Whether or not money is the root of all evil, money is certainly at the root of many posts here. I have collected compensation-related posts since my last metaposts and organized them by several topics.

Past the paycheck, or what do in-house lawyers earn in addition to their salary (See my post of Jan. 20, 2009: does Black-Scholes give a value for restricted stock awards; Nov. 27, 2010: how to handle a request by an executive to reward a lawyer with a bonus; Nov. 30, 2010 #2: car allowances; June 29, 2011: general counsel and potential conflicts of interest based on options held; and Oct. 10, 2011: in-house counsel like their jobs partly because of equity grants.).

Sources of data, or how can you find compensation figures (See my post of Jan. 13, 2011: MySalary.com; Jan. 18, 2011: online salary calculator from Robert Half; Jan. 21, 2011: another online salary site; and Oct. 24, 2011: participation numbers during 2007-2011 in ACC/Empsight compensation surveys.).

Benchmarks, or what analysts do to comp figures (See my post of Sept. 1, 2009: cost-of-living indices normalize compensation figures; Feb. 4, 2010: adjustments to lawyers per billion; and April 30, 2011: GC compensation and legal team cost per hour suggest value of law departments.).

Cost control, or how have general counsel clamped down on pay (See my post of April 20, 2009: salary freezes for lawyers still employed; Nov. 29, 2009: salary freezes as cost control measure; Dec. 3, 2009: end of hefty annual increases in total cash compensation; and Oct. 19, 2011: IBM hires straight from law school.).

General Counsel, or the pay of the top lawyer (See my post of Jan. 18, 2009 #2: GC severance arrangements; Jan. 18, 2009: higher base pay for general counsel as they manage more attorneys; Feb. 5, 2009 #6: tax consequences of million dollar salaries; March 1, 2009: general counsel compensation and corporate governance; Aug. 4, 2009 #4: percentage of GCs among top five highest paid officers; March 2, 2010: GCs who report to the CEO earn more; and July 30, 2010: Chief Legal Officers have done less well on pay than CFOs and CIOs over past five years.).

Catchall, or everything else (See my post of Feb. 12, 2009: median total cash compensation varies by legal specialty; Feb. 12, 2009: wide swings in specialists’ cash compensation; July 4, 2009: specialists upset comp equity; Sept. 1, 2009: linkage of pay and productivity; Oct. 20, 2009: most of the rise in total legal spending was from compensation increases; April 6, 2010: “role-sizing” to match responsibilities to titles and comp; April 26, 2010: compensation is probably not distributed by productivity of lawyers; and Oct. 25, 2010: total income for heads of IP groups (circa 2004).).

To the extent lawyers are based outside the country of a law department’s main group of lawyers, an awkward circumlocution for “internationally-based” lawyers, general counsel have a harder time knowing what to pay them. Data from local markets is much harder to find.

Several posts in the past few years have brought to the fore scattered data about compensation of in-house lawyers outside the United States. These posts might help in the quest (See my post of Jan. 5, 2011: salaries of Brazilian and Latin American senior lawyers of multinationals; July 11, 2011: compensation data for Canadian in-house lawyers; July 12, 2011: ranges of salaries for Canadian in-house lawyers; July 18, 2011: pay of Canadian general counsel by level; July 8, 2010 #2: benchmark data from Rees Morrison and Laurence Simons study; Feb. 5, 2009 #2: low salaries for Indian law graduates; June 13, 2009: in-house salaries in Japan; July 19, 2009 #3: high salaries of ex-pats; Jan. 7, 2009: US and UK compensation differentials for top in-house lawyer; and Jan. 8, 2009: UK in-house counsel stay put so their salaries stagnate.).

At 3M, the law department of 92 lawyers has a mentoring program for newcomers. “All new legal employees are assigned a mentor to provide specific advice on work and networking, as well as encouragement to help ensure retention.” This quote comes from Diversity & The Bar, Nov./Dec. 2011 at 37.

Typically mentoring programs aim at minority counsel (See my post of Aug. 12, 2008: General Motors and pairing of in-house lawyers with minority lawyers outside; Dec. 11, 2008: Pfizer and its diversity team include mentoring; March 11, 2009: US Postal Service and its mentoring program; May 13, 2009: Exelon’s mentoring committee and use of Mentium by Ford Motor Credit; July 19, 2010: strive for transparency regarding the mentoring program; Oct. 18, 2010: GCs can mentor; Nov. 27, 2010: diverse lawyers at your department “mentor” a minority lawyer at a law firm; Jan. 24, 2011: Morgan Stanley provides mentors for diverse attorneys; and May 25, 2011: general counsel should seek out a mentor outside the company.). Still, as demonstrated by 3M, they have broader reach beyond support for diversity lawyers.

In his column for the ACC Docket, Dec. 2011 at 4, Jonathan Oviatt cites “one of the most important findings in the CLO Survey is that 92 percent of CLOs remain satisfied with their careers.” The glow emanating from that cheerful factoid may be completely deserved. Or, it might deserve inspection.

Any statistician would point out that CLOs who were sufficiently dissatisfied to leave their position weren’t counted. A survivor bias of sorts is at work. On further inspection, someone would like to know whether there was a choice of “very satisfied” or “completely satisfied.” If so, the luke-warm “satisfied” provides thin gruel. If the question was “yes or no, are you satisfied,” 92 percent seems low!

