The majority of partners believe that lockstep is no longer the right pay model for associates, as support grows for merit or compentency-based systems. Claire Ruckin reports

Leading law firms are set to move substantially towards a merit-driven pay model for assistants according to research that shows more than 90% of partners forecasting such a shift.

The latest Legal Week Big Question survey found an overwhelming 96% of responding partners in favour of some form of move away from the associate lockstep system towards a merit or competency-based salary model.

This included 44% of partners who thought there would be a 'substantial' move in that direction. Only 4% believed that there should be no move from associate lockstep – the system of assessing and paying lawyers with strict adherence to years' post-qualification – towards a system of paying assistants on merit or competency.

Norton Rose London managing partner Deirdre Walker commented: "An assistant lockstep system is outdated – it does not reward performance and does not motivate."

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer disputes partner Ian Terry commented: "The demand from associates is to be individually judged by reference to their own performance as quickly as possible, and that's what we do."

Views were slightly more mixed on how well the associate lockstep model works, with 56% expressing negative views, including 8% who believed it 'doesn't work at all'. A total of 24% said it worked 'well' or 'very well', while 20% described it as 'OK'.

Many partners commented that it tends to work best for most junior lawyers but becomes increasingly restrictive for mid-level associates.

The survey, which attracted more than 100 responses from partners at leading law firms, also underlines the level of expectation that the recession will lead more law firms to shift towards merit-driven remuneration.

Fifty-five percent of respondents thought the commercial slump would have a major impact on whether law firms would opt to abandon the associate lockstep model, with a further 39% believing it would have a minor impact. Only 6% thought it would have no impact.

Legal Week reported last month that CMS Cameron McKenna, Eversheds and Simmons & Simmons are midway through consultations that could see new pay structures in place by the next financial year.

News also recently emerged that Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is introducing 'milestones' as a first step away from grading its associates, rather than focusing on post-qualification experience.

Several major law firms, including Norton Rose and Ashurst, have already taken steps to move towards competency-based pay.

The survey revealed divided opinion about whether salaries should vary between practice areas.

Using one pay regime across all practice groups was favoured by 27%, while 20% were strongly against. Fifty-three percent thought that there should be some flexibility.

Freshfields' Terry commented: "Pay should not be distinguished by practice groups, as the nature of a law firm means work is cyclical. There are ways of factoring in and rewarding different work levels through a bonus system."

Ashurst litigation veteran Edward Sparrow said: "There was a time when the profession was sensitive about paying associates in different practice groups differently in case there would be a rush to the practice group which paid more but that didn't happen."

There is also some scepticism as to whether law firms have the skills and culture required to meet the greater demands of managing assistants' careers through merit-driven pay, with two thirds of respondents believing law firms would need to acquire some new skills. Only 2% believed that firms 'very much' had the necessary skills.

Walker said: "Partners and lawyers today are much more than just lawyers – they have to manage a business.

"A significant part of that it about managing people. We are a people business and our staff are our assets. Law firms of necessity therefore have got better at developing up and coming lawyers."