Top Law Schools

What are the advantages and disadvantages of this compensation plan? Probably (definitely) a very ignorant question, but say you were required to bill 2200 hours at a lock step firm. Would you make roughly the same amount--in the same field and location obviously--as if you billed 2200 in an eat what you kill firm? I'm just confused why this would be any more appealing than working for a lock step firm that gives you a little more security in salary. I've met a few people who have chosen these types of firms over lock step firms.

Eat what you kill usually means partner compensation. Very few firms are true lockstep. My (2L) view is that whether a firm is lockstep or not should play essentially 0 role in your decision to join a firm. Who cares how partners are paid? Would you rather go to Debevoise (lockstep) than Wachtell (non-lockstep)?

To my knowledge, most firms give lockstep or near-lockstep bonuses to associates when they reach an hours target. Boies is one major outlier. I think Kirkland and Quinn as well, but the gradations are small.

TheColonel wrote:Eat what you kill usually means partner compensation. Very few firms are true lockstep. My (2L) view is that whether a firm is lockstep or not should play essentially 0 role in your decision to join a firm. Who cares how partners are paid? Would you rather go to Debevoise (lockstep) than Wachtell (non-lockstep)?

To my knowledge, most firms give lockstep or near-lockstep bonuses to associates when they reach an hours target. Boies is one major outlier. I think Kirkland and Quinn as well, but the gradations are small.

Lol

Someone earlier talked about biglaw, but I have no indication that OP is talking about biglaw. In the event that OP is talking about the substantial majority of law practice that is something other than biglaw:

My experience is that eat what you kill is worse. Not relatively or subjectively, but objectively. From a logical standpoint, eat what you kill makes total sense. From a realistic standpoint, it creates an office, or offices, where you have basically an amalgam of solo practices awkwardly shoehorned together. At worst, you have blatant competition and backstabbing between partners, and at best you have apathy and guarded self-interest.

I've worked at both types of firms, and the lockstep firm was, in addition to being more profitable, far more collegial and supportive. It was also more selective on making partner, as that's a matter of trust, and partner is truly moving into an ownership role where all partners are sharing the fruits of their labors. My opinion is that a lockstep firm only works if you have the right person in the managing partner role who has very good leadership traits and can keep the peace. Since most firms don't have that, and it "makes sense" too eat what you kill, the latter will be the default, but I'd tend toward a lockstep firm with a good leader, all else being equal.

smallfirmassociate wrote:Someone earlier talked about biglaw, but I have no indication that OP is talking about biglaw. In the event that OP is talking about the substantial majority of law practice that is something other than biglaw:

My experience is that eat what you kill is worse. Not relatively or subjectively, but objectively. From a logical standpoint, eat what you kill makes total sense. From a realistic standpoint, it creates an office, or offices, where you have basically an amalgam of solo practices awkwardly shoehorned together. At worst, you have blatant competition and backstabbing between partners, and at best you have apathy and guarded self-interest.

I've worked at both types of firms, and the lockstep firm was, in addition to being more profitable, far more collegial and supportive. It was also more selective on making partner, as that's a matter of trust, and partner is truly moving into an ownership role where all partners are sharing the fruits of their labors. My opinion is that a lockstep firm only works if you have the right person in the managing partner role who has very good leadership traits and can keep the peace. Since most firms don't have that, and it "makes sense" too eat what you kill, the latter will be the default, but I'd tend toward a lockstep firm with a good leader, all else being equal.

I think this advice holds true as much for biglaw as for smaller law practice, except that even a high-quality managing partner can't really control the big personalities in a big eat-what-you-kill firm. It works okay if there's money just being thrown around everywhere (Wachtell), but that's really only Wachtell. Everywhere else, it creates constant friction between partners and a desire to establish their own fiefdoms, which definitely spills over to associate life in terms of partners viewing certain associates as their "territory", difficulty reaching out for assistance, associates getting caught up internecine struggles, etc. (Those happen sometimes at lockstep and semi-lockstep firms, too, but less often.) It's just not a good environment.

I am more curious about firms other than big law. Specifically 10-25 lawyer firm. I accepted an offer with a small litigation firm with 10-25 lawyers with an EWYK compensation plan. Just to give an idea, they primarily do Employment--Management and Individual, many different types of business litigation including securities fraud, complex contract disputes, etc., and Insurance Defense (and plaintiff if no conflicts).

Basically, I have heard the cons that it creates less collegiality within the workplace, so besides the "it just makes sense to eat what you kill," are there any other benefits as to why a firm would choose to go with an EWYK compensation plan? I guess I should have phrased my question better. I am more interested as to why a firm would choose to go EWYK instead of a equity sharing compensation. Do you tend to make more money relative to the hours you bill? All of the equity partner firms in my area have required billable hours. So its not like its a problem with free loaders, or at least I don't see how that could be that big of a problem... Also, if anyone has personal experience, how is the training atmosphere between partners and associates in these types of firms?

thisismyname wrote:I am more curious about firms other than big law. Specifically 10-25 lawyer firm. I accepted an offer with a small litigation firm with 10-25 lawyers with an EWYK compensation plan. Just to give an idea, they primarily do Employment--Management and Individual, many different types of business litigation including securities fraud, complex contract disputes, etc., and Insurance Defense (and plaintiff if no conflicts).

Basically, I have heard the cons that it creates less collegiality within the workplace, so besides the "it just makes sense to eat what you kill," are there any other benefits as to why a firm would choose to go with an EWYK compensation plan? I guess I should have phrased my question better. I am more interested as to why a firm would choose to go EWYK instead of a equity sharing compensation. Do you tend to make more money relative to the hours you bill? All of the equity partner firms in my area have required billable hours. So its not like its a problem with free loaders, or at least I don't see how that could be that big of a problem... Also, if anyone has personal experience, how is the training atmosphere between partners and associates in these types of firms?

Because the partner that brings in and manages that $1M client doesn't want to share. Take away too much of his profits and he'll just leave and take his client with him.

DF Thread