Partner Compensation Structure Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:25 pm
Partner Compensation Structure
One thing I was advised to research and consider in choosing firms is how they structure partner compensation. The person who told me this, a partner at a firm himself, said that partner compensation structure plays a serious role in shaping the culture of a firm. For example, a lockstep structure will reduce competition amongst partners for working with certain associates, clients, getting credit for origination, etc. Conversely, an "eat what you kill" approach tends to make things more competitive, but, you can make more money that way (potentially).
Do people have any input on solid resources for finding out how partners are compensated from firm to firm? I haven't found a unified source to look at, just random tid-bits firm by firm through google. Also, are the characterizations that I made above about structure affecting culture accurate?
Edit: I am asking this questions because I think I would prefer to work at a firm with a lockstep partner compensation structure to make my life happier as an associate (would prefer a more supportive culture over a more competitive, cutthroat atmosphere). But it would be great to hear the relative merits of both structures, and whether or not they truly affect the culture of a firm.
Do people have any input on solid resources for finding out how partners are compensated from firm to firm? I haven't found a unified source to look at, just random tid-bits firm by firm through google. Also, are the characterizations that I made above about structure affecting culture accurate?
Edit: I am asking this questions because I think I would prefer to work at a firm with a lockstep partner compensation structure to make my life happier as an associate (would prefer a more supportive culture over a more competitive, cutthroat atmosphere). But it would be great to hear the relative merits of both structures, and whether or not they truly affect the culture of a firm.
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:39 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
I really don't see how this will impact you as a summer and/or junior. If you are a partner looking to move, the. try reaching out to partners at the firms you are considering joining.
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
There are only a handful of lockstep compensation firms (Cravath, Debevoise, Cleary). Davis Polk and Wachtell are pretty much lockstep but for a few people. Your life isn't going to be much "happier" as an associate at any of these biglaw firms - you'll still be working like crazy.
-
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:39 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:21 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
The whole "lock-step compensation permeates the culture" is a fair way to distinguish between a Cleary and a STB imo. Not the only factor, but a legit one imo.WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden. Generally, the "old guard" with the whitest-shoe history are all lockstep, and everyone else is not. Cravath, DPW and Debevoise are "pure" lockstep, but the "modified" lockstep used by STB, Cleary and a few others is basically the same, just the partners in support groups and stuff like T&E get paid slightly less.toothbrush wrote:The whole "lock-step compensation permeates the culture" is a fair way to distinguish between a Cleary and a STB imo. Not the only factor, but a legit one imo.WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.
As an associate, this is a big difference. You notice it interacting with other firms as well. IMO it's one of the most important lifestyle differences even for young associates--but no one thinks about it until they're already at the firm.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:21 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
whoops. I could have sworn stb was modified and not pure. Take Skadden then or something to make the point-sorry.Anonymous User wrote: Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden.
Can we list the lockstep then? I thought it with Cravath, DPW, Cleary, Debevoise. Which others are lockstep?
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Cleary is not pure lockstep, I don't believe, but maybe I'm wrong. STB and Cleary are both modified lockstep. Cravath, DPW and Debevoise are the only pure lockstep firms. As I noted in my edit above, "modified" lockstep only disadvantages partners in support practices, and only slightly, not partners with bigger vs. smaller books of business. IMO, it's a good thing for those firms--allows them to keep groups like Trusts & Estates that aren't profitable for pure-lockstep firms around. (Witness the relatively recent somewhat involuntary departure of Debevoise's entire T&E group.)toothbrush wrote:whoops. I could have sworn stb was modified and not pure. Take Skadden then or something to make the point-sorry.Anonymous User wrote: Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden.
Can we list the lockstep then? I thought it with Cravath, DPW, Cleary, Debevoise. Which others are lockstep?
Maybe more important though is the ratio of partner pay. The lockstep and modified lockstep firms are all around a 3x to 4x range of pay. While the non-lockstep firms tend to be closer to 8x to 10x.
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
toothbrush wrote:whoops. I could have sworn stb was modified and not pure. Take Skadden then or something to make the point-sorry.Anonymous User wrote: Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden.
Can we list the lockstep then? I thought it with Cravath, DPW, Cleary, Debevoise. Which others are lockstep?
I couldn't find confirmation online, but I think I heard that Paul, Weiss is. Can anybody confirm?
-
- Posts: 414
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:18 pm
-
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:21 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
This was the article I was thinking of when I made my original comment about Cleary vs. STB. But the anon says even Cleary is modified.AP-375 wrote:Legit source:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/ ... blogs&_r=0
Truthfully idk.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Isn't Skadden essentially lockstep? Each year point are adjusted with the largest factor impacting adjustment being level of partnership seniority. From their materials, it seems like the ~3:1 spread correlates nearly exactly with seniority.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Simpson's modified lockstep is pretty much lockstep. The modification is you get extra pay for serving on committees. That's the "modification."
