Mid-level Madness: Lack of Associate Pay Progression Could Leave Firms Exposed

Key Takeaways

NQ salary increases have drawn attention in the London market, but the more significant risk may lie in what happens after qualification. In this Law360 op‑ed, Adam Stocker analyzes how limited pay progression for mid‑level associates is creating growing exposure for firms that depend on them most.

• Many Non‑US firms have raised NQ salaries to remain competitive but have not maintained comparable pay progression at mid‑to‑senior associate levels
• US firms applying Cravath‑aligned pay scales continue to deliver their largest salary increases at mid‑level, where responsibility and leverage increase most sharply
• The result is a widening pay gap at 4–7 years post‑qualification, shifting retention risk away from juniors and toward experienced associates
• As US firms increasingly target mid‑level lateral hiring, compensation structures are becoming a central differentiator in long‑term associate retention

When Willkie Farr & Gallagher increased its London newly qualified (“NQ”) salary to £180,000, attention focused on the headline figure. But the more important question is not what US Firms pay their NQs, but how they pay associates once they move beyond qualification, especially towards the mid-level.

Before turning to the substance, it is helpful to define terms, recognising that the labels themselves are not without controversy. For the purposes of this article, “US Firms” refers to US‑headquartered law firms operating in London that align associate salaries with their US pay scales (commonly referred to as the Cravath scale). All other firms, including the Magic Circle, Silver Circle, other leading UK‑headquartered and international practices, and US firms that do not pay Cravath scale salaries, are referred to as “Non‑US Firms”