Freshfields Won't Change Lockstep Model After All
The firm had been considering a performance-based acceleration mechanism, allowing junior partners to jump more quickly up the pay ladder.
July 30, 2020 at 05:40 AM
3 minute read
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has decided against modifying its lockstep to a model that would have seen high-performing junior partners rise the ranks more quickly.
The firm had adjusted its partner compensation model in 2018 in an effort to retain star talent. But it had returned to the issue the following year in the wake of more partner departures.
In an interview with Law.com International in July managing partner Stephan Eilers said the firm is "happy and content" with the 2018 reforms to the lockstep and said: "We are not expecting further changes to our lockstep model."
The decision is likely to be a disappointment to some junior partners at the firm. The proposed "performance-based acceleration mechanism" in the system would have enabled them to double their salary to more than £2 million within just a few years.
One former Freshfields partner said that the firm probably felt it did not need to make further changes because it had already "ripped up the rule book on the lockstep" in 2018 when the firm first modified its system by introducing a gated system and putting top-earning partners into the 'superpoint' category.
The 2018 new single ladder scale enabled top performers to make six times more than those at the bottom, lengthening the points scale from 17.5 to 50, to 12 to 60 and adding in gates, in order to retain star talent. This increased the amount partners could earn at the very top of the lockstep from about £2.2 million to £3 million.
Eilers commented that the gate system "works well".
A London partner at the firm added that these changes have delivered "sufficient flexibility" to the partnership and that there has been no "recent noise" about reforming the model further, particularly as the upcoming management election begins to clarify the firm's ongoing agenda.
However, a London-based partner at a U.S. firm said that firms like Freshfields will continue to lose its younger talent unless changes to remuneration are made, as high performing people will be looking to move for more money.
He noted a source of discontent among junior partners will stem from "partners nearing retirement who basically take their foot off the accelerator".
"It's not that U.S. firms overpay", they said, "it's that they pay the fair amount of money for the work being brought in".
The current London Freshfields partner added that despite these changes not being anticipated currently, it may well pop back up on the radar.
"If you asked us whether we needed to change the model 10 years ago, we probably would have said no then too", they said. "But then 10 years later, we changed the model. Never say never."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBelow-Market Associates Believe They Deserve the Market Compensation. Are They Right?
Associate Bonuses Build 'Morale,' but Does Management Have More Leverage Now?
As Associates Watch for Summer Bonuses, Timing Expectations Pushed Back
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250