Law Practice Management Asked and Answered Blog

Category: Law firm partner compensation

Oct 01, 2013

Law Firm Partner Compensation – Origination Credit in a Two Partner Firm

Question:

Our firm is a 8 attorney firm in Fort Worth, Texas. We have two partners – myself and my partner. Our approach to compensation has been based upon our ownership interest percentages which have been adjusted over time based upon working attorney (personal) collections. We have been discussing implementing a formula using working attorney collections and also bringing client origination credit into the equation has well – weighing each equally. Our ownership percentages would be adjusted based upon the fee credit ratio between the two of us. I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

Response:

My first thought is whether you are trying to build a firm-first firm or a group of separate practitioners. How will you incorporate other factors such as firm management, business development, mentoring and training associates, etc? If both of you are making roughly equal contributions in these areas your approach might have merit but be careful that you do not head down the path of separate practices – and become a lone ranger firm. My other concern is with client origination – this often gets tricky. With only two partners you don't have anyone to serve in the capacity of attribution police when and if there are disagreements as to origination credit. (attribution committee) So you will have to be able to discuss this subject openly and hopefully upfront. Share origination credit when appropriate, allocate to firm when it appears that a client came to the firm based upon firm brand or name recognition, and consider a 5 year sunset provision whereby the credit reverts to firm or responsible attorneys.

Click here for our blog on compensation

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Oct 23, 2012

Redesigning a Law Firm Compensation System – 8 Attorney Firm – 4th Year of Practice

Question:

We are an 8 attorney law firm in Evansville, Indiana. We have five members and three associates. We started our firm four years ago. Each member has an equal share for both ownership and compensation purposes. We cut the pie equally. After four years some of the members feel that the equal sharing approach is no longer working and we need to consider a different approach to compensation. I would appreciate your thoughts on how we might get started on modifying our approach.

Response:

Virtually all successful compensation systems feature two common qualities that are linked to
each other and stand the test of time.

First, a successful system must be fair and be perceived as fair by the partners who
are  essential to the firm’s economic success and reputation.  The perception of fairness is critical.  To determine if a system is fair, partners can ask the following questions:

  1. Do  I understand the system?
  2. Does the system recognize what individuals contribute to the organization?
  3. Are the rules clear?
  4. Are the rules followed and applied in a consistent manner from person to person from year to year?
  5. Are the compensators individuals who are trusted and respected?               

A second quality of successful compensation systems is that of simplicity.  Research has shown that there is a direct correlation between the simplicity of compensation systems and the degree to
which partner understand how their compensation is determined.

The challenge is structuring a compensation system for a law firm is in selecting the best mix of appropriate compensable criteria and the right amount of participation that is consistent with the firm’s needs and its culture. 

Before you go very far you should address what type of firm you are trying to build – Lone Ranger (a group of individual practitioners) or firm-first (a team-based firm). In other words "are we in this together." The answer to this question will provide a clue as to whether eat-what-you kill or other approaches to compensation will be appropriate.

Changing your compensation system is difficult and should be approached carefully and thoughtfully.

Click here for our blog on compensation

Click here for our articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

Apr 25, 2012

Law Firm Partner Compensation – Why Change If We Are Happy

Question:

I am a partner in a 16 attorney firm in Memphis. Our firm has had the same partner compensation system for 20 years and we are generally happy with it. It is an eat-what-you-kill system. Since we are generally happy why should we consider changing it?

Response:

You can start with the following firm – self-test. Has the firm experienced or is it experiencing:

If your firm is experiencing or has experienced the above symptoms, it is time to really examine where the firm is headed and what messages your compensation is sending out to your partners. Is the firm trying to be a firm or merely a group of lone rangers? Even though your partners are content your compensation system may be holding the firm back from becoming all that it desires to be. Contentment may not be the best measure of success.

Click here for our blog on compensation

Click here for our published articles

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Mar 15, 2011

Does Law Firm Partner Compensation Make a Difference in Motivation and Actual Performance

Question:

We are a 21 attorney firm in San Francisco. Recently we have been considering overhauling our partner compensation in order to foster leadership and more of a team environment. Currently many of our partners are operating and functioning as if they are in separate law firms rather than part of a firm. What are your thoughts?

Response:

With thinner profit margins firms can no longer carry unproductive partners. Law firms are demanding more from their partners and asking everyone to think outside the box to help the firm innovate for the future and obtain/retain a competitive advantage.

This has renewed discussion and debate on the topic of partner compensation and in particular whether compensation can make a difference in motivation, actual performance, and contribution.

We are receiving many more inquiries from firms looking to overhaul and redesign their partner compensation systems. Based upon these inquiries we believe that many firms are expecting miracles from their compensation systems and are asking and expecting more than they will ever be able to accomplish. They are not just seeking to align pay with performance – but have far higher expectations. For example:

Expecting a compensation system to perform miracles such as these may be expecting more than any system can deliver.

Compensation does not drive behavior – it maintains the status quo. It serves as a reinforcing agent. Motivation requires leadership which can have a greater impact upon a firm than anything else.

