- Quickdraw McLaw
- 20 Comments
- 108 Views
Over the years we have done the occasional survey to try and give you an idea of what attorneys in Las Vegas are making. (Our last one from 2017 is here.) Our survey is about as unscientific as it comes based on 100 responses. One of our readers forwarded us the most recent issue of Arizona Attorney magazine which includes a similar survey of Arizona attorneys on a larger scale with 3400 responses. We will let you take a look at it, but the article suggests the results of the 2019 survey (it is done every 3 years) distilled down to a single snapshot shows a 45-year old attorney making a base pay of $153,369. Check out the article for more details like the average number of hours worked and the average student loan debt. Anything you think stands out? How do you stack up against our colleagues in Arizona? Do you think a full scale survey of Nevada attorneys would produce significantly different results?
We should definitely do one for Nevada!
When I was a baby lawyer the prior surveys were helpful for figuring out where I wanted to work and how much I could expect to make.
Measuring "base pay" is not very helpful, IMO. The total pay is all that matters, why does it matter whether it's a distribution, bonus, commission or base pay? All that matters is the total.
Because everything else is discretionary or contingent on factors outside of your control. Base pay is (typically) guaranteed.
There are lots of different payment models. In many PI firms, there is little to no base pay, but you get a cut of the settlements/judgments. Someone may have a salary of $60k but bonus/commission pay of at least that much.
This is why you need a big enough sample size to break it down by practice area. It doesn't help a commercial lit associate to know what PI associates are making (or vice versa).
My base is under fifty percentile in comparison. But my firm pays for my health insurance. $5,000 profit sharing is added to my retirment plan. My annual bonus is 10-15% of base salary. If I add those in I'm well past fifty percent. Office environment is relaxed. I don't work weekends unless I'm actually in trial. This firm never tracks my face time in the office.
Nevada Lawyer reports in the September Issue that Clark County attorneys and judges disposed of 289,075 cases (of 289,088 cases filed the same period) for a disposition rate of 99.99% citing the Nevada Supreme Court's 2018 Annual Report.
Pardon me, 99.99% of cases resolved – I call BS. Somebody is fiddling with the numbers.
I think I read the numbers a bit differently than you do. That a case was disposed of in FY 2018 does not mean it was filed in FY 2018.
the disposition rate of 99.99% is not my number, it is what is cited in the article.
100% in, 99.99% out leaves a backlog of 1/10th on one percent for the given year. The cumulative effect should be a Court that promptly gets cases to trials, promptly hears motions and promptly renders written decisions.
What the stat doesn't tell us is how many cases were pending at the opening of the fiscal year and how many cases that were filed in a fiscal year were disposed of in the same fiscal year.
An example: 100,000 cases filed in FY18; 100,000 cases disposed of in FY18. That would mean a "100 percent disposition rate when comparing cases filed to cases disposed of in FY18. But that number is meaningless. Suppose all of the cases disposed of were filed before FY18. That means of the 100,000 cases filed in FY18, 100 percent remained pending at the close of FY18.
More meaningful statistics would be aging reports based on the year in which the case was filed. All the stat being reported tells us is the cumulative backlog isn't getting worse, so long as the number of cases disposed if in a year equals or exceeds the number of cases filed in the same year.
I think the point being made is that if you shot a cannon down any of the hallways on any floor of the RJC at 2:30 PM on any afternoon you would not wake up a sleeping judge because most will have left the building before 2 PM.
7:04 PM,
Is that really true? Seems a little hyperbolic to me. If even 10% true, it makes me very jealous.
Reciprocity is still being pushed in the Nevada lawyer. Go home, you are drunk.
Yes Reciprocity is being pushed. This must be met with an uproar equal to mandatory trust audits and mandatory malpractice insurance. This is utterly ridiculous. There should not even be a discussion about it. A discussion/debate means they are going to promote it and consider it. This must be stopped now.
Yes, stfu State Bar aka Hardesty. We do not want reciprocity. We know how to read. We know how to answer a survey. We don't want it. Dean Dean is not in charge.
The bar did a survey. Most lawyers support reciprocity, at least in a qualified way. The opposition to reciprocity on this blog is the bloviating of a vocal minority.
Dean Dean, who is not, and never has been a Nevada practitioner, IS in charge. That's why we are where we are.
I like that, Dean Dean instead of Dean Dan, you got it. But Dean Dean has higher rank than Hardesty? Sun news to me. I thought Cadish ran the NSC.
1202, hi, Dean Dean. I like the new hair cut. Looks really nice.
I wish the conversation had more open input. These anonymous posts don't really help create a dialogue.