Baker McKenzie Adopts Black Box System for U.S. Equity Partner Pay
The global legal giant quietly implemented a closed compensation system for its equity partners across its offices in North America last August.
March 12, 2019 at 05:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Baker McKenzie quietly moved to a black box compensation system for its equity partnership in North America at the end of last summer, Legal Week sister title The American Lawyer has learned.
The leadership of the 4,719-lawyer firm made the change to its equity partner compensation model following the end of its 2018 fiscal year, which ran from July 1, 2017, to June 30 of last year, said multiple sources with knowledge of the firm's decision.
Baker McKenzie declined to comment.
The global legal giant began rolling out its decision in August 2018, alerting partners of the change via email with a subsequent conference call coming later that month to discuss the changes in its North America compensation model, sources said.
In closed or so-called black box systems, partners' compensations are typically determined by managing partners or management committees, and their compensation is not shared with anyone else at the firm.
Baker McKenzie's recent switch is a departure from the previous open and transparent model the firm had implemented for its equity partners for many years, said sources familiar with the matter.
With the change to a closed compensation model, Baker McKenzie joins the ranks of other large law firms that have a black box model, such as Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day, Sidley Austin and Snell & Wilmer.
And like other compensation approaches, there are benefits and disadvantages to the black box system.
Closed compensation models can promote collaboration and prevent in-fighting about partner pay. They can also be useful for recruitment because they have more flexibility to give lateral partners premiums without upsetting the rest of the partnership, said Meredith Frank, a recruiter and managing director at Major, Lindsey & Africa.
However, with the lack of transparency in a closed system, there could be a fear that this will lead to unfairness in compensation decisions, she said.
"It is very challenging for firms to go from a totally open comp system to a closed comp system," Frank added. "I think it's probably easier to go in the opposite direction."
But there are firms that have recently headed in that direction other than Baker McKenzie. Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson overhauled its compensation system and adopted a partial black box model for partner compensation in recent years.
Frank said she would be surprised if other law firms followed suit. Partners already in open models typically prefer open compensation systems, while those often in closed systems prefer more transparency, Frank said.
According to Major Lindsey's 2018 Partner Compensation Survey, partners in open compensation systems report higher average compensation, higher average origination and are more likely to classify themselves very satisfied with their compensation transparency than partners in partially open or closed systems.
And when it came to change, 69 percent of partners in closed compensation systems said they would like to see aspects of their compensation change. This is compared with 60 percent of total respondents who said they wanted to see some change.
"I don't think we're going to see this trend [of adopting closed systems] and if anything I think the statistics and the data that we've amassed in our compensation surveys would lead me to conclude that at some point some firms may move in the opposite direction," she added.
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 AllJapanese Boutique Marks First Foray Overseas With Singapore Opening
Clifford Chance Under Fire for Human Rights Assessment of Saudi Arabia World Cup Bid
5 minute readBaker McKenzie Appoints New India Practice Chair and Other Asia Pacific Moves
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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