Long Live the Lockstep

For decades, major law firms in London, New York and other global centres have relied on the traditional lockstep partnership model.

Under this structure, financial remuneration increases with seniority. An equity partner with twenty years at the firm earns more than one with ten, and both earn more than a newly promoted partner. The system is straightforward and historically dominant across the profession.

Lockstep typically applies to equity partners, who buy into the firm and draw their income directly from its profits.

Although equity partners are not shareholders in the corporate sense, the analogy is often used to explain how their fortunes rise and fall with the collective success of the organisation. Many firms also apply modified seniority‑based scales to junior lawyers.

The defining feature of lockstep is that income is not tied to individual performance. A partner’s earnings do not depend on how much revenue they personally generate.

For many years, lockstep was widely accepted and rarely challenged. However, the legal market has evolved, competition has intensified, and alternative models have gained traction.

The weaknesses of lockstep have become more visible, prompting firms to reconsider how they reward partners.

This article examines the strengths of lockstep, contrasts it with performance‑based alternatives, and explains why these differences matter for lawyers at every stage, including prospective trainees.

The Lockstep Model

Lockstep offers several well‑established advantages.

Partners are not direct competitors. Their income depends entirely on the firm’s overall performance. When the firm thrives, everyone benefits. When it struggles, everyone feels the impact.

Supporters of lockstep, including firms such as Slaughter and May, emphasise its ability to foster cohesion, loyalty and teamwork. It encourages partners to share clients, expertise and institutional knowledge. The interests of the firm take precedence over individual ambition. The structure reinforces the idea of partnership in its truest sense. If a colleague is struggling, their performance affects you directly, and you have a genuine incentive to help.

Despite these strengths, the main drawback is clear.

Lockstep allows underperforming partners to earn the same as high achievers. It can retain inefficient partners and fail to reward excellence. Junior lawyers who work hard may look upward and see senior partners who contribute little yet earn significantly more. This can damage morale and create frustration within the firm.

In practice, many lockstep firms mitigate this risk through performance reviews or progression gates, but the underlying tension remains.

The Performance‑Based Alternative

The shortcomings of lockstep have become more visible with the rise of its main alternative: the eat‑what‑you‑kill model.

This structure is championed by several American firms, most notably Kirkland and Ellis. Firms using this model have successfully attracted high‑performing partners from competitors by offering significantly higher pay.

Eat‑what‑you‑kill rewards partners according to the revenue they personally generate. After shared costs are deducted, profits are distributed based on individual contribution. High performers earn more, and the link between effort and reward is transparent. The model incentivises ambition, efficiency and business development.

The advantages mirror the weaknesses of lockstep.

High achievers are satisfied, compensation is clear, and partners understand exactly why they earn what they do. The model encourages entrepreneurial behaviour and can drive rapid growth.

However, the drawbacks are equally significant.

Teamwork can decline when partners have little incentive to help colleagues. Knowledge sharing may decrease, and cross‑referrals can become less frequent. Time spent on pro bono work or firm management becomes less appealing because it does not contribute to personal profit.

In practice, some performance‑based firms attempt to counteract these tendencies through management structures or cultural initiatives, but the tension between collaboration and individual reward is inherent.

Hybrid Approaches

Lockstep and eat‑what‑you‑kill represent two extremes, but many firms now adopt hybrid models.

A common approach is to maintain a lockstep base salary while adding performance‑based bonuses. The aim is to preserve the cohesion of lockstep while introducing a moderate level of competition.

Hybrid systems can work well when carefully designed. They can reward exceptional performance without undermining collaboration. However, they can also fail if the incentives are poorly balanced.

Partners may focus heavily on bonuses and neglect teamwork yet still fall short of the intensity required in a pure performance‑based model. In such cases, firms risk losing the benefits of both systems.

Why Prospective Trainees Should Care

The partnership model a firm adopts has a profound impact on its culture and working environment.

This matters greatly for prospective trainee solicitors choosing where to begin their careers. Pay has become an increasingly prominent topic, especially in recent years as City firms raise newly qualified salaries to compete with American firms.

Yet salary alone does not tell the full story. The underlying compensation structure shapes long‑term progression, morale and the day‑to‑day experience of working within the firm.

There have been reports of frustration among associates at firms with sharply increased newly qualified salaries, particularly when wages stagnate several years after qualification. Understanding the firm’s model helps explain why this happens.

The structure also affects training.

In a model heavily dependent on billable hours, partners and senior associates may be less willing to spend time mentoring trainees or providing detailed feedback. In contrast, lockstep allows more freedom to invest time in training without financial penalty.

Some performance‑based firms do maintain strong training cultures, but the pressure to generate revenue can make this more challenging.

Ultimately, there is no universally correct model.

What matters is self‑awareness. Competitive individuals may thrive in performance‑driven environments where ambition is rewarded. Those who value teamwork, stability and strong support networks may prefer traditional lockstep.

Prospective solicitors should consider these differences carefully, as the contrast between the models is significant and will shape their professional experience from the very beginning.