The perfect remuneration model: Where are firms going wrong?
- 10 feb
- 1 Min. de lectura
Stephen Revell and Moray McLaren, explore a question that law firm leaders return to time and again: What is the perfect partner remuneration system?
Remuneration only works when it fits the firm it serves – its strategy, culture and stage of development.
A system that works brilliantly in one partnership can be deeply corrosive in another. Treating remuneration as a technical exercise, rather than a leadership one, is where many firms go wrong.
A recurring issue is the over-reliance on narrow financial proxies. Billable hours, in particular, are a weak stand-in for real contribution.
Revenue matters. Profit matters more. But neither captures the full picture.
Contribution also includes client stewardship, people development, collaboration, and the long-term health of the firm’s brand and talent pipeline.
This is why many firms are moving towards a middle ground between pure eat-what-you-kill and traditional lockstep. The shift is less about mechanics and more about clarity: being explicit about what the firm expects of partners, and assessing contribution against that benchmark.
Lockstep, often assumed to be “soft”, is in reality unforgiving when expectations are clear. The real failure is not the model itself, but the reluctance to enforce it – or to have the difficult conversations when partners fall short.
In conclusion, remuneration should be the consequence, not the starting point.
This is fundamentally about partner development. Clear expectations. Regular conversations. Support where performance dips. And, where necessary, consequences.
Firms don’t fail because they chose the wrong system. They fail because their strategy, behaviours and rewards are pointing in different directions.
