Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Linking Partner Pay to Strategic Firm Objectives
Pay for performance is not a new concept in this country. The ideas and concepts underlying a graduated pay scale based on contribution and merit are deeply ingrained in our society and date back at least to Adam Smith and the Scottish Renaissance. And despite some recent, spectacular aberrations at the top of some of America's largest corporations pay for performance in the corporate setting has served this country well.
However, in general law firms have been slower to adopt pay for performance systems. There were many reasons for this. First and foremost, the law was thought of as "A Profession" not a job and partner compensation reflected not only the work that one did but a return on invested capital and the number of years an individual had been at the firm. It was not unusual for old law firm lock step pay systems to increase compensation as a partner aged (and presumably had additional financial responsibilities brought on by a family) peak in the mid-fifties and then decline (as the financial obligations of colleges and marriages decreased) through the partners later years.
Those lock step systems gradually gave way to the "Scorecard" pay systems that predominate in law firms to this day. In these systems, objectives were set for each partner in a number of quantifiable areas such as originations, recorded billable hours and billed fees. These systems, which may have served law firms in the past, do not provide a law firm's management with the proper tools to incent partner behavior into those activities that will help a firm achieve its strategic objectives. Indeed, some of these systems are so heavily weighted to the wrong compensable factors that they actually hinder a firm's ability to succeed.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- 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
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?