Top Law Schools

As the title - are there very few firms who have this? Obviously Cravath does, but who else?

Paul Weiss is like 98 percent lockstep

Debevoise, Cravath

http://abovethelaw.com/2012/09/biglaw-i ... benjamins/ more here..

Not OP. I'm trying to decide which firm I should work for based on whether partner's comp is lockstep.

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP. I'm trying to decide which firm I should work for based on whether partner's comp is lockstep.

You are joking, right?

Cravath, Cleary, Debevoise. I believe there's one more.

RaceJudicata wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP. I'm trying to decide which firm I should work for based on whether partner's comp is lockstep.

You are joking, right?

Of all the possible reasons to choose a firm, this seems to be a pretty good one.

SLS_AMG wrote:Cravath, Cleary, Debevoise. I believe there's one more.

I thought DPW, STB and Skadden were too. Although, I think I heard that maybe STB modified theirs a couple years ago because Kirkland was poaching some of their younger partners.

ETA: This is notgreat. That was an accidental anon.

Are Covington lockstep? Thought I read that somewhere

DPW is lockstep. Also correct on STB because of partners heading elsewhere for compensation-related reasons

Anonymous User wrote:

SLS_AMG wrote:Cravath, Cleary, Debevoise. I believe there's one more.

I thought DPW, STB and Skadden were too. Although, I think I heard that maybe STB modified theirs a couple years ago because Kirkland was poaching some of their younger partners.

ETA: This is notgreat. That was an accidental anon.

Skadden is not lockstep. STB hasn't been pure lockstep for at least a decade and I think it's a safe assumption that this is the more common model (obviously not inconsistent that they've further loosened the system recently.).

SLS_AMG wrote:Cravath, Cleary, Debevoise. I believe there's one more.

I'm quite, but not 100%, sure that WLRK is pure lockstep.

Anonymous User wrote:Are Covington lockstep? Thought I read that somewhere

Pretty sure Cov is black box rather than lockstep.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Are Covington lockstep? Thought I read that somewhere

Pretty sure Cov is black box rather than lockstep.

When I interviewed there as a lateral, one of their selling points was that all partners pretty much made the same so that there was no competition and everyone works together.

lawlorbust wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

SLS_AMG wrote:Cravath, Cleary, Debevoise. I believe there's one more.

I thought DPW, STB and Skadden were too. Although, I think I heard that maybe STB modified theirs a couple years ago because Kirkland was poaching some of their younger partners.

ETA: This is notgreat. That was an accidental anon.

Skadden is not lockstep. STB hasn't been pure lockstep for at least a decade and I think it's a safe assumption that this is the more common model (obviously not inconsistent that they've further loosened the system recently.).

SLS_AMG wrote:Cravath, Cleary, Debevoise. I believe there's one more.

I'm quite, but not 100%, sure that WLRK is pure lockstep.

Ok, I was pretty sure Skadden was lockstep, but haven't paid attention recently. Wachtell isn't pure lockstep. It's like PW. Most of the partners are on lockstep, with a few of the senior people/rainmakers getting paid more.

Mr. Fancy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Are Covington lockstep? Thought I read that somewhere

Pretty sure Cov is black box rather than lockstep.

When I interviewed there as a lateral, one of their selling points was that all partners pretty much made the same so that there was no competition and everyone works together.

From what I gathered, it's black box but most people in a similar year range are close enough to not make it a pissing match.

Anonymous User wrote:

Mr. Fancy wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Are Covington lockstep? Thought I read that somewhere

Pretty sure Cov is black box rather than lockstep.

When I interviewed there as a lateral, one of their selling points was that all partners pretty much made the same so that there was no competition and everyone works together.

From what I gathered, it's black box but most people in a similar year range are close enough to not make it a pissing match.

(Anon from before who stated Cov is blackbox.) I have the same impression impression from the summer program last year. That said, I'm sure folks like Lanny Breuer and Eric Holder and other rainmakers (like in IP lit) are significantly better off than other partners. But given Cov's PPP, money isn't the reason why people stick around. It isn't often that you hear about Covington partners being poached (at least in DC), and they really emphasize the culture and sharing work among partners because there's at least less incentive to hoard work. But that said, my recollection is 99% that partner comp is blackbox—though it's clear that whatever is in that box, it's not just eat-what-you-kill in disguise.

Had a buddy whose Dad was a partner at STB; he said it was lockstep except you got bonus comp for being practice group head, serving on firm committees, etc. This was a few years ago though, so maybe they've changed stuff up given losses of partners to K&E etc.

lawlorbust wrote:

RaceJudicata wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not OP. I'm trying to decide which firm I should work for based on whether partner's comp is lockstep.

You are joking, right?

Of all the possible reasons to choose a firm, this seems to be a pretty good one.

At most (or all) of these firms, chances at partnership are vanishingly small. Why does partner comp matter to you?

This is absolutely a good reason to choose a firm. In fact, the low chances of partnership at a firm make this factor more important, because arguably lockstep compensation is bad for some partners, some of the time, but it is an unqualified good for associates. Lockstep partnership means a much more pleasant work environment, as the most greedy and shitty partners tend to self select for other places.