Research reveals what lawyers earn

March 10, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ever wonder how much money attorneys in Hamilton County, Ind., or Hamilton County, N.Y., make? Now you can find out, thanks to research by the ABA Journal and William D. Henderson of the Center on the Global Legal Profession at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Using salary data and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on employed lawyers, the publication has created a handy map and breaks down county by county of the mean, and median wage per year, the number of lawyers employed in the area, and other data. Keep in mind that the data doesn’t include equity partners or solo practitioners. Check out the article for specifics and information on where lawyers earn the most or where law firm payrolls are the largest (Spoiler Alert: Indiana’s not on either list).

If you just glance at the map of the U.S., you can see where attorneys on average earn more, and it’s mostly markets you would expect – New York City; northern and southern California; Chicago; Washington, D.C.

Indiana attorneys make anywhere from $40,820 to $125,000, depending on where you live, according to the map. More populated areas like central Indiana and northwestern Indiana typically have attorneys making more than those who live in less populated areas. In Marion County, the mean wage per year is $105,999; the median wage per year is $95,030, with 3,250 attorneys employed in the Indianapolis-Carmel area. In Lake County, the mean wage per year is $92,390, and the median wage per year is $72,080 with 670 attorneys employed in the Gary metropolitan region.

In Lawrence County, there are 230 attorneys in the area with the mean and median wage per year pretty similar at around $80,000. In Kosciusko County, there are 350 attorneys in the area with the mean wage per year at $65,130 and the median wage per year just under $50,000.

It’s pretty interesting to see each county broken down. You can check it out for yourself on the ABA Journal’s website. Are you surprised by the results of the research?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT