In-House Counsel
Top Google Lawyer Earned More Than You in 2008
Posted Mar 26, 2009 12:26 PM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Google’s chief legal officer made a salary of $450,000 last year, but the number is misleading.
The pay check for top lawyer David Drummond dwindles in comparison to his total compensation of $5.12 million for the year, which includes a $1.38 million bonus and $3.29 million in stock and option awards, according to proxy materials released for Google’s 2009 annual stockholders meeting. In addition, Drummond earned nearly $11.9 million by exercising options and stock awards.
Drummond is doing better than average, according to a survey of larger companies released last year by Hildebrandt International. The average total compensation—which includes pay, bonus and value of long-term incentives—is nearly $2 million for chief legal officers.
In 2007, Drummond’s base salary was $250,000 and his total compensation, including option awards, was almost $2.5 million.
Drummond, a former partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, joined Google in 2002, initially as vice president of corporate development.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
J.D.
Mar 26, 2009 12:34 PM CST
They probably invented Google Maps so they could keep track of all their mansions.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 26, 2009 1:08 PM CST
When you compare these comp levels to those of CEOs, it is amazing how relatively underpaid corporate “Chief Legal Officers” are.
Flag this comment
sam
Mar 26, 2009 2:05 PM CST
I think congress should tax anything above $250,000 at 90% just like the AIG bonus money. How dare these chief legal counsel take millions in compensation that belongs to shareholders!!!
Flag this comment
Debra Veoli
Mar 27, 2009 5:30 AM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
Steve Perkins
Mar 27, 2009 6:11 AM CST
Here’s an idea for a story title:
“Bottom ‘US Weekly’ Reporter Writes More Substantive Articles Than You”
I mean, really… a Vice President at a company with a market cap of $111 billion makes a lot of money? Wow, you don’t say.
Flag this comment
sherri
Mar 27, 2009 6:31 AM CST
Why should he be allowed to 5.12 million and millions of people are unemployed? Obama needs to raises taxes on anyone who makes over a million dollars a year.
Flag this comment
T
Mar 27, 2009 7:02 AM CST
Its called capitalism, free market. If Google feels he is worth those $, they pay him those $. Don’t go crying to Chairman O(bama) because someone has worked to make themselved valuable.
Flag this comment
Bill Dickey
Mar 27, 2009 7:03 AM CST
Sherri, I respectfully disagree. This is America, where men can be rewarded for working hard. This is not the USSR where we work for the state. What incentive would there be to bust hump if we had to turn back 90% to the state? You may not like that this guy made big bucks, but next year, he won’t. Let’s not get socialistic while pulling out the violin for theunemployed. Sure that’s tough, but this is America. Work hard and you will succeed. If you want to complain, find something else.
Flag this comment
Johnson
Mar 27, 2009 7:07 AM CST
I have to agree with T and Bill. This is America where we reward hard work AND value.
Flag this comment
Tax 'Em
Mar 27, 2009 7:11 AM CST
Bill, I doubt Drummond or any other highly paid exec “busts his hump” more than the janitor working double shifts to support his family on a minimum wage salary, or the dairy farmer who gets up at the crack of dawn and works until late in the night to ensure enough revenue to save his family farm for another year. People choose to pursue highly paid careers not just because of the money but because of the thrill, the percs, the prestige, and the fact that you never have to wonder whether you will be able to feed your family and keep your home for another month. If a high marginal tax rate is enough to push them out the door, then so be it . . . there are plenty of highly qualified people with a fire in their belly who are waiting in the wings to take over.
Flag this comment
Sherri
Mar 27, 2009 7:16 AM CST
The guy at Mcdonalds works just as hard too and he doesn’t get 5.2 million like this guy. Obama needs to take some of his money and spread the wealth so that are middle class is strong again.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 27, 2009 7:29 AM CST
That fellow who works for my old friends the McDonalds gets meals at break time. About now, some lawyers who departed BigLaw early this year might well like to have his job. But, they’re “overqualified,” so they’ll have to go to the soup kitchen istead of having that hot, beefy, quarter-pounder with cheese. No fries either.
