ILNews

Public sector attorneys still earn significantly less than private sector lawyers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Most public sector lawyer salaries have kept pace with inflation but remain significantly lower than salaries at private law firms, according to the “2012 Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report” by the National Association for Law Placement.

The report indicated that most public interest starting salaries have risen between 23 percent (for public interest organizations) and 29 percent (for public defenders) while the consumer price index has increased about 22 percent during the same eight-year period.

According to the research, the median entry-level salary for a legal services attorney is just under $43,000, and an attorney with 11 to 15 years of experience can expect to make about $65,000.

Beginning public defenders earn a median salary around $50,500, while public defenders with 11 to 15 years of experience will be paid a median salary of $78,600.  

Entry-level prosecutors post a median salary of $50,000, and that progresses to almost $77,000 for those with 11 to 15 years of experience.

Salaries for attorneys in public interest organizations with issue-driven missions, such as women’s or civil rights issues, start around $54,000 and rise to about $75,000 with 11 to 15 years of experience.

These wages compare to a median first-year salary of about $80,000 at a law firm of 50 or fewer attorneys, almost double the salary of an entry-level attorney at a legal services organization. Moreover, starting salaries at many large firms in major metropolitan areas are near $160,000, beyond what even the most experienced attorneys can expect at a public interest organization.

James Leipold, executive director at NALP, stated that while salaries for public attorneys have risen with inflation, they have not risen enough to entice lawyers to practice in the public sector.

He noted that over the past eight years, “the cost of legal education and the average amount of law student debt have both risen at a much higher pace, which means that despite favorable changes in the federal loan repayment options available to law school graduates working in the public interest, there are still significant economic disincentives at play as law students consider whether or not to pursue public interest legal careers.”


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Public VS Private Attorney
    An important point that was not made in the article is expenses in the private sector. The list is considerable. (1)A building to work out of either by purchasing or lease plus maintenance. (2)Office furniture, file cabinets. (3) Staff salaries, secretary/receptionist or both and taxes paid by the employer. (4)Phone, internet, copier/printer + toner, computers, software, paper, utilities (lights, heat, water, sewer), trash pickup. office cleaning. (5)Continuing education, association dues. (6)Insurance for health, E&O, on the building. (7)Taxes on the building, the personal property. (8)Retirement plan. In the public sector all of this would be provided.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT