A New View on Compensation....continued
By Danice Kowalczyk, Managing Partner, Laurence Simons, North America
Danice Kowalczyk launched Laurence Simons’ New York office in 2010 and is the Managing Partner for North America. Prior to Danice joining Laurence Simons, she gained a solid foundation as an attorney with White & Case, as well as serving as Managing Director for a top legal recruiting firm in the US.
[To read Part A, click here]
Part B - Partner & Associate Compensation
Compensation discussions at the partner level within law firms have taken a similar spin as at the in-house level. Very often, we start talking finances before a partner even gets in the door. This is new. Previously, we would start with the resume, perhaps coffee between the partner moving and the partnership team hiring at a given firm, a follow up meeting, a hiring committee meeting, and the offer stage -- where compensation is discussed and financials are reviewed. It is now the exact opposite. Before a partner even gets past a new firm's threshold, that firm will want to see financials -- very often referred to as "historicals."
These historicals represent the partner's performance in terms of business development over the last three to five years. So, we are looking at client names, client numbers, the type of business brought in, the partner or team working on it, and the full logistical breakdown of that partner's given practice. For many partners, this feels intrusive and, in some regards, it is. However, firms are not entertaining partner interviews unless they feel they have a partner in front of them with a solid book of business and, likewise, a partner whom they feel warrants a significant compensation package. Once historicals are reviewed and the firm is satisfied, and the general manner in which such firm pays its partners is acceptable to the candidate, then we move to the interview stage.
Successful partner candidates know this, and they come with their financials as soon as they walk in my door. They also come with an open-mind as to what type of compensation package will suit them. Some partners love eat-what-you-killl; some hate it. Some find such an arrangement energising; others find it belittling. Likewise, some partners prefer to work under a scheme with multiple percentage breakdowns on top of a base compensation; others want a more simplistic scheme.
Whatever the goal, the most successful partner candidates come prepared with their financials, and they are clear about what motivates them in terms of a compensation scheme. More so, they are eager to get through the financial discussions right from the get go so that they can move on to the interview setting. This approach saves candidates' time, and it also saves firms' time because we clear two major hurdles immediately. Again, successful partner candidates know that compensation discussions and related dialogue as to portables must be addressed at the gate. They want it that way, and so do the firms, and both sides win when this clarity is at hand.
What about associates? Do they have a say in this discussion since they are, very often, much more junior to the above individuals? If you are an associate with a lockstep firm, you are obviously locked in to a given compensation bracket. Hence, the utility of the discussion above is limited for now until you move up in the ranks and age out of lockstep or move on to an in-house or non-lockstep firm role. However, if you are an associate in a non-lockstep firm, the overriding rule remains true: the market will dictate your value today at a base level.
If you think you are worth more, be clear about why. Your defense cannot be based purely on experience or years. Instead, you need to be thinking about what you are bringing to the firm today. How do you add immediate value or future value. Think in terms of numbers and pretend you are running a business. If you owned a business in today's economy, and you had a set budget in front of you, would YOU hire YOU? If so, what would YOU be worth? Step outside of yourself when having this discussion so you can see things clearly and approach the compensation discussion from that vantage point. Don't be afraid of these conversations at non-lockstep firms. Having a keen opinion as to your worth, as dictated by a clear eye on what the market dictates for someone like you, will result in the right type of compensation discussion today -- and one that you needn't fear.
As for associates going from a law firm to in-house, the discussion had in Part A of this blog dialogue is applicable. Follow the same rules but keep in mind that if you are coming from a Big Firm, your pay is likely higher now than it will be in-house (not always, but most of the time). So, prepare yourself for a pay cut and make sure it makes sense for you. If you can't convince yourself, you won't convince a new employer.
In summary, successful candidates know that compensation discussions at the get-go are critical in today's market and how you handle them can streamline your path to success or create a further hurdle. It's a numbers game -- now so more than ever. Be aware of this fact, embrace it, and take control of your future opportunities.
[To read Secrets of Successful Lawyers Part I, click here]
Got a question for Danice? Would like to share your thoughts on the subject? Feel free to leave your queries and comments below
To view the latest legal opportunities near you,search and apply on TotallyLegal











