It comes as no surprise that law firm COO’s and Directors are paid more in some locations than others. But, a recent survey for 2005 salaries has quantified that difference with amazing precision. The highest wages are paid in the Bay area, followed by New York/New Jersey, Boston, Southern California and Northern Virginia/Washington, DC/ Maryland. The lowest wages are in southeastern states excluding metro areas. This comes from Culpepper and Associates, a consulting firm that specializes in surveying geographic salary standards for administrative positions. The difference among the locations breaks out as follows:
Geographic Area
Locations
% of US Average
Pay Zone 1 (114+% of U.S. Average)
Bay area
East & North Bay, CA and San Francisco
118.3%
Pay Zone 2 (108% to 113.9% of U.S. Average
None
Pay Zone 3 (102%-107.9% of U.S. Average)
New York/New Jersey
New York City, Northern New Jersey, South/Central New Jersey & Delaware, Westchester/Long Island/SW CT
106.3%
Boston Area
Boston, Middlesex/Brockton/Cape Cod, Worcester
105.5%
Southern California Area
Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego
104.4%
Northern VA/DC/Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland suburbs of DC, Northern VA and DC, and Reston/Dulles
102.3%
Pay Zone 4 (98.0% to 101.9% of U.S. Average)
Mountain/Plains Metro
Denver/Boulder/Colorado Springs
101.0%
Texas Metro
Austin, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston
100.2%
Midwest Metro
Chicago, Detroit/Ann Arbor, Milwaukee/Madison, Minneapolis/St. Paul
99.4%
Southeast Metro
Atlanta, Charlotte, Research Triangle
99.4%
Northeast Other
Rhode Island and Connecticut (excl SW CT)
99.3%
Northwest Metro
Portland, Seattle
98.7%
Southwest Metro
Phoenix/Tucson, Sacramento/Bakersfield/Fresno/Stockton, CA
98.2%
Pay Zone 5 (94.0% to 97.9% of U.S. Average)
Mid-South Metro
Louisville/Lexington KY, Nashville/Memphis TN, Norfolk/Richmond/Virginia Beach VA
Indianapolis, Kansas City, Oklahoma City/Tulsa, Omaha/Lincoln, Salt Lake City, All other Midwest, Plains and Mountain
92.4%
South Other
All other south
91.6%
Finding People
The convergence of several trends--declining births, retiring baby boomers, and continued legal practice growth--will create more law firm staff jobs than there will be workers to fill them by 2010, according to overall projections from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Among the most critical shortages will be highly skilled and specialized managerial and supervisory positions. As firms recruit at the Director level, they will find it important to recognize that their skill set requirement is not simply to match those of the last person in the position. Demographers tell us the top skills to look for are:
▪The ability to work in a diverse organization (especially woman, Hispanics and seniors returning to the workforce.
▪Foreign language skills.
▪Creativity and the ability to introduce creativity in conservative organizations.
▪Ability to supervise in a virtual setting through non-traditional means.
Accordingly, don’t be surprised to see technical skills perhaps taking a bit of a backseat to interpersonal capabilities.
Truth in Firing
There is an inherent battle between law firm HR departments and the firms’ Employment Law partners. Legal administrators and HR staff members want to take actions in a manner that has the most favorable effect on morale and employee relations. Employment lawyers want to keep the firm from being sued. The problem is that the two are often incompatible.
One prime example is terminations. Many Employment lawyers counsel that the firm should make no public comment about the circumstances surrounding a termination, particularly of a high profile person. Administrators and HR professionals understand that a failure to put the termination in context can lead to employee fear about the firm’s apparently capricious actions, or the belief that the termination was voluntary and the firm is losing all of its best people.
Here’s a case study: recently there was a very public flap about precisely this point in the UK at 750-lawyer CMS Cameron McKenna. Rather than send the normal message about a departure “to pursue other opportunities,” an HR manager sent the following email about the firing of an administrative assistant in the recruiting office (the email is verbatim except for the change of names).
From: HR Manager
Sent: 10 February 2006
To: All trainee solicitors and a whole bunch of other people
Subject: JANE DOE
Importance: High
Dear all
As you will all be aware, Jane has been providing administrative support to the graduate recruitment team for the last six months. Recently, we have experienced a drop in her performance and whilst support and coaching has been given, Jane decided to resign yesterday. It has been agreed that she will not work her notice period and we have appointed an agency to assist us with finding a replacement in the next few days.
If you have tried to contact Jane today, via e-mail or phone, can you please forward any messages/requests to the rest of the team and we will respond to these just as soon as we can. This change will have an impact on the team's work levels, so please be patient. As soon as a replacement has been sourced, I will be in touch with more information.
Many thanks in advance for your co-operation.
HR Manager
Human Resources Team
CMS Cameron McKenna LLP
As a test, we showed the email to three Employment lawyers and five law firm administrators. All three lawyers thought the memo opened the firm to liability for defamation and, conceivably, wrongful discharge and would advise against sending a similar email. Four of the five administrators thought the email was refreshingly honest and would be well received by the firm’s employees (the fifth thought it was in bad taste).
What’s your reaction to this email and the issue of candor in termination announcements? Drop us a quick email and we’ll report on the feedback in our next issue.