Flag this comment
Old Lawyer
Mar 27, 2009 8:15 AM CST
The guy [or gal] working at McDonald’s leaves the behind at the end of the day, has few job worrries to take home and likely has few sleepless nights over where the company is going in the future. In America people are compensated not just for work, but for responsibility shouldered and results obtained. Don’t carp about what this lawyer earned; strive to do the same.
Flag this comment
JN
Mar 27, 2009 8:18 AM CST
The wealth redistribution talk is so patently ridiculous. “He makes a lot of money! He should be punished!” So, because he’s done well for himself (and likely, not at the direct expense of others), he should give his money away? It’s good to see that populism and political grandstanding still work. Idiots. Yeah, let’s penalize the wealthy. Productivity isn’t already perilous as is - so let’s completely remove the reward! I can’t believe this mindset exists in reality.
Flag this comment
Old Lawyer
Mar 27, 2009 8:19 AM CST
That was supposed to be “leaves the WORK behind.”
Flag this comment
Joe Herrick
Mar 27, 2009 8:31 AM CST
Comment 3 fails to comprehend that 3.9MM was paid in stock options and awards. He IS a stockholder (Google is a DL Corp, so it has “stockholders,” not “shareholders”). “Greed” appears to be term of derision used by left leaning “progressives” (i.e. populists), but who is being truly greedy here? Bonus compensation is based on (1) company performance and (2) merit. Newsflash: most people who receive bonuses are not criminals. The day we convict the producers and “men of action” who fuel our economy is the day they should go on strike. Let the clerk from Walmart do D. Drummond’s job.
Flag this comment
Tax 'Em
Mar 27, 2009 8:31 AM CST
JN, Would you be surprised to learn that the top marginal tax rates hovered between 70-90% from the 1940s through the 1970s? There is a reason we call this “The Greatest Generation” and it ain’t because they bitched and moaned about high taxes.
Flag this comment
S
Mar 27, 2009 8:33 AM CST
Question to all who believe the wealth should be spread to others not making enough: Do you think a person who has a 4 year college degree and a professional degree (either JD or MD), who is single and could live comfortable making $40,000 a year, should only make that $40,000 a year, no matter how good they are at their chosen profession, how talented and driven they are to be the best they can be, or how willing they are to go above and beyond what is minimally required? And the reverse, a person who did not graduate high school, is only willing to do the minimum needed to support their family, and say would need $90,000 a year to support their family of 4, should this person be guaranteed to make $90,000 a year even though they are not driven to succeed, and will only do the minimum required?
Flag this comment
Saber6
Mar 27, 2009 8:35 AM CST
Comment 10 (“Tax ‘em”) - Tell this to all the high-paid lawyers who have recently lost their jobs: “People choose to pursue highly paid careers not just because of the money but because of the thrill, the percs, the prestige, and the fact that you never have to wonder whether you will be able to feed your family and keep your home for another month.”
Flag this comment
Saber6
Mar 27, 2009 8:39 AM CST
And Tax ‘em, you must also realize that while the top tax rate was at 70-90%, our economy was declining, we suffered from stagflation, our President told us that we were in a “malaise”, and resigned ourselves to living in a world of “parity” and “detente” with the Soviet Union. It wasn’t until we lowered tax rates (corporate, personal income and capital gains) until this nation’s economy exploded and left the rest of the world behind. Oh yeah, and we won the Cold War too.
Flag this comment
Steve Perkins
Mar 27, 2009 8:39 AM CST
Guys, I think (or at least hope!) that this “90% tax” stuff are just troll comments to get you worked up.
Flag this comment
Brian B.
Mar 27, 2009 8:52 AM CST
Old Lawer, you nailed it in No. 13.
