If you’ve spent any time in legal recruitment, whether as a candidate, hiring manager, or advisor, you’ll know that salary is often the most important thing nobody wants to talk about openly.
As a recruiter, I’ve had countless conversations that start with genuine excitement about a role, only to stall when compensation turns out to be unclear or misaligned. It raises a bigger question: should law firms be more transparent about what they actually pay?
Where things stand right now
Traditionally, UK law firms have been reluctant to disclose salaries upfront. Candidates are told compensation is “competitive” or “dependent on experience”, phrases that signal flexibility for the firm and uncertainty for everyone else.
The contrast with the US legal market is striking. Salary transparency is far more common there, with the widely referenced Cravath scale setting a benchmark for associate pay that most firms align to openly. Candidates know what to expect before they’ve even applied.
In the UK, some progress has been made, Magic Circle firms and US firms in London have become more open about NQ salaries in particular. But transparency tends to drop off sharply at mid-level and senior roles, which is often precisely where it matters most. Candidates at that stage of their careers are making significant decisions, and being kept in the dark about compensation doesn’t help anyone.
The case for being more open
The most obvious argument for salary transparency is trust. Recruitment is fundamentally about relationships, and being clear about pay signals honesty and respect for candidates’ time. It removes the awkward back-and-forth that characterises so many hiring processes and builds goodwill early.
There’s also a straightforward efficiency argument. When salary bands are published, candidates can make an informed decision about whether to engage. The firm stops fielding applications from people who would never accept the offer. Everyone saves time. A candidate currently earning significantly above the advertised range simply moves on, rather than going through three rounds of interviews before the number comes up.
Perhaps most importantly, there’s a diversity and inclusion dimension that doesn’t get enough attention. Salary transparency reduces the scope for subjective negotiation, which is where pay gaps, particularly around gender and ethnicity, tend to widen. When compensation is clearly structured and visible, there’s less room for inconsistency. A number of UK firms have already started publishing NQ salaries and standardised progression increases for exactly this reason.
The concerns are real, but manageable
The most common objection is internal parity. If existing employees discover that advertised ranges don’t match what they’re earning, it creates difficult conversations. That’s a legitimate concern, but it’s also an argument for getting pay structures right internally, not for keeping candidates in the dark.
Firms also worry about losing flexibility, particularly for senior hires where experience, specialism, and business case can vary significantly. Publishing a band doesn’t have to mean offering the same number to everyone; it means being honest about the range and having a conversation within it. That’s very different from rigidity.
Competitive sensitivity is another consideration, but the reality is that salary information travels. Lawyers talk to each other. Online forums and peer networks mean that candidates often have a reasonable sense of market rates before a first conversation. Withholding information doesn’t create leverage; it creates friction.
A practical middle ground
For firms not ready to publish exact figures, salary bandings offer a sensible starting point. A range rather than a fixed number preserves flexibility while giving candidates something meaningful to work with. In practice, it might look something like this:
- Junior Associate: £55,000: £70,000
- Mid-Level Associate: £70,000: £95,000
- Senior Associate: £95,000: £120,000
It’s a relatively small change that makes the process noticeably better for everyone involved, and it’s becoming increasingly common across the sector as firms recognise the benefits.
The market is already moving in this direction. US firms in London are openly advertising NQ salaries that have reset expectations across the sector. Regional firms are publishing ranges in job adverts as they compete for talent outside London. Legal job boards are prioritising listings that include salary information because candidates engage with them more.
The bottom line
Salary transparency isn’t coming; it’s already here, for the firms willing to embrace it. The ones that do tend to stand out, move faster, and build stronger relationships with candidates from the start. Those that don’t are increasingly out of step with what the market expects.
Transparency doesn’t mean rigidity. It means clarity. And in a profession built on trust, that should be a natural fit.
If you’re a law firm thinking through your approach to salary transparency, or a candidate trying to understand your market value, we’re happy to have an honest conversation about what we’re seeing. Get in touch.