That Irwin Mitchell chap's mates sound great. Hilarious bantz.

If they don't like it move to London, I live in the North West and don't regret leaving behind the pollution and black bogies for one moment. 

Burgers Salmon lawyers in Bristol keep telling themselves they do “city work” but the reality is they don’t do anything at the high to mid end, and aren’t international, and they don’t charge city rates which is the whole point.   

They have an office in the City which does some City work.   
 

If you’re going to work in the regions, better to work at a true regional firm that has an established local or regional presence and is managed from that base.  The worst combination is someone like Clydes where in the regions you may get the name and access to the same clients albeit at low grade work, but are offered as a cheap volume centre, looked down upon by the city lawyers and clients, paid quite poorly particularly if you live in an expensive city, with no chance of meaningful progression and the regional partners don’t control strategy or pay.   Plus you don’t have any real connection with the local community because your clients are in London but paying low hourly rates which are lower than you could charge to local businesses.  

Burges Salmon is a regional firm, packed with people who are not good enough to work in the City. 

I suspect a number of lawyers at BS are “good enough” but choose not to work in the City for various reasons. But I agree that the firm does not do city work generally.  This is a mantra often trotted out by regional associates who have never themselves worked in the city and have no idea about what it is like in terms of relentless pressure and hours and demands from clients and partners at the larger firms. It is not comparable to work in the regions, even if the quality at places like BS is good and they do well.  

The Bristol office of Simmons pays very badly. Lower quality work farmed out to the regions as a low cost solution.

Nearly all regional offices are taking the piss with salaries. I get 65k at 8pqe despite being dual qualified. In London I would be on 100k-120k. Before anyone states the obvious I can't move to London due to family reasons (caring duties for parent and disabled child with a special care plan).

Where did SPB rank on this list, RoF? 

You get paid market rate.  If you didn't, you could move elsewhere in the same City you are in for more.  

People only work in the provinces if they are not good enough to practise in London. Accept that, and earn what the market deems you to be worth. 

@10:08 - 3rd February 

Am at top of market for my city. Been confirmed by 2 local recruiters I have spoken with recently. 

@ Anonymous 13:26

That's patently untrue, there are some excellent lawyers outside of London and some dreadful ones within it.  Nevertheless, if you choose to work outside of London you cannot complain about being paid a non-London salary. 

Bob - while I am in partial agreement about that you need to factor in that a lot of regional lawyers have similar billing targets to London colleagues and the difference in cost of living between London and the regions is not reflective of the salary difference.  

Dare I say is but London salaries also reflect the stupidly high cost of living.  You need about £450k to buy a half-decent one bedroom flat in a part of town that isn't stabsville.  

You can buy a perfectly acceptable 3 bed semi in many parts of 'the north' for £175k.

Factor in the above and the hugely inflated costs of day-to-day living in London and someone earning £65k in Yorkshire or Lancashire is probably, relatively speaking, earning the equivalent of someone on £100k in London.

Having worked both in the regions and for top city firms, I can safely say that the quality of legal analysis and work by partners at leading regional firms is on a par with city firms, often because the partners are more hands on and have smaller teams.  However, the pressure and hours in the city and the corporate environment is what differs quite markedly.   All nighters and very long hours are not common in regional firms and turnover is less, staff more valuable because there isn’t a huge pool of alternative labour (as in London esp at the junior end) so staff are treated better (other than pay) in the main when it comes to work life balance.  
 

Really it’s the appetite to devote huge parts of your life to one thing often at the cost of family and relationships, but with the reward of status, kudos and money that separates the best in the regions (who could work in the city but choose not to) and those who do work there.  
 

Of course, the market also finds its level and many who work in the regions are less ambitious or not good enough to get into the city at trainee or junior level and then it is harder thereafter.   

Regional lawyers are the grimmest.  Had to deal with a Leeds-based data protection lawyer from a US city merger firm towards the end of last year.  She was bafflingly stupid.  