Flag this comment
Tax 'Em
Mar 27, 2009 8:56 AM CST
Saber6, How about when we emerged fgrom the Great Depression, defeated socialism and fascism, rebuilt Western Europe, promoted true democracy all over the world, established the United States as a superpower, made American manufacturing and commerce the envy of the world, sent a man to the moon, all with higher tax rates than we had under Carter? History lesson: to understand the United States’ position in the world, you need to look at what happened before the 1976 and 1980 elections.
S- No one is proposing caps on income, so go fish for red herrings elsewhere.
Flag this comment
HumourMonitor
Mar 27, 2009 8:57 AM CST
The real “greed” at play in the brains (I am being generous here) of Tax ‘Em and Sherri and their fellow travelers is THEIR OWN—it is that peculiar selfishness of the Left that masquerades as a generous and fair spirit but which is in fact a nasty jealousy of others’ efforts and possessions (see, Commandment 10) and a fascistic desire to pull everyone else into their own misery and feckless lives. It is a sad truth that those so vocal and boisterous about their own goodness and raging and insistent over the percieved selfishness of others are actually describing themselves. It is the truth of socialists of all stripes.
Flag this comment
shariff
Mar 27, 2009 9:01 AM CST
The reason he got a 4 year degree and then a 3 year degree and the other guy didn’t is because of the oppression and racisim in our system.
The wealth should be redistributed from those who stole it from the working poor. They don’t need their millions and second homes.
Take the second homes and give them to the poor.
The guy in the projects can’t go to ivy league schools because the system is designed to keep him in the projects while you all make your millions.
Harvard should be like your neocon walmarts. Anyone who wants to should be allowed to attend. No more letting the children of the elite get in and the guys in the project can’t even afford to finish high school because they have to work to support their family.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Mar 27, 2009 9:04 AM CST
Liberals are actually big-government fascists, so I’m uncertain why we use the term “Democrat.” Honestly, what’s the difference between Nazism and Liberalism? There isn’t any. It’s the same ideology—the state is superior to the people; religion is a distraction from ultimate state power; people not beholden to the gov’t elite are traitors.
This pro-tax types represent the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers died for. These are people who hate you and themselves and success and competition. Put simply: they’re losers. Just like Hitler. You see how it all makes sense?
Flag this comment
Alex
Mar 27, 2009 9:07 AM CST
#13. The guys at Mcd’s worry more than you think. That used to me. They worry that they have to hide their car at night so it don’t get repoed. They worry that that their landlord will kick them out for being behind on rent. They worry that their kids will get shot walking to school. You have lost it if you think people who work minimum wage don’t have worries when they go home at night. Get out of your Big Law office and look at the real world. Do you see the stories in CA about tent cities popping up? They probablly don’t have any worries either in your mind since they get to camp out all day while you stare down at them from your high rise job.
As far as taking from the rich and giving to the poor, maybe if you all would help out in the inner cities, set up scholarships, mandate that government fund our schoools, we wouldnt nned to have this debate.
Flag this comment
Steve Perkins
Mar 27, 2009 9:17 AM CST
> They worry that they have to hide their car at
> night so it don’t get repoed.
Well, at least they don’t have to worry about articulate grammar or spelling.
I take back comment #21. Amazingly, I think some of these people actually ARE serious!
Flag this comment
Tax 'Em
Mar 27, 2009 9:21 AM CST
Wow, the level of dialogue on here is just pathetic. I agree - Sherri and her ilk are trolls spewing nonsense. But does anyone truly believe that the United States was mired in socialism from 1930 through 1980?
Flag this comment
Saber6
Mar 27, 2009 9:21 AM CST
Well, Tax ‘em, the reason we recovered from the Great Depression had zero to do with high taxes and the expansion of government programs and entitlements. The recovery was fueled by War and the growth of the “evil” military industrial complex. Indeed, many, if not most, economists concede that the New Deal retarded economic recovery. And our vision to put a man on the moon was enunciated by a Democrat who believed in lowering tax rates (JFK, R.I.P.). Punitive taxation gets you nowhere. People like Drummond should be respected, not vilified.
