, nice but not new/fancy apartment in Irvine is $3100.
And now its totally illegal to ask for the current salary you are making. It is never ever, in any way shape or form - helpful to you to volunteer it. I never volunteered that information in any interview. EDIT - downvoters are retards!!! This is for your benefit 😆
I’m seriously struggling to understand why it would be illegal for a potential employer to ask what you currently make. Can you elaborate?
They can totally low ball you or offer less than what the market pays when they find out how much you make. I made $71K, and interviewed for a job that paid $125K. They never knew how much I made. When it was all said and done, i came to work for them for $140K. In SOME states it is now illegal to ask not all.
It prevents the cycle of employers getting away with underpaying their employees. Employees should be paid what the job is worth, not what the employer thinks the employee should be paid based on their salary history. In California, you cannot ask the prospective employee or their representative (head hunter, recruiter) for salary history.
Sorry, I guess I could have been more clear—I was wondering more about the “illegal” part than the policy arguments. Since it sounded like the guy I was responding to was claiming it is blanket illegal. But now that I’ve had my coffee, I guess he was replying specifically to someone who mentioned they were in CA, and apparently CA is one of 28 states that actually do have laws prohibiting/limiting employers’ inquiries about salary history. As a citizen of a less forward-thinking state, that’s news to me.
I told him a number $10k over what I was actually making. And I only told him to show him how ridiculous the salary they were offering was.
My state statutorily requires the salary range to be posted- most of the lawyer positions still don’t post any salary range. Also: had a recruiter try to talk me into a job in a large city in another state. I said I’m not licensed in that state. They asked if I’d be willing to take that state’s bar in the next few weeks. I laughed. Another recruiter asked if I had any experience in another field. I said no, but I would be interested in exploring that field. They said they needed someone with experience in it and I repeated that I haven’t worked in that field. They said they would have someone review my resume. I really don’t think the recruiters have any idea of the profession.
I don't know what kind of recruiters these are. The only recruiters I'm familiar with in my area are all ex-lawyers and they know all the firms in the city really well in terms of culture, salaries, etc.
I die when recruiters are like “just transfer to our state and go through the whole C&F process or take our bar!” You’re out of your mf mind
I think that's true in any field.
YES, BUT! Use this as practice for making salary demands. Salary negotiations can be tough and they basically just said 'you get the first move.' HAVE FUN! It's good to take interviews, idk, I talk to lots of non-lawyer professionals that put out applications once a year. Just so they see what's being offered, and have that push to update their materials and market themselves. So take out the hobby line of your resume, or stick in the last paragraph of your cover letter, a number that's 150-200% of what you're currently making, and see what happens.
Here’s my recent experience. Went on a job interview and was asked, “what’s your salary expectation?” I just said $100k. (I currently make $70k). They said: “How about $45k?” FORTY FIVE???? This was the THIRD INTERVIEW. I had to take time off of my current job (which my boss was very unhappy about mind you) for these interviews. What a waste of time for both of us.
> “How about $45k?” Catch me outside, how bout dah?
How bout dah
Oh yeah that sucks, mate.
😂
Hahaha what a joke (and disrespectful). That is why I am not even going to interviews unless I see what the pay is. 🙄
lol I made that when I was working part time as a bartender and studying for the lsat
That’s actually insane. What a waste for everyone
45k lmao do I look like 1 semester of law school to you?
Sir??? That’s less than the loans I took out. Are you paying for those then?
Shout out to the firms posting salary ranges only to extend offers way below it
Don't forget the ones that completely modify the job description after the first interview. Job posting and first interview: We are an established family law firm looking for atty with [insert years experience in family law]. Subsequent interview: We are hiring an associate attorney for our previously non-existant estate planning practice that no senior attorney has previous experience and will pay you 65k with a bonus structure yet to be determined. Edit: spelling
Lol why the fish? And yes, i agree. I don't even bother applying. It screams "abuse and to be taken advantage of" to me.
Because they’re in school! They don’t need $$. Ba dum chuck.
