Hogan Lovells has given its newly qualified lawyers pay rises which means they could be paid more than their more qualified, 1PQE colleagues.

The firm has increased salaries for NQs by almost 8% from £65,000 to £70,000. HogLove trainees have also seen their pay increase, from £39,500 to £41,000 in year one and from £45,000 to £46,000 in year two.

But that's where the rises stop, leaving 1PQE lawyers on merit-based salaries ranging from £66,500 to £75,000. It means 1PQE lawyers at the bottom of the band could be paid up to £3,500 less than their former errand gimps and erstwhile juniors. A source at the firm told RollOnFriday that they are "very disgruntled", and that "HR had a very busy day today explaining to those of us earning less than the NQs that they hadn't bothered to increase our salaries". Apparently the humiliated lawyers were told "there was nothing that could be done". Another told RollOnFriday, "Complaints have been made to HR and group managers but all have been refused". 

    A HogLove NQ helps out a 1PQE pal

Meanwhile, the happy NQs are now taking home the same wedge as their counterparts at Slaughter and May, which upped salaries a fortnight ago, and Linklaters, which followed suit this week.

The firm was unable to say whether 1PQE salaries were now going to be bumped up, so passed-over solicitors may have to get used to underlings parading around with superior watches and handbags of which they can only dream.

A HogLove spokeswoman said, "We have broad salary bands at this level in order to allow us the flexibility to ensure that we are able to take into account an individual's performance when determining their salary within the relevant salary band".
Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 22 May 15 09:00

I'd be curious to hear how many 1PQEs are actually at the very bottom of the band.

If 70k+ is very much the norm, and there are only three or four disgruntled 1PQEs earning less than the NQs - cos they're terrible associates - then this becomes a bit of a non-story.

I suppose it is strange that the banding hasn't been revised at all.

Anonymous 22 May 15 18:55

Hi hoglove HR at 0800.

Your point is unreasoned. Why should a terrible NQ get paid more than a terrible 1PQE lawyer? The firm will know the abilities of its NQs from their TCs.

Further, labelling an employee that the firm chooses to retain as terrible is offensive. Performance will always vary among a peer group and the people at the bottom will always perform worse than average.

Finally, why is this sort of arbitrary discrimination less offensive because the firm only happened to do it to a few of its employees?

Anonymous 26 May 15 14:27

HogLov is not the only City firm where salaries of high performing associates cannot be more than their average performing seniors. If a component of salaries is to be a derivative of performance, this is bound to happen.

Anonymous 27 May 15 08:02

The difference is ALL NQs get more than the under performing 1PQs and not just the superstar NQs. Besides isn't IT too early in their careers to even be putting such labels? Can't imagine what could be more disheartening than being an NQ who is told that their salary will be lower as a 1PQ because frankly they are awful.

Anonymous 27 May 15 22:23

Much fury from the disgruntled terrible associates, I see.

Points for consideration/responses to earlier posts in no particular order:

- It's more reasonable to have merit-based pay in place from 1PQE than from NQ; it's more reasonable to judge someone on their annual output as a qualified lawyer - in their practice area of choice - than on four 6-month-stints where they have literally been learning how to do the job at its most basic level. 2/3PQE would make more sense, but if a firm is committed to this sort of pay structure then maybe the attitude is 'the earlier the better'.

- The 'discrimination' is self-evidently not 'arbitrary': it's merit-based. You may think that 'merit-based' = arbitrary, but if you're the sort of person to get annoyed by such decisions, then choosing a career answering to corporate-y overlords was probably a poor choice.

- HL are openly trying to beef-up in London, and compete with the MC. They also have to compete with the MC for the best candidates at a junior level. Matching Slaughters is an eye-catching move, in that respect.

- The most recent retention round at HL wasn't great. This was spurred, so they claim, by a 'practice area mismatch'. Apparently loads of the trainees wanted to go off and be competition or IP lawyers and not enough wanted to be corporate/finance gimps. This large salary hike may be an attempt to prevent something similar from happening next time - convincing more of the trainee cohort to stick around on a potentially less desirable role, purely for the money.

- There are probably very few 1PQEs who actually earn less than NQs

- It is not ideal that the bottom of the 1PQE band is lower than the flat NQ rate. It is reasonable to expect that this will change in the not-too-distant future. I personally imagine it will be less a case of 'getting a pay cut at 1PQ' and more a case of 'not getting a very big raise' as things work themselves out and harmonise going forward.

All in all, not a massive story. Certainly preferential to the situation at firms like Freshfields where everyone's on merit-based out of the gate, encouraging even sharper elbows during the TC than might otherwise have been... as if trainees at such firms required any additional encouragement.

Anonymous 28 May 15 11:01

Also clearly not understanding how Freshfield's system works. All the NQs start on the same pay grade and remain so for at least the first year/18 months.

Anonymous 28 May 15 14:48

Also suggesting they have to compete with MC for the "best candidates at a junior level" followed by a disaparaging remark at such candidates at the end...

Anonymous 24 June 15 07:03

Also fails to recognise that 'arbitrary' was aimed at the NQ salaries, not the 1PQE's