Flag this comment
AlexIsClueless
Mar 27, 2009 9:30 AM CST
@27 - Alex. Truly, you are clueless. Did you not understand that your “schools” are funded by the government, that the amount of funds directed to them has increased steadily while student performance has decreased (but your unionized teacher corps and “community organizer” school service vendors pocket the cash)? That such funding amounts are truly stunning in $$/pupil? Did you not realize that scholarships abound for kids from inner cities at some of the very best post-secondary institutions in the country? Of course, these scholarships go to those with some evidence that they can actually perform at the needed level. And while it is possible that someone working at Mickey D’s might worry about having his ride repoed or being tossed out of his flat (though if you are a teenager working at Mickey’s to afford a car, your priorities are sorely misplaced), the clue to avoiding that is not more hand outs, not more taxpayer funded “projects” and “programs.” It is to go get that education, get that law/medical/engineering/accounting/business degree and work until one builds up worth in the real world of pay for value and work. That is what #13 was trying to tell you. Of course, to do that, one has to stop seeing oneself as permanent victim and stop expecting everyone else to taken care of them. In other words, as my old man used to say, “put your nose to the grindstone.” Tough, but true. Try it. Not for a day, not for a week or even just a year. Try it for a lifetime.
Flag this comment
S
Mar 27, 2009 9:36 AM CST
My question was just to see what people are really thinking. Do they understand what they are really saying? The question I posed is an explanation of Communism.
It sounds good that wealth should be given to people who need it so they can support their families and themselves. But it does not promote excellence or a desire to do the best job you can. It also does not promote any desire to do more than what is necessary.
That’s all, I just wanted to know if people were really thinking about what they are suggesting.
I think the Corporate Attorney in the article should make the money he is making; he earned it with his education and desire to succeed. Spreading wealth will stifle ambition like that.
Flag this comment
Alex
Mar 27, 2009 9:38 AM CST
#31. You ever been to a school in the inner city of Phili, Detroit, LA, Miami. The books are out of date, they have share books if they even have them. They don’t have tp in the bathrooms, the lights are broken in a lot of the classes, the teachers don’t teach because they are afraid of the schools.
Come to the south side of LA and show me one school that is properly funded. Maybe in your elite hoods of Malibu and Beverly Hills they are funded.
Until you fund our inner city schools and give those children a chance, why not tax the rich at 90% so that the poor and disenfranchised can have a fair shot. Those children can not put in the time studying like your children can because they have to go out and hustle and make money so their family can have a roof over their head. They don’t have the same opportunity as your children to get a 4.00 in high school so they will never get that jd/mba/md.
Flag this comment
Tax 'Em
Mar 27, 2009 9:40 AM CST
I’m glad you’re able to see history beyond your earlier “stagflation” comment. I don’t disagree with anything you wrote.
On the other hand, unless you favor the kind of massive deficit-spending pioneered by Reagan, quelled to some degree by Bush I and Clinton, then taken to insane new heights by Bush II and now, it appears, BHO, all these things require the kind of marginal tax revenues that we had during the 1930s-60s.
It’s not about Democrat vs. Republican, rich v. poor. It’s about being honest about our past to avoid future disaster.
Flag this comment
Eric
Mar 27, 2009 9:42 AM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Mar 27, 2009 9:44 AM CST
34, there won’t be “rich” or “poor” under your fantasy scenario. There will just be a servient class and the political elite class—- the dream of marxists everywhere.
Flag this comment
kwame
Mar 27, 2009 9:46 AM CST
Until there is reperations paid out for slavery we can never overcome our past.
Flag this comment
Tobin Clark
Mar 27, 2009 9:48 AM CST
Anyone who thinks CEO or other senior executive compensation at public companies is a product of the “free market system” doesn’t understand how the system works and is either ignorant of, or chooses to ignore, all the built in conflicts of interest between board compensation committees, boards of directors and CEOs. Just like in recent years our financial system has chosen to ignore the conflicts of interest among investment banks, ratings agencies, mortgage loan closers, the people who package those loans into securities, and on and on. Conflicts of interest are the cancer of the capitalist system that will kill it through the public’s overreaction unless a sense of shame is instilled among individuals. Right now, there is no such thing as shame.
