Top Law Schools

Does anyone know how partner compensation at non-lockstep top firms works in regional offices? Is it any different? Take S&C, for example. A New York firm with significant offices in California. Would the California partners' compensation be similar to the New Yorkers'?

I have no insight into this. I'm curious about why you would care though?

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone know how partner compensation at non-lockstep top firms works in regional offices? Is it any different? Take S&C, for example. A New York firm with significant offices in California. Would the California partners' compensation be similar to the New Yorkers'?

From what I understand, the partner compensation at Kirkland's Chicago office is pretty similar to the partner compensation at their regional NYC office.

Uncle.Joe wrote:I have no insight into this. I'm curious about why you would care though?

Because he is obviously going to make partner at S&C and just wants to make sure he doesnt only make 1.8 million a year while his counter parts in NYC are making 3 million.

and holy shit I had no idea the PPP at those big NY firms were so high!

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone know how partner compensation at non-lockstep top firms works in regional offices? Is it any different? Take S&C, for example. A New York firm with significant offices in California. Would the California partners' compensation be similar to the New Yorkers'?

From what I understand, the partner compensation at Kirkland's Chicago office is pretty similar to the partner compensation at their regional NYC office.

did you post this anonymously because you were aware of how inane and useless it is?

To understand whether they would or wouldn't be paid more, think about the compensation system. In non-lockstep firms, equity comp is tied to what business you bring in (or at least what you're credited for, regardless of how the business gets there). If you're a rainmaker (and you won't be, but don't feel bad because neither will 99% of this board, including me), you'll get paid millions regardless of the office you're in. If you aren't but still have equity status, you'll probably make mid-6 figures, maybe upper 6 figs. Non-equity partners get comped similarly to associates (on some sort of pay scale that runs a bit higher than the associate one, although I've heard stories about new partners making less than a very senior associate all-in). There are differences from firm to firm, but that's basically how the system will work regardless of location at a non-lockstep place. If NY partners get comped more, it's because they're bringing in more $, which is a decent bet because the best institutional clients are likely going to be tied to the old guard in the home office.

There is no publicly available answer. Law firms are private businesses owned by their partnership, and their comp is no more knowable than the comp of the guy down the street who owns a restaurant or the computer repair person who runs his own business.

PPP figures are a healthy mix of bullshit, what the firm wants you to know, and bits and pieces of public info (fee filings in BK cases, for instance).

What we know, or at least what we have been told, is that firm billing rates generally do not vary from office to office (otherwise clients would just try to get their legal work done in whatever lower cost office there was, neh?) and associate salaries, by and large, are also consistent between the offices of different firms.

Partnership comp is a much deeper mystery. Some firms (Cravath, DPW, and Cleary off the top of my head) brag about lock step partnership compensation, meaning at those firms at least its likely seniority determines comp and little, if anything, else. At other firms origination credits, hours billed, hours billed on matters the partner is related to, etc. effect comp, and it's likely the calculations would be blind to location (though you might imagine partners in NY having busier lives and thus more comp than partners in the Peoria satellite).

He probably watched Good Wife last night and saw where partners tend to own yachts; he doesn’t want to be in the bay on a dingy.

I am personally shocked this never came up during your lateral partner interviews.

stratocophic wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone know how partner compensation at non-lockstep top firms works in regional offices? Is it any different? Take S&C, for example. A New York firm with significant offices in California. Would the California partners' compensation be similar to the New Yorkers'?

From what I understand, the partner compensation at Kirkland's Chicago office is pretty similar to the partner compensation at their regional NYC office.

If NY partners get comped more, it's because they're bringing in more $, which is a decent bet because the best institutional clients are likely going to be tied to the old guard in the home office.

I actually think on average, the Chicago partners at Kirkland are better compensated than the New York partners.

Anonymous User wrote:

stratocophic wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone know how partner compensation at non-lockstep top firms works in regional offices? Is it any different? Take S&C, for example. A New York firm with significant offices in California. Would the California partners' compensation be similar to the New Yorkers'?

From what I understand, the partner compensation at Kirkland's Chicago office is pretty similar to the partner compensation at their regional NYC office.

If NY partners get comped more, it's because they're bringing in more $, which is a decent bet because the best institutional clients are likely going to be tied to the old guard in the home office.

I actually think on average, the Chicago partners at Kirkland are better compensated than the New York partners.

Chicago is that particular firm's main office. That the partners in that office get paid a bit more should surprise nobody, though I doubt there's a very large discrepancy. OP said his firm was based in NY, which was why I specified that city.

stratocophic wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Does anyone know how partner compensation at non-lockstep top firms works in regional offices? Is it any different? Take S&C, for example. A New York firm with significant offices in California. Would the California partners' compensation be similar to the New Yorkers'?

From what I understand, the partner compensation at Kirkland's Chicago office is pretty similar to the partner compensation at their regional NYC office.

did you post this anonymously because you were aware of how inane and useless it is?

To understand whether they would or wouldn't be paid more, think about the compensation system. In non-lockstep firms, equity comp is tied to what business you bring in (or at least what you're credited for, regardless of how the business gets there). If you're a rainmaker (and you won't be, but don't feel bad because neither will 99% of this board, including me), you'll get paid millions regardless of the office you're in. If you aren't but still have equity status, you'll probably make mid-6 figures, maybe upper 6 figs. Non-equity partners get comped similarly to associates (on some sort of pay scale that runs a bit higher than the associate one, although I've heard stories about new partners making less than a very senior associate all-in). There are differences from firm to firm, but that's basically how the system will work regardless of location at a non-lockstep place. If NY partners get comped more, it's because they're bringing in more $, which is a decent bet because the best institutional clients are likely going to be tied to the old guard in the home office.

This is as close to the truth as I've ever seen anyone on this board get to the reality of partner compensation.

I actually think on average, the Chicago partners at Kirkland are better compensated than the New York partners.

Nope.

I thought that according to ATL's recent blog posts, partner tracks were on the decline?

Anonymous User wrote:

I actually think on average, the Chicago partners at Kirkland are better compensated than the New York partners.

Nope.

If compensation also means SOL, then maybe?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

I actually think on average, the Chicago partners at Kirkland are better compensated than the New York partners.

Nope.

If compensation also means SOL, then maybe?

SOL?

K&E partner comp is based on how many shares you have, and how many shares you have depends on the business you generate. The equity partners at every K&E office are enormous business generators.

Simply put, comp doesn't at all depend on what office you're in. If you bring in the business, you will get the shares whether you're in LA or in Chicago.

LMAO I remember when I cared about this sort of thing. Good luck OP.

BruceWayne wrote:LMAO I remember when I cared about this sort of thing. Good luck OP.

BruceWayne wrote:LMAO I remember when I cared about this sort of thing. Good luck OP.

+1

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

I actually think on average, the Chicago partners at Kirkland are better compensated than the New York partners.

Nope.

If compensation also means SOL, then maybe?

SOL?

K&E partner comp is based on how many shares you have, and how many shares you have depends on the business you generate. The equity partners at every K&E office are enormous business generators.

Simply put, comp doesn't at all depend on what office you're in. If you bring in the business, you will get the shares whether you're in LA or in Chicago.

probably "standard of living." dont ask me why he thought that would be a better acronym than COL

Anonymous User wrote:

I actually think on average, the Chicago partners at Kirkland are better compensated than the New York partners.

Nope.

Ah, I was told by somebody at the firm that there was a noticeably stronger concentration of partner shares at Chicago versus New York. Maybe I misunderstood them.