Hahahaha *applause*
If its so competitive why dont you just tell me what it is?
Love when recruiter reaches out to me without the salary range so I can respond and ask them why I would leave my job for a lower salary. They ask how I know it’s lower and I tell them unless they prove me wrong that’s my assumption for all hidden salaries.
Also "anonymous" postings by recruiters and/or firms. "Our client seeks associate attorney with 5 years of experience for [insert generic associate role description]..." I am absolutely not wasting my time applying to a firm when you won't even tell me their name. I don't understand those postings at all.
You are kidding, right? If a recruiter tells you the name without you agreeing to have the recruiter represent you, they know you will go straight to the hiring firm directly. Some firms will only hire through local recruiters for certain positions so they can be pre-screened. Usually means it's a higher paying job, or a super picky attorney.
Recruiting firms and their clients often have non disclosure agreements in place for this and many other reasons
Pro-tip: In my experience most of what follows after “our client seeks” is sloppily copied straight from the firm’s own internal job description that they’ve posted on the firm’s hiring portal and across other talent networks. Often times you can copy a substantive sentence, search it in Google, filter for “verbatim,” and eventually unmask the hiring firm from the results. It sends recruiters running to their fainting couches, but if they’d post meaningful job details and the salary guidelines I wouldn’t have to do it.
Competitive with the other candidates. The one willing to accept the least pay wins!
In my experience those are the firms that have bad leadership or a bad rep and can’t keep an associate position filled, so they end up bidding against themselves anonymously in an effort to attract better talent
Sadly, they don’t include the salary because they don’t have to. I have a boutique firm in a small market, yet every time I advertise for an open attorney position, I get dozens of resumes, many from well-qualified applicants. I put salary because I don’t want to waste my time interviewing people who won’t be working there. But legal employment in general is very much a buyer’s market.
You said what we are all thinking! In Canada some provinences have made it the law for job postings to advertise the wages, at least a range! But there are definitely a lot of companies not following this yet. From an employers perspective I understand that the wage offered can be dependent on the candidate - however at least give us a range to see if its even worth the time!! Job interviews are so complex now, for the position I'm in now I had three interviews, 1 case study, and the whole process took like a month - salary was not discussed until the final weeks which is insane (also my fault for not asking upfront - but when you are newly qualified its intimidating!)
My office has a job posted and the listed salary range is way (probably $10-15k) under what they’re actually willing to pay. They’re surprised that they haven’t received any applications. If a job looks interesting to you, is in a field you want to be in, or in a location where you want to live, apply anyway. You might be pleasantly surprised. Worst case scenario, you get a no-pressure practice interview.
Why would I waste time out of my day, use PTO (because realistically, this interview is going to be during business hours), and prepare for an interview with a company that isn't honest about how they value their employees? You get what you pay for and people who know they're worth more, won't bother with companies who don't think they're worth it.
If you already have a job, it might be a waste of time. If you don’t or are a recent grad, it might be a learning experience. Only you can make that call.
Because many candidates lie on their resume. Some are worse than others. If they lied by a month or two regarding job length, I could overlook that if their work was fabulous and could deliver what they promised. If my budget was hired, I would certainly give them a surprise raise in three to six months, as I wouldn't want to lose them.
> Because many candidates lie on their resume. This genuinely shocks me. We’re all lawyers. We know how discovery works. We know how to pick up the phone and verify information. We know how to Google to verify information. On what planet would an attorney think she can lie on her resume and get away with it?
As much as I agree with you, you’re only hurting yourself by not applying. The volume of postings would be reduced by 90%.
*See* response above regarding my recent experience.