As a third comment, to put much credence on the reported finding you would want to know how many general counsel responded, the demographics of the population, and the survey’s methodology. Then too, if the identical question were asked of a group of other professionals, such as partners in architectural firms or managing partners in accounting firms, would the finding be that in the 90th percentile are satisfied? In other words, maybe most people with good jobs are content with their career. One wonders, too, whether career contentment equals current-position contentment. Lastly, if nearly one out of ten of the top lawyers were not satisfied, doesn’t that suggest a higher level of dissatisfaction might be likely lower down?

The NY Times, Jan. 1, 2012 at BU7, gave unemployment rates by level of academic achievement. The rate started at 13.2 percent for those with no high school diploma, dropped to 8.8 percent for those with only a high school diploma, and dropped almost a further half to 4.4 percent for those with a college degree. If you take those three jobless rates, you could extrapolate to 2 percent or less for graduates of law school and perhaps even slightly lower for those who passed the bar and at some time held an in-house position. Perhaps.

Economists refer to a base rate of unemployment that is ever present simply because of job changes due to spousal moves, mergers, and other reasons. Could the unemployment rate of lawyers who have practiced in a company be as low as one or two percent?

An ad in the Economist, Dec. 17, 2011 at 160, seeks a general counsel for The Energy Charter Secretariat. It has three aspects that deserve mention. (1) It seeks candidates with “an excellent law degree.” Perhaps this is a Britishism, perhaps it is a polite way of saying “You have to have graduated a name-brand law school,” or perhaps it seeks high grades and law review (come to think of it, are there law reviews in non-US law schools?). To be blunt, what does this requirement of excellent law degree mean?

(2) The chief lawyer will get “an attractive, tax-free remuneration package.” The Charter is an international organization so perhaps its employees pay no tax in the way at least some United Nations employees pay no tax. Nice work if you can get it. And, “remuneration” is much tonier than “pay.”

(3) The Secretariat position “is offered on the basis of a three-year, fixed-term contract with the possibility of renewal.” Although many general counsel of U.S. law departments have contracts, I doubt that they are term limited (See my post of Jan. 18, 2009: severance contracts for general counsel.).

The profiles of general counsel are pretty dry as far as law department management juiciness. Still, squeezing a recent one about Maryanne Lavan, the lawyer leading Lockheed Martin’s 136 worldwide attorneys, you see a useful drip. She spent six years at a law firm, then six years at Lockheed as an Assistant General Counsel. Promoted to be the general counsel of a business unit, she held that post for six years and then spent four as VP, Ethics and Business Conduct. Continuing her development, Lavan served three years as VP, Internal Audit, until last year she gained her present perch.

Within the now $45.8 billion aerospace giant, therefore, she served in four positions, two of them not directly practicing law, and was groomed and tested for 19 years. Someone could compile data about career progression on leading general counsel, but it would probably not be out of order to find a similar timing and number of steps after cutting one’s teeth at a law firm.

An interview of Amy Schulman, Pfizer’s top lawyer, offers insights into her view of her role, power, and risks. Found in the NY Times, Dec. 11, 2011 at BU2, her comments on leadership are perceptive. One of them all general counsel should take to heart. Schulman, in her exalted position as general counsel, understands that “people impute motives to you if you are not clear. It’s important not to be ambiguous or vague about what you want, because then people waste a lot of energy trying to figure out” what the GC wants.

She realizes it is a tough balancing act between shedding enough light and blinding every one (See my post of July 12, 2011: suppression of ideas by general counsel with 8 references.). Followers want clarity from the top but at the same time don’t want to be micromanaged. They can’t read your mind; they scrutinize and debate every word and action.

Bill Mordan’s latest column for the ACC Docket, Nov. 2011 at 108, talks about a variation on Lord Acton’s observation that “power corrupts.” Mordan explains that socially adept people tend to climb the career ladder well, but once they are in charge, some of them suddenly change, and for the worse: the “power paradox.” He says, “Men and women tend to become more self-centered when they gain power.”

This fall-off in commendable behavior may manifest itself with newly-promoted general counsel. The top of the heap can topple a heap of good behavior (See my post of Dec. 21, 2005: emotional intelligence declines with rank; Jan. 13, 2006: three consequences of managerial incompetence; Feb. 15, 2006: ten dumbest management mistakes of general counsel; Aug. 22, 2006: the Peter Principal; Oct. 12, 2006: what happens if a general counsel is a poor manager; Dec. 31, 2006: the imperial general counsel; March 18, 2007: general counsel who are bad managers; Aug. 4, 2007: “jerk” behavior; Aug. 10, 2007: personality disorders among general counsel; Jan. 19, 2008: general counsel as a bully; and Oct. 18, 2010: the warping psychology of power.).

A brutal piece in Fortune, Dec. 12, 2011 at 144, about the fall from grace of Bank of New York’s recently ousted CEO, Robert Kelly, gives a little insight into the sharp knives that surround big-time GCs. When Jane Sherburne took the top legal job in May 2010, “the board insisted that Sherburne take on the position of chief of governmental affairs – which meant infringing on a role that Kelly had enjoyed filling.” The board forced the new general counsel into conflict with her boss, that is to say.

Worse, the article describes how “more than once Kelly openly denigrated Sherburne.” At the pinnacle, it is a tough working environment as egos rage, power flashes, rumors and gossip whisper, and politics has a capital P (See my post of June 5, 2007: office Politics.).

For those who yearn for the top legal rung on the ladder, appreciate that it is slippery, high, and not all that stable. The general counsel can clash with the CEO or simply not fit in well (See my post March 8, 2010: the awkward relationship of AIG’s general counsel.).