Flag this comment
Eric
Mar 27, 2009 10:01 AM CST
If the tax rate is 90%, I have no incentive to work harder to increase my pay. For example, if I get $10,000 in bonus for billing 100 hours extra, that is $100/hour—pretty nice! However, if that is taxed at 90%, then I really make $10/hour for my work. For that money, I’d rather spend time with my wife and kids, watching TV, or mowing the lawn. I didn’t go through 9 years of higher education (which I paid for entirely with merit scholarships and loans—so don’t give me your privileged kid crap) so that I could make the same amount I did as a waiter in high school (yes, I worked in high school…and still made good grades…gasp)!
If we disincentivize hard work, considerably less will get done. This will hurt—not help—the economy. Our nation’s GDP will further slip and we will lose our preeminent status in the world.
Comparing how hard a rich man and a poor man work today and relating that to their income is stupid. No matter where you grow up, success is tied to your childhood work ethic. If you do not try hard in middle and high school, then you probably won’t have as many opportunities for college; this leads to diminished opportunities in the work force. So yeah, the guy at McDonalds may work a grueling 16 hour shift that is stressful and awful, but the odds are he didn’t work as hard as the lawyer did when he was a kid.
Flag this comment
Tax "Em
Mar 27, 2009 10:05 AM CST
Eric, there are plenty of associates right now who could really use those additional 100 billable hours that you are hogging. On the other hand, there’s no substitute for those hours with your kids that you are missing. It shouldn’t take a 90% marginal tax rate for you to get your priorities straight.
J.D., you are such a joke.
Flag this comment
Robert
Mar 27, 2009 10:06 AM CST
kwame, we already had reparations, it was just called Affirmative Action. The racial divides in this country are no longer due to the fact that African Americans’ relatives were introduced to the U.S. through slavery (and many were not…see President Obama). The problem is that disenfranchised youth and employees did not take advantage of the opportunities offered them through affirmative action. They felt—like you apparently do—that society owed them something and refused to take advantage of the opportunities that were offered to level the playing field. This is not my argument, it’s from Clarence Thomas’s book.
Flag this comment
Eric
Mar 27, 2009 10:14 AM CST
Tax “Em, I was using an example that I thought lawyers could relate to. I’m actually a childless law student. But regardless, my point is that a 90% rate WILL lead to lower productivity.
In fields other than law, there aren’t always lower level associates looking for work. Often, the only person capable of doing a job in a company is the one person hired to do it. There probably isn’t enough work to hire 2 people for the position, but it may be more work than one person can handle during a 40 hour week (it may even ebb and flow so there is no consistent need for a second person). So, we compensate him for this extra work with a bonus. By raising his taxes to 90%, we take away his motivation for putting in those extra hours.
Even within the context of law, there are some things you just cannot pass down to an associate. But, by taxing at 90%, you also lower incentive for the partner to do the work.
Flag this comment
Tax 'Em
Mar 27, 2009 10:38 AM CST
Ah, so you were pulling a Joe the Plumber on us. Look, there are scores of Wall Street types, lawyers, and execs looking for work right now. A quick way to turn this around is through a better division of labor.
Here’s an example: Associate A is working 80 hours a week while Associate B is going to be fired because he can’t muster 50 billables. There is no room for increased productivity from Associate A, and you have lost all of Associate B’s productivity. So at least right now, we don’t need a tax system that incentivizes Associate A’s hard work. Two associates each billing 60 hours boosts our economy a lot more than one associate billing 80 hours, because then you have two sets of taxable incomes, two sets of household spending, and two people with more leisure time to actually spend money (creating jobs downstream).
So if increased marginal tax rates incentivizes Associate A to voluntarily make the choice to spare Associate B’s job, I don’t see any downside.