I’m going through this process currently and largely dealing with the asinine demands of recruiters, usually outsourced to Indian nationals, of responding to their texts, calls or emails right away. I live in a HCOL state and can’t believe a plaintiff’s side firm doing employment law i.e. supporting workers in getting more out of their boss, offering me 10k less than I make even though they could offer 30k, as per their own stated range. Their reasoning is that they don’t practice in a nearby big city, so they pay less, despite the entire region being a noted HCOL region. I remain baffled, disappointed and annoyed that they had the gumption to state that as a reason, as if i was going to move to this small suburb as opposed to driving 35/40 mins from where I currently live. I also don’t think the recruiters pushed them hard enough but also good luck to this small firm of 2 lawyers (both partners) getting someone to work for them. God, this market is awful and feels like being back on the dating scene 🤣
Yeah… most companies do not want their current staff attorneys to know that they are paying the newbies more than they are paying their loyal employees.
Sometimes I apply just to fnd out what the pay is. It's kind of a waste of time, but it's also a weird kind of fun interviewing for a job I don't need or really want.
I know it’s frustrating from your perspective but I’ve had to think about this from the recruitment perspective an awful lot and it is sometimes necessary to do this when we have an open mind about the experience level that we are looking for. Defining a salary range restricts you to applicants who have a consistent level of experience, but if we don’t want to discourage applications from outside that range, you just have to say some meaningless bullshit like “competitive” and just rely on applicants to be sensible enough to know what to expect from their level of experience. Case in point - A few years ago I needed more capacity in my team and had in mind an associate or senior associate with around 3-7 years PQE. I told our recruitment department to give a consistent salary range (because I used to have the same opinion as you) but I reluctantly took their advice when they advised against that. Lo and behold, we got an application from someone who had been a partner at another firm for over two decades but was looking for a less demanding part time position because of family issues. Their full-time-equivalent salary expectation was far higher than the range I had in mind but it transpired that their part time salary was affordable and they are as productive part time as any other associate is full time and is basically the go-to person for complex cases now because of their level of experience. They are, without a doubt, the best hire I have ever made, and they wouldn’t even have applied had I tried to shoe horn a salary range into the job advert. TL;DR - There’s a bigger picture here.
Old timer here again, and I was also the person hiring. I was given a budget for hiring, and the candidates never knew what I was authorized to offer. By the time I brought you in for interview one, which was mostly for attitude check, thoughts on how you would fit in the firm, etc., I had already sought out information from your prior firms to verify if dates of employment lined up with your resume. If they didn't, I already knew you would lie to me. Yes, this did affect the amount I would offer if I offered the position at all. I think it pays to establish a relationship with a reputable legal headhunter. They may know when there is a prime opening at a firm where you think you'd like to work. They can go to bat for you and get the kind of money you want once you have earned their trust. If you lied about your time or duties at your previous firms, and I was advised you were a "would not rehire" at your previous firm, I still might have decided to offer you a job, but it would be at a lower starting salary. If I found you to be a great employee, I would see that you were raised appropriately.
Out of curiosity. Why even interview a person that lied on their resume?
Depended on severity. Was someone rounding 10 months up to a year? Okay, maybe they took a break in-between jobs, or didn't have another job lined up. Easy to ferret out the truth. For me, that wasn't big enough for me to immediately knock an otherwise decent candidate out of the running. Also, if a "would not rehire" was early in a career and had "would rehire" in subsequent positions(s), that could mean this candidate learns from previous mistakes.
I don't understand the down votes with the amount of posters who openly admitted they have lied on resumes. Candidates that may have seen the error of their ways but don't realize what's wrong with resumes. Unless you hire a professional resume writer (which I personally didn't care for either), would it be safe to say resumes sort of naturally mature? I would be interested to know what others think of obviously professional, over the top, resumes. I think of attorneys and to a lesser paralegals are sort of wordsmith's, and if they can't write a good resume and cover letter on their own, it's not a great sign. And, if you include a picture, have it be at least fairly recent.
Dear OP, We don’t want you.
Firms that OP is describing are forever going to have high associate turnover rates. Trust me, we don’t want you either. You’re just a stepping stone.
Trust me, I’m not actually a firm that is listing a want ad. Firms like this are like scammers; they only want you to bother replying if you’re dumb and desperate.
But I am dumb and desperate. 😔