Law Practice Management Asked and Answered Blog

Category: Compensation

Later »

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

Dec 22, 2010

Year End Staff Bonuses and Raises

Question:

Our firm is meeting later this month to discuss year end bonuses and raises for our staff personnel. Due to the economy we did not give raises and bonuses last year. While we have been holding our own with the present economy we have been trying to watch our overhead very closely. However, we want to be fair to our staff and we don't want to lose key employees to our competitors. We are a five attorney firm and have four staff members that have been with us for many years. Do you have any ideas for us?

Response:

Your situation sounds quite familiar. Many law firms deferred raises and bonuses last year and are wondering what to do this year. Here is what we are seeing:

We are recommending to many of our clients that they use 2010 raises and bonuses to launch new performance base systems for 2011. They are awarding traditional raises and holiday bonuses for 2010 to clear-the-deck – and advising staff of new programs going into effect January 1, 2011 consisting of goal achievement bonuses where specific firm and personal goals are established at the beginning of the year for each staff member and annual performance reviews.

Click here for our blog archive on compensation

Click here for articles on other topics

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

Sep 14, 2010

Characteristics of Successful Law Firms – Basic Building Blocks – Block 4 – Partner Compensation

For the past three weeks I have been discussing the characteristics of successful law firms and introduced the following basic building blocks that successful firms typically have in place:

Partner relations, leadership building, and management blocks have been discussed. 

The fourth basic building block is partner compensation. Successful firms have a good partner compensation in place. Partners frequently advise us in confidential interviews that they are more dissatisfied with the method used to determine compensation than with the amount of compensation itself.

How much and how partners are paid are probably the two most challenging management issues that law firms face. Many law firms are struggling with compensation systems that no longer meet the needs of the firm and the individual partners. Failure to explore alternatives to failing systems often result in partner dissatisfaction leading to partner defections and disintegration of the firm.

In many law firms compensation systems have been counter-cultural and failed to align compensation systems with business strategies. As more law firms move toward teams many are incorporating new ways to compensate partners in order to develop a more motivated and productive workforce. Team goals are being linked to business plans and compensation is linked to achieving team goals. Such systems reinforce a culture that significantly advances the firm’s strategic goals.

People tend to behave the way they're measured and paid.

What gets measured and rewarded – is what gets done.

However, be advised that compensation does not drive behavior – it maintains status quo. Motivation requires leadership which can have a greater impact upon a firm than anything else.

Compensation systems should do more than simply allocate the pie – they should reinforce the behaviors and efforts that the firm seeks from its attorneys. Many firms are discovering that desired behaviors and results must go beyond short term fee production and must include contributions in areas such as marketing, mentoring, firm management, etc. to ensure the long term viability of the firm.

Click here to read my article on the topic

I will address each of the other building blocks in upcoming postings.

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
www.olmsteadassoc.com

 

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

    Jul 16, 2010

    Law Firm Eat What You Kill Partner Compensation Systems

    Question:

    We are current using an “eat what you kill” compensation system in our firm. Is this appropriate method for our firm to use?

    Response:

     It depends. You must ask yourself what kind of firm you want to be – team-based firm or group of space sharers or partnership of individual firms. Such systems are not appropriate for law firms that want to build a firm and create a team-based practice since such compensation systems typically reinforce “lone ranger” behavior resulting in a “me first vs firm first” orientation. It is hard to build a team-based firm with such an orientation. However, some firms do not want to practice as team-based firms – they want to practice as groups of individuals. For these firms such a system may be appropriate. The challenge will be to nail down a method of allocation revenue and overhead that is fair and equitable to all members concerned. Compensation systems should do more than simply allocate the pie – they should reinforce the behaviors and efforts that the firm seeks from its attorneys. Many firms are discovering that desired behaviors and results must go beyond short term fee production and must include contributions in areas such as marketing, mentoring, firm management, etc. to ensure the long term viability of the firm. Eat-what-you-kill systems discourage these behaviors.

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

    Aug 26, 2009

    Should Time Spent Managing the Firm Count in Partner Compensation Systems

    Question: I am one of the founding partners in a 25 attorney law firm in the northeast. We have three equity partners, six non-equity partners and sixteen associates working in the firm. We focus totally on litigation. Each of us three equity partners have equal ownership percentages and since day one (20 years) have divided firm profits equally along those lines (1/3, 1/3, 1/3). We each put in the same amount of effort and work – but since I am managing partner – my fee collections are much lower than those of the other two equity partners and I am concerned that they may feel that I am not carrying my weight since my fee collections are lower. How should this be handled in our compensation system?

    Response:

    This is a common question that we hear often. It sounds like you are still allocating income in the same manner that you did when the firm first started. Often when a firm grows the partner compensation system needs to be reexamined when and if partner roles or contributions change. As the firm has grown I suspect that your time spent on management activities has grown as well. I, as well as many other legal management consultants, believe that firm management (running the business) is as important as generating client fees and should be so considered in partner compensation systems.