Flag this comment
Brian
Mar 27, 2009 10:49 AM CST
This quote from Sam, Post #3, is disturbing:
“I think congress should tax anything above $250,000 at 90% just like the AIG bonus money. How dare these chief legal counsel take millions in compensation that belongs to shareholders!!!”
Obviously Sam believes what Obama tells him - that anyone making more than that is “wealthy.” Sam has no idea that $250,000 isn’t very much money to raise a family on these days, and that socialism will destroy this country. But Sam also joins the majority of this country in just not caring. Fortunately for them, that 90% tax they ask for is on its way.
Flag this comment
nic
Mar 27, 2009 10:50 AM CST
Robert@41, shame on you for taking the bait left by “kwame” @37. He’s probably a caucasian jokester. At least his comment gave you a chance to spew your hate on an irrelevant topic. Well done.
Flag this comment
dpmanuel
Mar 27, 2009 10:51 AM CST
@sam:
How, exactly, does that money belong to shareholders? Let’s let you handle the legal work for a company that is worth billions of dollars for free and see how much you care about shareholders then.
@sherri:
Why should I fuel up my vehicle twice a week while, in New York City, someone is buying drugs as we speak?
Don’t see the relationship? It’s about as close as the relationship unemployed people have to lawyers for Google. What is Google supposed to do, cut salaries and benefits for people who are making them tons of money in order to create jobs for people who probably won’t?
And as for the guy at McDonald’s, no, he doesn’t work just as hard. He often screws up my order, and there are no consequences. He doesn’t have to stay up thinking about the mustard he shouldn’t have put on my burger, about how he might have lost my business, and about how he might lose his job because of it. There is a certain peace of mind that comes with minimum-wage employment.
@shariff:
I agree with you, but only if the “system” you are talking about is the system of families and communities who do not recognize the value of education. If a person has the raw intellectual talent, he can get money to go to college. State governments will pay college tuition for you, and private donors offer scholarships (many specifically paid to minority students). If you mean that the system is in place to keep unintelligent people who don’t care about education from going to college, then I guess you probably have a point, but I don’t see why anyone should care.
Flag this comment
Eric
Mar 27, 2009 10:52 AM CST
I don’t disagree with your logic, but you didn’t address my second point, where there isn’t enough work through the year to justify a second employee, and Employee A gets hit with the full load with a 90% tax burden. This is much more likely than one person doing the job of 2—which you have correctly shown is a waste. So, Employee A has 2 options: (1) work a very difficult job for less hourly pay than the burger flipper, or (2) just don’t do the work. Option (1) leads to a dissatisfied work force, and Option (2) leads to decreased productivity.
In the legal field, work has to get done, so if you can’t allocate it to someone else, you’ll just have pissed off attorneys (i.e. option 1). In other industries, the employee may have the option whether to do the work or not. If they have the choice between Option 1 and 2, there is a clear winner. Decreased output. Now extrapolate this to a national level, and the consequences could be disastrous.
Flag this comment
Brian
Mar 27, 2009 10:53 AM CST
And THIS post by Kwame, Post #37, goes beyond comprehension:
“Until there is reperations paid out for slavery we can never overcome our past.”
I won’t even bother commenting on it. There’s no point. Kwame clearly joins the massive number of African “Americans” who do not recognize the hard work and time WHITE AMERICA put in to help blacks reach the status of equality they take for granted today. Reparations?? Equality and freedom aren’t payment enough???????? This country is scary.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Mar 27, 2009 10:57 AM CST
Sorry, Tax ‘Em. Partner C determines the workplace fate of Associate A and Associate B. It’s not an Athenian democracy. A will have to get used to 80 hour weeks, and B’s headed for the breadline.
Flag this comment
nic
Mar 27, 2009 10:58 AM CST
Brian@48 - Ding ding ding! You’re our next winner! Got any other anti-Black comments you’ve been champing at the bit to share?
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.