An effective compensation system serves as a strong messaging and reinforcement agent that helps you obtain and retain top partner talent and helps align their goals and activities with the strategies and goals of the firm.

A well designed compensation system should provide:

While you must get partner compensation right in order to acquire and retain top partner talent as well as reward performance and reinforce desired behaviors, the starting point is hiring and retaining the right people to begin with. Jim Collins in his book Good to Great sums it up well with the following comment: “get the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats. People are not your most important asset. The right people are.”

“Your compensation system should not be designed to get the right behaviors from the wrong people, but to get the right people on the bus in the first place, and to keep them there. Your compensation system should support that effort.

I believe that the following three pronged approach is needed to strategically manage and motivate partner talent in your firm:

  1. Get Maverick and Unproductive Partners off the Bus (Deal with Problem Partners)
  2. Get the Right People on the Bus and in the Right Seats (Hire Right and Retain)
  3. Insure that the Partner Compensation is Reinforcing the Right Behaviors, Rewarding the Right People and Keeping the Right People on the Bus

Click here for our blog on compensation

 

Click here for our published articles

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Nov 28, 2010

Partner Compensation Metrics – What Is Important – What Matters

Question:

I am the managing partner of a 14 attorney law firm located in Nashville, Tennessee. We have 8 equity partners. The firm represents business and other institutional clients and handles transactional work as well as litigation. Each partner over the years has accumulated "partnership interest" percentages and these interests are used totally to determine annual compensation as well as ownership in the firm. The only numbers that matter in our firm are billable hours – not dollars and billable hour reports are all that we have ever looked at when reviewing associate performance or partner contribution. We are now beginning to question the wisdom of this approach and we should be considering more than hours?

Response:

Billable hours alone is a poor indicator of associate or partner performance and you should include more measures/metrics in the analysis. More and more law firms today realize that partner contribution and value goes beyond and involves much more than “billable hours” and their compensation systems incorporate other factors into the analysis. Billable hours is just one metric in the overall equation. Many law firms focus on various measures of revenue dollars – fees billed, fees collected, etc. The next question is what kind of fee dollars – working attorney, responsible (managing) attorney, or originating attorney. Fees collected by working attorney seems to be the primary focus of smaller law firms. Origination (attorney that brought in the client) attorney fees collected is often part of the mix as well. Very seldom do we see responsible attorney fees collected considered. We believe that more firms need to include this measure as well.

As attorneys evolve from associates to partners – roles and responsibilities changes and so must the scorecard. If you want partners to build teams, delegate, and leverage the work of others – working attorney fees collected used by itself no longer makes sense. A measure of matter and team management is needed as well as a measure of individual production.

A focus totally on billable hours or working attorney fee collections places little, if any, emphasis on client origination, responsibility for matter management, or any other factors such a mentoring, associate management and training, marketing, and firm management which are critical to the long-term success of the firm.

Click here for articles on other topics

Click here for our blog posts on compensation

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Aug 17, 2010

Law Firm Partner Compensation – Should We Change Our System

  • Question: 

    • We are a three attorney law partnership that does primarily business transactional work. My partner and I have been in practice together for four years. We are equal partners (50% each) as far as our partnership interests and we use these same interests for determining partner compensation. In other words we receive the same compensation. We recently have been discussing whether we should look into a different method for determining partner compensation. Currently we produce about the same level of fee revenue. What are your thoughts?

    Response:

    I could write a whole book on compensation systems – but here are a few thoughts:

    1. Over the past 30+ years I have seen just about every form of compensation system that there is – from "even steven" systems such as yours to "eat-what-you-kill", other formula systems, profit center systems, objective systems, etc. No particular system is better than another system. It depends upon the firm – the culture – strategic goals – and the environment.
    2. If the system is working – sometimes it is better to leave it alone. There is nothing wrong with an "even steven" system as long as the contributions (fee generation, fee origination, firm management, and otherwise) made by both of you to the firm are perceived as equal. Frequently, partners start out making even contributions and down the road contributions change (often due to life or family changes) and are no longer in alignment.
    3. When perceived contributions get out of alignment partners are reluctant to have the candid discussions that need to occur as well as changes in the arrangement or compensation system. It could be the system – percentage interest is fine – but as contributions have changed the percentages need to change.
    4. Resist the temptation to look at financial contributions in a single year. Look longer term – say the past three years.
    5. Consider not just the compensation as to whether people are happy with what they are getting – but consider whether the system in encouraging the behaviors that you need to achieve firm goals? For example – management of the firm, marketing activities, mentoring and training associates and others in the firm, etc. Often we discover that firms that are not realizing their strategic goals (those firms that have such goals) – for example growth – are victims of their compensation systems. The systems are motivating "lone range behaviors" rather than firm strategic goals. Often this is the primary reason that firms decide to change their system – to transition from "long ranger" to "firm-first" team-based firms.
    6. Consider bonus pools and other methods of supplementing the base system.
    7. Start slow.

    John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

    Archives

    Categories

      Subscribe to our Blog