- First Offense
- Posts: 7091
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:45 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
I've actually had this come up in a few screeners (how compensation structure influences firm culture), and being able to speak coherently about it while kind of complimenting the firm on the fact has led to cbs at each place it came up so far.Anonymous User wrote:Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden. Generally, the "old guard" with the whitest-shoe history are all lockstep, and everyone else is not. Cravath, DPW and Debevoise are "pure" lockstep, but the "modified" lockstep used by STB, Cleary and a few others is basically the same, just the partners in support groups and stuff like T&E get paid slightly less.toothbrush wrote:The whole "lock-step compensation permeates the culture" is a fair way to distinguish between a Cleary and a STB imo. Not the only factor, but a legit one imo.WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.
As an associate, this is a big difference. You notice it interacting with other firms as well. IMO it's one of the most important lifestyle differences even for young associates--but no one thinks about it until they're already at the firm.
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:25 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
I'm not basing my decision on it, but I AM curious as to how partner compensation correlates to associate quality of life. And no, I don't really mean quality of life in term of hours worked, I just mean in terms of how attorneys, and specifically partners, treat each other at firms. I figured it was worth questioning seeing as an equity partner at a v10 told me I should be looking at it.WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 2:25 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
AP-375 wrote:Legit source:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/ ... blogs&_r=0
Thank you, good article.
-
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:03 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
You move up and down the points scale based on performance. http://www.skadden.com/sites/default/fi ... oes_It.pdfAnonymous User wrote:Isn't Skadden essentially lockstep? Each year point are adjusted with the largest factor impacting adjustment being level of partnership seniority. From their materials, it seems like the ~3:1 spread correlates nearly exactly with seniority.
- JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
My Paul Weiss interviewer was all about the lockstep permeating the ranks. Though I do think things like whether billable hours requirements and enough work to spread around are what matters more for juniors due to the fact that midlevels are more likely to affect this type of thing than partners are. Partners definitely aren't withholding work from juniors the same way midlevels might if it's especially dry and they need the hours.toothbrush wrote:The whole "lock-step compensation permeates the culture" is a fair way to distinguish between a Cleary and a STB imo. Not the only factor, but a legit one imo.WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Ok, cool. I swore I wasn't imagining that coming up in a PW interview.JamMasterJ wrote:My Paul Weiss interviewer was all about the lockstep permeating the ranks. Though I do think things like whether billable hours requirements and enough work to spread around are what matters more for juniors due to the fact that midlevels are more likely to affect this type of thing than partners are. Partners definitely aren't withholding work from juniors the same way midlevels might if it's especially dry and they need the hours.toothbrush wrote:The whole "lock-step compensation permeates the culture" is a fair way to distinguish between a Cleary and a STB imo. Not the only factor, but a legit one imo.WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.
(I am the anon that brought it up above)
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Yeah, but maxed out at 4:1 between a highest full performer and a new partner is still amazingly flat.911 crisis actor wrote:You move up and down the points scale based on performance. http://www.skadden.com/sites/default/fi ... oes_It.pdfAnonymous User wrote:Isn't Skadden essentially lockstep? Each year point are adjusted with the largest factor impacting adjustment being level of partnership seniority. From their materials, it seems like the ~3:1 spread correlates nearly exactly with seniority.
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Yeah. It's been a really good way to distinguish why you're interested in certain firms and lockstep partners tend to really like it when you talk about it.First Offense wrote:I've actually had this come up in a few screeners (how compensation structure influences firm culture), and being able to speak coherently about it while kind of complimenting the firm on the fact has led to cbs at each place it came up so far.Anonymous User wrote:Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden. Generally, the "old guard" with the whitest-shoe history are all lockstep, and everyone else is not. Cravath, DPW and Debevoise are "pure" lockstep, but the "modified" lockstep used by STB, Cleary and a few others is basically the same, just the partners in support groups and stuff like T&E get paid slightly less.toothbrush wrote:The whole "lock-step compensation permeates the culture" is a fair way to distinguish between a Cleary and a STB imo. Not the only factor, but a legit one imo.WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.
As an associate, this is a big difference. You notice it interacting with other firms as well. IMO it's one of the most important lifestyle differences even for young associates--but no one thinks about it until they're already at the firm.
-
- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
Lockstep isn't going to last our entire careers.
-
- Posts: 428468
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am
Re: Partner Compensation Structure
So, if it came up in an interview, I would be accurate in classifying Skadden as modified lockstep? (saying this because it is lockstep with room for rewarding merit/seniority by giving extra "points").Anonymous User wrote:
Yeah. It's been a really good way to distinguish why you're interested in certain firms and lockstep partners tend to really like it when you talk about it.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login