@Anon

If all the regional firms are "taking the piss" maybe that's just the market rate in the regions? Also - dual qualified in what? I'm dual qualified (EW/NY) and don't expect a salary bump. Finally, the average house price, in say, Leeds is £250K, vs London (which can mean living in Norwood or Acton) is £600K. You are welcome to London on 120K and either have a massive commute or rob a bank to get a family house.

Anon 04 February 20 10:13: I have worked at both City firms and leading regional firms and the quality of lawyering was far higher in the City. People find their level. You are in the regions because you are not good enough to cut it in London. End of.

Too obviously trolling pal. There are plenty of reasons people leave the City. Lack of ability isn’t usually one of them. It’s about quality of life innit

@ Anon 05 February 05:04

I know many excellent lawyers working outside of London who were certainly "good enough to cut it in London" (and did so for many years) but now enjoy healthy family lives when they are not being entertained at work by deluded kids from City firms too misguided by entitlement to reach any level of competence.  It is always amusing hearing the confidence drain away from an overpaid cookie cutter as soon as things get complicated until eventually their designated grown up swoops in to save the day.  

Anon 5 Feb 05.04am.     On your argument then, a partner in a large regional firm earning £300k is a worse lawyer and less successful than a senior associate who can’t make partner who is earning £150k.   That clearly isn’t the case.    Experience is of course anecdotal.   There are regional lawyers and there are regional lawyers.  
 

Some are not good at the bottom end - agree entirely - and couldn’t make it but my point is that actually a number make a positive choice not to live and work in London not because they can’t hack it but because they make life decisions not based on what the city demands / offers.  Long hours in front of a screen aren’t attractive to some people.  It doesn’t mean they aren’t good lawyers.   Also, by “city” what do we mean?  Magic circle or Us firm?  Or a smaller mid size outfit or west end firm?   Similarly, in markets like PI and other insurance litigation, the work is being sent to the regions that used to go to the city so city firms are being represented in neg claims by firms in Bristol etc who are all highly competent.   
 

The quality of English lawyers decreases the further you get from the City. “Lifestyle choice” is a dishonest fig leaf. The very worst end up in the offshore jurisdictions, where they act as post boxes for onshore firms. 

“On your argument then, a partner in a large regional firm earning £300k is a worse lawyer and less successful than a senior associate who can’t make partner who is earning £150k.   That clearly isn’t the case.”

That is clearly not the argument and you are either too stupid to grasp it or a troll. You have to compare like with like. Regional partners are not as good as City partners and the same applies at associate level.

“You are either too stupid to grasp it or are a troll”. 
 

Ah, the good old ad hominem approach to responding to an opinion with which you disagree.  A sure fire way to show that you’re losing the debate.    The original post did not make any distinction between job roles but merely made a generalised claim that all regional lawyers were not good enough to work in the city.    A partner in a city firm can earn less than a partner in a regional firm, as it depends on the comparison (and your “like for like” doesn’t help you);  and in terms of legal ability, as I’ve already explained, there are plenty of highly educated lawyers in the regions who make a life choice not to live and work in London but who could have done so.   I’ve worked in both good regional firms and also elite city firms, and the best lawyers in the regional firms are as able as many in the city - but are not as ambitious in terms of making money.  
 

This thread with the London lawyers and their huge chip and over-sized ego is hilarious. Anyone who thinks you are (pound for pound) a better lawyer by virtue of simply being in the square mile hasn’t the faintest idea about practicing law. Yes for £100k what did you do? Draft emails for the partner to approve? Copy a chapter out of Scrutton on Charterparties? Or did you draft a “research note” for your super senior associate (or whatever made up title they’re given after 15 years of languishing in the job)? This is busy work. They need your fancy CV to charge your paralegal skills out at £450ph. By fancy I mean, admittedly, exceptional academics, but zero legal skills. 
 

Most regional lawyers actually practice law and at the equivalent level are capable of undertaking legal work, as opposed to glorified paralegalling. 
 

Most interesting is the chip; London lawyers kidding themselves that lonely lives, failed relationships, pokey flats which are barely lived in and being chained to the desk is not a mark of a sad life for which money is no compensation, but a mark of greatness!!