I reviewed the various components of compensation earlier but realized that I have additional posts on general counsel, attorneys, paralegals, and other levels (See my post of Aug. 21, 2008: compensation components with 19 references; and March 15, 2005: comp surveys depend on levels, but some law departments don’t match well to those levels.).
Most of the entries report on data about the compensation of the general counsel, since a fair amount of that information is public (See my post of Feb. 1, 2006: general counsel compensation in Texas companies matched against AMLAW 200 partner compensation; June 15, 2005: Asian general counsel salaries; Oct. 2, 2006: extrapolating GC compensation from that of the top five compensated executives; May 24, 2007: big companies pay their general counsel more, but the general counsel are probably more experienced; and Sept. 5, 2007: tax consequences of million-dollar-plus salaries.). Many posts refer to general counsel pay (See my post of March 22, 2006 about GC compensation and collected references; Aug. 9, 2008: GCs handsomely compensated; and Aug. 9, 2008: other observations on GC compensation.).
Compensation of the rest of the lawyers in-house have attracted some posts (See my post of March 30, 2006: corporate lawyer compensation and management issues in New Zealand; Dec. 11, 2006: some New Jersey salary data; April 8, 2007: differences in compensation of highly-paid practice areas; May 10, 2006: “Pay me less but work me less” – conflicting data; and Dec. 10, 2007: low paid lawyers at the world’s richest philanthropy.).
Non-lawyers have a few posts regarding their compensation (See my posts of Dec. 20, 2005: administrator compensation: approximately 10 percent more per year of education; March 4, 2007: classify paralegals as professionals, not administrative staff; and Dec. 22, 2006: experienced legal secretaries cost law departments the same amounts as midlevel paralegals.).