Tag Archives: Non-Equity Partners

Featured, Partner Market, Partner Tips, Tips

Is it Better to Be an Equity Partner or Non-Equity Partner?

Last week we reviewed the evolution of law firm partnership economics, from the early days of a single-tier, all-equity partnership, to the emergence of a non-equity partner track, to the increasingly complex range of current partnership arrangements. We pointed out that as the economic models of partnership have grown increasingly complex and differentiated, so have the implications for current and potential partners.

This week we’re going to delve into those implications and challenge the traditional assumption that equity partnership is necessarily more attractive than non-equity partnership. On balance, equity partnership is likely still more rewarding in most cases. But for lawyers in certain situations, non-equity arrangements can have strong appeal.

Benefits of equity

Plenty of lawyers still aspire to become equity partners, and for good reason. Equity partnership slots are increasingly scarce, and in a profession that greatly values prestige and status, securing partnership shares is viewed as the pinnacle. The equity partners of a growing and profitable firm can expect to take home an outsized share of the financial rewards. Holding equity also gives a partner a stronger voice in firm governance in the form of voting rights.

Voting rights and partner compensation are often closely connected. For example, one factor that contributes to the equity partnership’s outsized compensation share is origination credit. It is common for firms to structure origination credit formulas to reward equity partners more than their non-equity colleagues. Senior lawyers often pursue equity partner opportunities to receive greater origination credit for their matters. Having input into how the formulas that award origination credit are constructed is an example of the potential value of voting rights.

Downsides of equity 

It’s easy to focus on the considerable benefits of becoming an equity partner, but there are also some real downsides that should not be overlooked. Most notably, the boost in status that comes with being named an equity partner is paired with a sizable financial hit in the form of a required capital contribution. This contribution is typically in the range of 25 to 35 percent of annual compensation, but at some firms it can amount to 50 percent or more. Regardless, it’s a lot of money to fork over to the firm, especially for lawyers who are still relatively early in their careers. And getting the capital contribution back may not be so simple. Under the rules of many partnership agreements, the firm is not obligated to return the money until years after an equity partner’s exit. Less significant, but still worth noting: equity partners must pay for their own benefits. 

Another factor to consider is that equity partners’ voting rights are diminishing at many firms. Historically, a wide range of decisions—ranging from lateral partnership hires to office lease renewals—required a vote of the full equity partnership. As the size and geographic spread of partnerships has expanded, many firms have determined that it is more practical to delegate most decisions to a small committee or even to the sole discretion of the firm’s Chair. From an efficiency perspective, this is largely a positive development, but one side effect is reduced influence for equity partners who are not in top leadership posts. With respect to an increasingly broad set of issues, these partners are treated more like employees than owners.

When is non-equity best?

Weighing the benefits and downsides, non-equity partnership looks relatively appealing in some scenarios. The opportunity to avoid a substantial capital contribution can be a selling point to both the youngest and oldest partners. At the younger end, partners may not yet have built up enough of an investment portfolio to feel comfortable allocating such a large sum to an illiquid investment in the firm.

At the senior end of the spectrum, a departing equity partner who is contemplating one more short stint at another firm before retirement may be attracted to the simplicity of a non-equity arrangement. Partners in this situation have nothing to prove by again becoming equity partners. They may instead place more value on gaining the flexibility to invest in other ways the capital contribution that their prior firm will return to them. The opportunity to avoid assuming liability for the new firm’s debts is another benefit.

For partners in certain niche practices that do not entail a large standalone book of business, non-equity partnership can also make more sense. Practices such as Tax and Trusts & Estates often function as service providers to other practices in the firm, such that the firm’s origination credit formulas may not greatly reward the partners who specialize in these niche areas. A non-equity partnership arrangement that properly values these partners’ contributions may be the right answer.

A compromise approach: from non-equity to equity

For many partners, the best approach may be to split the difference by pursuing non-equity partnership opportunities that are likely to lead to equity partnership later. This enables the partner to delay the capital contribution hit, while preserving the opportunity to capitalize fully on client relationships as the partner’s book of business expands. Obviously, a partner hoping to go this route must first assess whether the firm offers a real and viable track from non-equity to equity. Where this pathway really does exist, it can offer the best of both worlds.

Featured, Market News, Newsletters, Partner Market, Team

Evolving Partnership Economics: The Equity and Non-Equity Models Are Starting to Blur

The “partner” title holds undeniable cachet in law firms. Elevation to the partnership is treated as a key professional milestone. But in the current law firm landscape, the fact that a lawyer has been designated a partner often conveys very little about the economic arrangement between that lawyer and the firm. A few firms have a single tier of partnership, but the majority have at least two. In some firms there are as many as four tiers, each with a different set of benefits and obligations.

The traditional equity model

In simpler times, partnership meant equity partnership. If you made partner, you received an ownership interest in your firm and the right to vote on firm governance matters. In exchange for that equity interest, you were required upon joining the partnership to contribute a lump sum of capital. The firm held onto your contribution for the duration of your partnership tenure, and upon your retirement from the partnership, you sold your interest back to the firm and reclaimed your capital. As for annual compensation, longer tenured partners typically took home a larger slice of the pie than the newly elevated, but no partner was paid a fixed salary. As the general fortunes of the firm rose or fell, all members of the partnership rode the wave together.

At a few major law firms the traditional model remains largely intact. Firms like Cravath and Debevoise are the purest examples: they continue to have only equity partners and to pay lockstep, seniority-based partner compensation. Firms such as Davis Polk have done away with lockstep compensation but still feature an all-equity partnership. However, firms committed to awarding equity to every partner comprise a shrinking minority of the legal industry.

The non-equity alternative

As early as the 1970s, some law firms began to introduce a bifurcated partnership model: there were equity partners and non-equity partners (sometimes described as income partners or non-share partners). Non-equity partners did not become owners of the firm, did not have full voting rights, and were not expected to contribute capital. Instead, they effectively were paid a salary. Becoming a non-equity partner meant you received the “partner” title but not the partner economics.

In some firms, the non-equity partnership tier was pitched as a stepping stone to equity partnership. The intermediate non-equity tier was a conceit designed to lengthen the track to true partnership while providing some social capital in the interim. It enabled lawyers who were effectively still senior associates, as traditionally defined, to market themselves externally as “partners.” Delaying the elevation of some senior associates to equity partnership by a couple of years may have been helpful for firm economics in the short term, but there is always the next generation of associates rising through the ranks. So the notion of non-equity partnership as simply a way station on the track to the equity tier was never especially credible, and before long, non-equity partnership became a common terminal status for many lawyers.

Blending equity and non-equity

The distinction between equity and non-equity partnership has become increasingly blurred at many firms. For example, several firms in the Am Law 100 now require non-equity partners to contribute capital. This is sometimes sold as a means of giving non-equity partners “skin in the firm game.” But in a world where only a small proportion of non-equity partners are likely to ascend to the equity ranks, one can understand why non-equity partners would be unenthusiastic about the capital contribution trend. They are being required to bear a burden of equity partnership with no guarantee of receiving the corresponding benefit.

Some firms are creating multiple partnership tiers (sometimes called compensation bands), with each tier featuring its own combination of rights and obligations that may not neatly correspond to either the equity or non-equity models. Perkins Coie has four tiers. The lowest tier is similar to the standard non-equity model, in that partners in that tier are paid a straight salary. The higher tiers are differentiated both in the level of compensation offered and in the voting rights afforded to the partners in the tier.

As the economic models of partnership have grown increasingly complex and differentiated, so have the implications for current and potential partners. In our next installment, we will explain how non-equity partnership can be a superior option for lawyers in certain scenarios.