    We have numerous law firm clients where at least one or more of the equity partners "run the business" and do not provide billable client services at all.

    Management time should not be used as a non-billable time category (excuse) to simply "dump" time. Your partners have a right to expect results that improves the bottom line and the size of the pie for all.

    Here are a few suggestions:

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

    May 14, 2009

    Two Attorney Compensaton System

    Question:

    Our firm has been getting by for 18 months since start-up.  We are starting to get some repeat business and I think we on our way.  However, my partner looked at the numbers for 2008 and realized that she made about a third more money last year, both in terms of actual dollars for her work and in terms of origination. Our actual hours were roughly even, but there might have been some slighter disparity.  Now were are having that first talk about changing from the straight 50-50 split to the perhaps the other extreme of "each woman for herself" (after jointly paying basic expenses).  What are your suggestions?

    Response:

    I have reviewed your comments. In small firms the best systems are those that are simple, easy to understand, and easy to implement. Often two partners start out on a 50%-50% arrangement and the arrangement eventually has to be changed when and if their situations change that has a major impact upon their overall contributions to the firm. (Notice I used the word contributions – not necessarily – fees collected).

    However, until level of contributions change – I have often seen 50% arrangements work well in small firms that are looking to build a Firm – rather than simply their own practice and earn as much money as they can for themselves. When level of contributions change – in a healthy partner culture – the partners will be able to talk to each other and sit down and discuss an alternative arrangement that makes sense for them.

    I encourage firms to look beyond single year timeframes – typically 3-5 year cycles. Sometimes in healthy firm cultures one partner may need to carry the other partner for awhile. For example, an attorney with a PI plaintiff practice may have wide swings and may need to be carried in lean times – but when the big fee comes in both share in the benefits. In other situations billing cycles mandated by clients, etc. can impact timing of collections. In your firm – it may be a little early yet to have a true picture concerning contribution. Sounds like you are both putting in about the same time investment in the firm and commitment even though one's numbers are higher. Is one of you managing the firm or doing other activities that still benefits the firm?

    You must ask yourselves what kind of firm you want to be – team-based firm or group of space sharers or partnership of individual firms. Eat-what-you kill compensation systems are not appropriate for law firms that want to build a firm and create a team-based practice since such compensation systems typically reinforce "lone ranger" behavior resulting in a "me first vs firm first" orientation. It is hard to build a team-based firm with such an orientation. However, some firms do not want to practice as team-based firms – they want to practice as groups of individuals. For these firms such a system may be appropriate.

    The challenge will be to nail down a method of allocation revenue and overhead that is fair and equitable to both of you. Compensation systems should do more than simply allocate the pie – they should reinforce the behaviors and efforts that the firm seeks from its attorneys. Many firms are discovering that desired behaviors and results must go beyond short term fee production and must include contributions in areas such as marketing, mentoring, firm management, etc. to ensure the long term viability of the firm. Eat-what-you-kill systems discourage these behaviors.

    In the long term the highly successful law firms will be those that are team based that where the partners look beyond their own self interests and have a "firm first" attitude.

    I think you need to have an open exchange about what kind of firm you want to build and the commitments each of you are willing to make to achieve that. You need to decide what you consider to be contribution and value to the firm – fees generated, fees originated, primary attorney fees, marketing, firm management, etc. If those commitments are in general alignment – they maybe you should stay on the 50-50 split for awhile longer. Another option would be to stay on the same split – but create a special bonus pool – say 25% of income that could be allocated on a discretionary basic for unusual accomplishments, etc. Of course you would have to agree on who gets how much. Another option would be to have a base draw and then either a formula or discretionary bonus pool for distribution of the excess.

    The general trend in compensation systems in larger firms is toward more subjective based system rather than formula. However, many smaller firms do still use objective or formula based systems.

     

    I hope this helps.

     

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

    Jan 10, 2008

    How Can We Determine If Our Law Firm Partner Compensation System Is Working

    Question: Do you have any suggestions concerning how we can determine if our compensation system is functioning properly?

    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.

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

    Jan 27, 2001

    Leadership and Accountability in Law FIrms

    Question:

    What do you see as the primary management problems in law firms?

    Response:

    We are frequently asked to assist law firms in areas such as management reviews, marketing, compensation, and strategic planning. However, these are often symptoms of another problem – leadership, trust, and accountability. Frequently we find that unless proper leadership is in place we are all wasting time on attempting to treat the symptoms. Without sound firm leadership at the partner level other initatives are never able to get off the ground. Law firm leadership is the top challenge facing the profession today.

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

    Archives

    Categories

      Subscribe to our Blog