Jay, this is incredibly helpful. Thank you so much! As someone who hopes to work at a plaintiffs’ firm one day, this is gamechanging. I tried putting together something similar earlier this year and found it challenging, especially since so many firms don’t hire straight out of law school. Thought I’d add a few more data points I came across in case anyone else is curious, though I haven’t emailed or inquired with the firms to confirm:
Bredhoff and Kaiser: $156,000 (website)
Kline and Specter: $120,000 (job posting)
Kessler Topaz: $130,000 (job posting)
There are also boutiques like Kellogg Hansen and Hecker Fink that seem to match the top of the market, though like Boies, they do a fair amount of defense-side work.
One trend I noticed is that some plaintiffs’ firms are starting to require a one- to two-year internal clerkship or fellowship for new grads, usually paying around $90k–$110k before you move into an associate role. That seems to be the case at Cohen Milstein, Loevy and Loevy, and Tycko and Zavareei.
Thanks so much for providing this info. If you wouldn't mind emailing us the links (jedelson@edelson.com), we’ll get them added to the chart. We tried hard to track down salary details for Kline and Specter but kept coming up short. From what we do know, their pay scale is quite low. There's even a wild YouTube video where the firm’s leaders give "career advice," essentially saying "plaintiff's law is fun—but don’t expect to get paid." And yes, these are the same guys who donated $50 million to name Duquesne’s law school the Thomas R. Kline School of Law.
Quick clarification here. TZ’s fellowship isn’t new - it’s been around for over a decade. And it’s not required. Approx half of our current associates were hired as associates without doing our fellowship. It’s a unique program that comes with a placement at a nonprofit of the fellow’s choice and has in several instances qualified for public interest LRAP from law schools.
@Jay, I don’t agree with every aspect of this post, but I approve of greater pay transparency in our bar. I hope you’ll do a part 2 as Yeremey suggested on bonus structures where there is significant variability. Another interesting article could explore the extent to which associates are encouraged to develop business, the support firms give them in that, and how that translates to $$.
Great post. How much of the low salaries do you think are driven by the uncertainty of contingency work? Obviously, this can be compensated by a more robust bonus structure. But are plaintiffs attorneys just bad at revenue planning?
I'll address this more in a future post, but briefly: revenue planning is tough when you're just starting out. Once a firm is established with a diverse practice and the right case mix, there might be lean years, but that shouldn't really hit the associates. As for bonuses, most of the low-paying firms also give out terrible bonuses. It all comes down to their business models – which I'll dig into later.
Thank you for writing and posting this information packed article—it is quite eye opening! I have a question regarding low-paying firms with bonus structures. What do you think a reasonable bonus structure at one of these firms should look like?
My personal philosophy is that plaintiff-side associates should accept—and genuinely want—lower guaranteed compensation because they have greater opportunity to impact their cases, which should translate into more overall comp.
Except in down years, the typical associate should out earn their defense-side counterparts. Even in down years, I believe partners, not associates, should absorb the losses, though I recognize this view isn't widely shared.
This approach doesn't mean that every associate should exceed BigLaw compensation, even in boom years. Instead, I focus on average and median earnings as better benchmarks than individual outcomes. The underlying principle—which should attract the right talent to plaintiff's work—is that success here depends far more on skill than just showing up.
Thank you for starting this discussion. To overcome the various salary v. bonus structures and weightings, maybe focus on total compensation?
All of this is information that should be public. Laws will help force disclosure, but pressure has to come from somewhere. HPLA and the other student groups you mention should push for NALP-like transparency. Schools should require disclosure to participate in OCI, and honestly, firms should use their numbers as a recruiting advantage, not a hindrance.
But there are counter arguments. As the leader of a firm, how far are you willing to go with public disclosure of your firm's pay? Not just associates, but partners and equity partners? I don't believe it is in anyone's best interest for the value of a "point" in any firm to be public knowledge.
Anyways, I like what you are doing here and I want to contribute.
First, the wayback machine is your friend if you have the URL of the job posting pulled by that nameless San Diego firm:
But it seems pretty obvious which firm that is. The same firm to boast that it "recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm’s clients," and that it's "record of success includes some of the largest recoveries in history," yet it only pays $115,000 for starting associates.
That is not right.
Especially when there is academic research on the actual fees earned by this nameless San Diego firm, over $1 billion:
Speaking of firms that have earned over $1 billion in fees recently, here is the job posting where Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman use a broad range to try and disguise the fact that they would pay an associate with 2-5 years of experience as little as $185,000 in New York City:
In fact, I suggest it is simply unacceptable that the two firms consistently at the top of the annual league tables for securities recoveries are among the lowest paying firms. The fact they hide or disguise the facts is very telling.
Thanks for sharing, very insightful esp for younger lawyers. I’ve worked in a couple different plaintiff firms with various models before ultimately starting my own practice. Ashleigh Raso at Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn collected a bunch of this data last year from a variety of plaintiff firms from around the country - she might be willing to share.
Jay, this is incredibly helpful. Thank you so much! As someone who hopes to work at a plaintiffs’ firm one day, this is gamechanging. I tried putting together something similar earlier this year and found it challenging, especially since so many firms don’t hire straight out of law school. Thought I’d add a few more data points I came across in case anyone else is curious, though I haven’t emailed or inquired with the firms to confirm:
Bredhoff and Kaiser: $156,000 (website)
Kline and Specter: $120,000 (job posting)
Kessler Topaz: $130,000 (job posting)
There are also boutiques like Kellogg Hansen and Hecker Fink that seem to match the top of the market, though like Boies, they do a fair amount of defense-side work.
