Top Law Schools

Deciding between between two firms and one has lockstep comp for partners and the other doesn't. Does this really make a difference for associates? If so, how exactly? Thanks in advance.

Sounds to me like you're putting the cart wayyyy before the horse. Pick based on which you think you'd enjoy more, because if you hate it there you won't make it to partner anyway and your question becomes moot. Also, you could easily end up lateraling at any time.

Eh, I've worked at lockstep and non-lockstep firms. I will say that in general the lockstep firms tend to have more collegial partner relations because the partners are not separated into stars and service partners as much (even though that happens at both places).

I would co-sign what the above poster said and tell you that this does not matter much from an associate perspective other than that you have to be fine with running your own race, and getting paid the same as the kid in the office next to you, regardless of which of you works harder. That's it.

OP: I'm not asking with the thought of how it would effect me if I became partner. When you do cbs and 2nd looks at lockstep firms they always sell it by saying it makes associate life easier and better. I'm just wondering if that's actually true.

OP: can anyone speak to associate life at lockstep v. non lockstep? I understand it's a flawed concept and I am not asking with thought of becoming partner. Just want to know if it has any actual impact on associates.

Anonymous User wrote:OP: can anyone speak to associate life at lockstep v. non lockstep? I understand it's a flawed concept and I am not asking with thought of becoming partner. Just want to know if it has any actual impact on associates.

It's unlikely that many people here have worked at both such that they could give you a comparison. I do recall hearing the pitch from lockstep firms that it has a positive effect and I think there's probably some truth there. But the specific people you end up working for is what really determes whether your associate life is easier/better, and there are great partners and meanies at both types of firm.

Anonymous User wrote:OP: can anyone speak to associate life at lockstep v. non lockstep? I understand it's a flawed concept and I am not asking with thought of becoming partner. Just want to know if it has any actual impact on associates.

Someone did tell you...above.

1) Partners tend to be more collegial.

2) It doesn't much affect associates.


I'm not sure what deep gotcha answer you're looking for, but it really doesn't matter. Cravath, WSGR...there aren't many lockstep firms anymore.











0

I think it matters. I think there's less pressure to bill for billing's sake when how many hours you work on Partner X's matter does not impact how much Partner X takes home at the end of the year. You're still going to work hard, but there's a pretty big difference in QoL between 2000 and 2700 hours. It also kind of has the effect of neutralizing would be gunners. At eat-what-you-kill firms, a great way, if not the best way, to ingratiate yourself with powerful partners is to kill yourself on their matters and make them a pile of money. That directly feeds into the arms race between associates to bill as many hours as is possible. And that kind of work to death attitude is pretty obviously fostered in a lot of law firms that have directional bonuses, tiered hour targets, etc. I don't think you'll ever see that at partnership lockstep firms. And while billing a ton of hours might still get you noticed at those lockstep firms, I don't think it's automatically good attention and I don't think it's anywhere near as likely to engender the same kind of relationship where individual partners tacitly trade their kingmaking sway for 7-8 years of an associate's life being worked to death.

You're still going to have hours gunners everywhere you go, because there are always people who will internally equate quality with quantity, but from what I've seen at my lockstep firm, billing 2700+ hours is not at all viewed as being "the path to partnership" or, even worse, "normal," as I hear it is at some places, but rather it's viewed as being the product of a workaholic associate or someone who got fucked with a series of bad deals / had a trial coincide with another unusually active matter.

Also, though I can't really explain this, I have noticed that when I work opposite certain firms that are notoriously on the other end of the spectrum from lockstep (e.g., Kirkland), for whatever reason their associate teams seem to be 4-5x the size of ours for no apparent reason. I don't really know what that's about, but maybe it means less responsibility / good work as a junior if every midlevel is taking on every assignment they can their hands on to keep their hours up? Again, this is just total speculation as to how work gets distributed over there, but I really have no idea why the hell they need 10 associates to do what 2 do at my firm.

RedGiant wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:OP: can anyone speak to associate life at lockstep v. non lockstep? I understand it's a flawed concept and I am not asking with thought of becoming partner. Just want to know if it has any actual impact on associates.

Someone did tell you...above.

1) Partners tend to be more collegial.

2) It doesn't much affect associates.


I'm not sure what deep gotcha answer you're looking for, but it really doesn't matter. Cravath, WSGR...there aren't many lockstep firms anymore.

WSGR isn't lockstep fyi