Minnesota Lawyer Blog

Americans traditionally share their personal salary info only with family and close friends. Now, as far as the folks named in the “Strib data center” are concerned, this info is open to anyone with an idle curiosity. I don’t seriously doubt that, as an abstract matter, any taxpayer should be able to learn the salaries paid public employees. But it still feels vaguely creepy & like an invasion of privacy to view all this info aggregated and linked to specific employees by name.

The salary discrepancy between Hennepin Co. & the AG’s office is certainly of interest to all taxpayers, as is the info re the U profs: What the hey does this “Other Pay” consist of when it can double a prof’s salary? Is it really unfair to insist that big-pay profs spend more time in the classroom? And so on. But as you note, those questions suggest potential news stories and can't be answered by the statistics alone.

Why is there such a discrepancy between the AGO salaries posted on the Pioneer Press website and the Star Tribune website. For example, AAG Clapp earns about $25,000 according to Star Tribune, but earns about $65,000 according to the Pioneer Press.

RE: Data discrepency: You are right, the numbers don't match from teh Strib and PiPress. The PiPress numbers generally look a little higher, which makes me wonder if they aren't a little more up-to-dat than the Strib's (which are from 2007). There is a big difference with Clapp, as you point out, but that could just represent working more hours in different tax years. If I find anything further out, I'll let you know.


Who am: Yep, is a bit creepy, but that's what we are here for ... ;0)
As for law profs, my experience of academia is the complete opposite of what you postulate. The "big name" profs are expected to spend less time in the classroom and more time on other things. In return, the school gets to benefit from the prestige of having the big name prof and from any further prestige that comes from these outside activities that they do. ...

Re profs, yeah but as far as your experience being the complete opposite of the point that I postulate, the point that I postulate is the complete opposite of the point that you postulate I postulate when I postulate – what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah: I mean, my question re maybe -- given the salaries involved -- it wouldn’t be unfair to insist on more classroom time from big-name profs, understood that universities traditionally are resistant & defensive about the issue of overworked & underpaid grad student instructors doing much of the actual teaching that parents naively thought the big-name profs would be doing.

My suggestion is that now, armed with salary info, one might not think it unfair to ask some of the better-paid profs to do more classroom instruction -- and without reducing any expectations for first-rate scholarly & research work. After all, outside of academia, people expect that they are going to have to work really, really hard to maintain a really, really good salary. And now we know that a number of profs make really, really good salaries. (In this regard, however, law school is actually probably a better deal than many other types of schools, in that law students are at least dealing with full professors from the get-go.)

These numbers tell a very interesting story about the current state of the AGO. First, the reason the Strib's AGO salary figures seem so low is that the Strib's numbers are actual salaries paid in 2007, and 48 lawyers were either hired or moved to management positions in 2007(to replace the lawyers and managers who departed in 2007), and therefore the salaries listed for the new hires show only partial-year earnings, not annual salary. Second, not all of those listed are lawyers (all those classified as M1 and M2 and one of the M3s are non-lawyers. The listed total of 149 lawyers includes approximately 1/3 new hires for 2007 alone. Third, many of those listed (at least 9) have since left the AGO, including some in management-level positions. Finally, this list does not include the lawyers who left in 2007, many of whom have not been replaced. The total number of departures since Lori Swanson was elected now stands above 40%, and more departures are imminent. Here is your potential news story.

Who am:

I was posulating on what you were postulating on, errr ... whatever.

My point is that those salaries are not what a big-time professor would consider overly lucrative. (In context: 2/3 less than a 25-year-old starting associate at Dorsey). I know the prof's job has less hours, summers off, yada yada, but still, it ain't exactly the land of milk and honey for someone at the top of their field.


In academia, moving up usually means more time on research and outside, less time in the classroom. The bigger salaries are earned by the ones doing the big outside projects and research rather than the ones who agree to teach more. In many major institutions, for example, the highest paid faculty are the ones who spend the least amount of time teaching. I think the thought is that the research and other activities are what brings the maximum amount of prestige to the school, rather than the teaching.


I am not saying I agree with the system or the line of thinking, but that's my impresion of what it is -- at least among "ranked" institutions. It's also the way they are able to attract top faculty.

At the very least, the above spiel is what you'd get from my brother the university professor if brought this topic up with him ...

Meanwhile, the top of the payscale, after 20 years of service, for the Hennepin County Public Defender is yet to to $100K. Something smells, and it reeks of disparity...