One trend I noticed is that some plaintiffs’ firms are starting to require a one- to two-year internal clerkship or fellowship for new grads, usually paying around $90k–$110k before you move into an associate role. That seems to be the case at Cohen Milstein, Loevy and Loevy, and Tycko and Zavareei.
Thanks so much for providing this info. If you wouldn't mind emailing us the links (jedelson@edelson.com), we’ll get them added to the chart. We tried hard to track down salary details for Kline and Specter but kept coming up short. From what we do know, their pay scale is quite low. There's even a wild YouTube video where the firm’s leaders give "career advice," essentially saying "plaintiff's law is fun—but don’t expect to get paid." And yes, these are the same guys who donated $50 million to name Duquesne’s law school the Thomas R. Kline School of Law.
Some of the prominent NY plaintiffs’ securities class action firms are conspicuously absent… but great post!
It was really challenging getting complete data. I'm hoping others reach out so I can add to this.
Quick clarification here. TZ’s fellowship isn’t new - it’s been around for over a decade. And it’s not required. Approx half of our current associates were hired as associates without doing our fellowship. It’s a unique program that comes with a placement at a nonprofit of the fellow’s choice and has in several instances qualified for public interest LRAP from law schools.
@Jay, I don’t agree with every aspect of this post, but I approve of greater pay transparency in our bar. I hope you’ll do a part 2 as Yeremey suggested on bonus structures where there is significant variability. Another interesting article could explore the extent to which associates are encouraged to develop business, the support firms give them in that, and how that translates to $$.
Following, especially if you ever open the curtain on mid-level associate, senior associate, and non-equity partner pay at said plaintiffs firms.
Great post. How much of the low salaries do you think are driven by the uncertainty of contingency work? Obviously, this can be compensated by a more robust bonus structure. But are plaintiffs attorneys just bad at revenue planning?
I'll address this more in a future post, but briefly: revenue planning is tough when you're just starting out. Once a firm is established with a diverse practice and the right case mix, there might be lean years, but that shouldn't really hit the associates. As for bonuses, most of the low-paying firms also give out terrible bonuses. It all comes down to their business models – which I'll dig into later.
Thank you for writing and posting this information packed article—it is quite eye opening! I have a question regarding low-paying firms with bonus structures. What do you think a reasonable bonus structure at one of these firms should look like?
My personal philosophy is that plaintiff-side associates should accept—and genuinely want—lower guaranteed compensation because they have greater opportunity to impact their cases, which should translate into more overall comp.
Except in down years, the typical associate should out earn their defense-side counterparts. Even in down years, I believe partners, not associates, should absorb the losses, though I recognize this view isn't widely shared.
This approach doesn't mean that every associate should exceed BigLaw compensation, even in boom years. Instead, I focus on average and median earnings as better benchmarks than individual outcomes. The underlying principle—which should attract the right talent to plaintiff's work—is that success here depends far more on skill than just showing up.
Thank you for starting this discussion. To overcome the various salary v. bonus structures and weightings, maybe focus on total compensation?
All of this is information that should be public. Laws will help force disclosure, but pressure has to come from somewhere. HPLA and the other student groups you mention should push for NALP-like transparency. Schools should require disclosure to participate in OCI, and honestly, firms should use their numbers as a recruiting advantage, not a hindrance.
But there are counter arguments. As the leader of a firm, how far are you willing to go with public disclosure of your firm's pay? Not just associates, but partners and equity partners? I don't believe it is in anyone's best interest for the value of a "point" in any firm to be public knowledge.
Anyways, I like what you are doing here and I want to contribute.
First, the wayback machine is your friend if you have the URL of the job posting pulled by that nameless San Diego firm:
https://web.archive.org/
But it seems pretty obvious which firm that is. The same firm to boast that it "recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm’s clients," and that it's "record of success includes some of the largest recoveries in history," yet it only pays $115,000 for starting associates.
That is not right.
Especially when there is academic research on the actual fees earned by this nameless San Diego firm, over $1 billion:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4350971
Speaking of firms that have earned over $1 billion in fees recently, here is the job posting where Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman use a broad range to try and disguise the fact that they would pay an associate with 2-5 years of experience as little as $185,000 in New York City:
https://jobs.lever.co/blbglaw/6c9daed2-4577-4087-87e6-59c39fb64cf3
If you are near LA, they'd give you an extra $10 grand:
https://jobs.lever.co/blbglaw/f058ae95-19c3-45f4-af29-16096603fc26
That is not right.
In fact, I suggest it is simply unacceptable that the two firms consistently at the top of the annual league tables for securities recoveries are among the lowest paying firms. The fact they hide or disguise the facts is very telling.
Cockroaches run when you turn on the light.
Thanks for sharing, very insightful esp for younger lawyers. I’ve worked in a couple different plaintiff firms with various models before ultimately starting my own practice. Ashleigh Raso at Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn collected a bunch of this data last year from a variety of plaintiff firms from around the country - she might be willing to share.
Isn't this basically meaningless without understanding a plaintiff firm's bonus structure?
We're going to get into bonus structures, which are much more opaque. But low salaries generally mean low bonuses.