Top Law Schools

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.

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.

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.

..

Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.

..

WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.

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.

toothbrush wrote:

WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous User wrote: Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden.

whoops. I could have sworn stb was modified and not pure. Take Skadden then or something to make the point-sorry.

Can we list the lockstep then? I thought it with Cravath, DPW, Cleary, Debevoise. Which others are lockstep?

toothbrush wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden.

whoops. I could have sworn stb was modified and not pure. Take Skadden then or something to make the point-sorry.

Can we list the lockstep then? I thought it with Cravath, DPW, Cleary, Debevoise. Which others are lockstep?

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.)

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.

toothbrush wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Cleary and STB are both lockstep. You might be thinking of Kirkland or Skadden.

whoops. I could have sworn stb was modified and not pure. Take Skadden then or something to make the point-sorry.

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?

Legit source:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/ ... blogs&_r=0

AP-375 wrote:Legit source:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/ ... blogs&_r=0

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.

Truthfully idk.

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.

Simpson's modified lockstep is pretty much lockstep. The modification is you get extra pay for serving on committees. That's the "modification."

Anonymous User wrote:

toothbrush wrote:

WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.

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.

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.

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.

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.

WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.

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.

AP-375 wrote:Legit source:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/ ... blogs&_r=0

Thank you, good article.

Anonymous 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.

You move up and down the points scale based on performance. http://www.skadden.com/sites/default/fi ... oes_It.pdf

toothbrush wrote:

WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.

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.

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.

JamMasterJ wrote:

toothbrush wrote:

WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.

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.

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.

Ok, cool. I swore I wasn't imagining that coming up in a PW interview.


(I am the anon that brought it up above)

911 crisis actor wrote:

Anonymous 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.

You move up and down the points scale based on performance. http://www.skadden.com/sites/default/fi ... oes_It.pdf

Yeah, but maxed out at 4:1 between a highest full performer and a new partner is still amazingly flat.

First Offense wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

toothbrush wrote:

WHJTMG178 wrote:Still an absurd way to choose a firm as an entry level or junior.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Lockstep isn't going to last our entire careers.

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.

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").