Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Accounting and Financial Planning for Law FirmsKickerFeaturesTopicsLaw Firm ManagementSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Firms Hunting for Stars Re-examine Partner Compensation

By Andrew Longstreth
May 31, 2007

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP managing partner Mark Walker is old school when it comes to partner compensation. He sees no reason to change Cleary's seniority-based lockstep scheme, in which the spread between the highest- and lowest-paid partner is less than 3:1. It's a no-hassle system ' no long meetings explaining bonus decisions and no disputes among partners over credit for bringing in business. And it is the foundation of Cleary's culture, Walker says, which emphasizes the collective over the individual. If the firm is not a magnet for hot lateral candidates who want to be paid like A-Rod, that's okay with Walker. 'My view is that if someone says I'm not going to Cleary Gottlieb because [another firm] is guaranteeing me a salary of X, then they don't belong at our firm anyway.'

That's a common sentiment among the most profitable firms in The Am Law 100, where old-fashioned compensation systems remain firmly in place. Leaders of firms such as Debevoise & Plimpton LLP; Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP; and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP say they don't see a need to adjust their pay scales to accommodate star partners. With profits so high at those firms, even low spreads ' frequently less than 4:1 ' give few partners reason to complain. 'We look at ourselves all the time,' says Evan Chesler, presiding partner of Cravath, a firm with a spread of 3:1 (and profits per partner of $3 million in 2006). 'There's not been any serious consideration to change our lockstep system.'

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.