Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Law Firm Partnership & Benefits ReportFeaturesLaw Firm ManagementLJN Newsletters

Is Your Firm's Partner Compensation Spread Too Narrow?

By Hugh A. Simons
April 02, 2017

It is fast becoming an imperative for elite firms to widen the range of their partner compensation. Too narrow a range allows competitors with wider ranges to lure away the most commercially successful partners. We saw this in London when the U.S. firms arrived and undid the elite London firms' lockstep models. We are seeing this increasingly in New York, where firms like Kirkland & Ellis, which reportedly moved recently to a ratio of the compensation of their highest- to lowest-compensated partners of 9-1, pose a renewed threat to old-line firms with narrow, 3-1-type ratios.

There are a number of reasons to believe that a compensation range of about 9-1 is consistent with the range in economic contribution of individual partners' practices and is thus the range a firm's compensation must reflect to avoid having its partners be cherry picked by others. One is that 9-1 is consistent with what I've seen at elite professional services firms as a consultant — the rule of thumb I had developed was that newly promoted (and hence lowest-comped) partners earned about one-third of the firm average, while the most commercially productive partners receive three times the firm average — from one-third to three times the firm average is a 9-1 ratio of top to bottom. I should note here, and in what follows, that the ratio I refer to is that between the average compensation of the top and bottom deciles of partners by compensation, and not of the highest- and lowest-compensated individual partners.

This premium content is locked for Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Report 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.